Loading summary
Transcript227 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 Turning Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.
- [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
- [01:17]
B
welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It's Friday. We are at the Y Refi studio here in Phoenix, Arizona. It's a beautiful day, sunny. I've got a great sunny under the why Refi sun.
- [01:28]
C
What's that in the why Refi sky?
- [01:30]
B
Well, this is a closed environment so unfortunately these, these lights are fake. It's all studio lighting outside. It is beautiful. Okay. It is the Y Refi sun. It's the Y Refi. It's why Refi world. Check them out. Invest y refi.com got a lot to get to and it looks like we're going to start with what's happening in Maine. So if you watch the cold open, you saw a clip from CNN where Scott Jennings was talk basically talking about this guy who has a Nazi tattoo. His name is Graham Platner. He has described himself, what was it as antifa's foot soldier.
- [02:07]
C
He liked the line and someone, I think someone else described himself as an antifa super soldier. Super soldier said that was a line he liked on Reddit, which that's our future. Now this guy's a 41 year old but he has a bunch of Reddit posts from 2020, 2021.
- [02:24]
B
Let's get some images of this guy up here. While we're talking about. Let me explain Graham Platner to you. It do we deal with this guy out of Maine. He's gonna be running against Susan Collins and I have interesting tidbits from Charlie on Susan Collins we'll get to in a second. But he's the presumptive Democratic nominee for U.S. senate in Maine in the upcoming 2026 election here. Okay, so Janet Mills suspended her campaign citing a lack of funds. So that's cleared the path for Platner ahead of the June 9 primary. So he's now presumptive, right. Platner, a Marine veteran oyster farmer, and he's a political newcomer. He has faced a wave of scrutiny. We've not really gotten into it too much on this show, but it started in the fall and he kind of came into this race as an anti establishment progressive guy. So here's what the controversies around this gentleman are. A Nazi affiliated tattoo. So he had a chest tattoo that he got while he was serving as a Marine, apparently in Croatia in 2008. And its imagery is a skull and crossbones style that was linked to Nazi or extremist symbolism. Yeah, and he's owned it. Right. Apparently he covered it up after it surfaced and said he was unaware of the association. He's apologized publicly. Then you get to his Reddit feed, which we have warned about. Reddit, Reddit and Blue sky is basically where left wing extremism gets domestic violent. Well, what's good about it is the
- [03:52]
C
left has a certain lack of survival instinct about posting online. So, you know, you'll have like, right wingers will get in trouble for stuff they posted, but at least they usually had a pseudonym and someone had to hack it or whatever. Like, leftists will just be like small business. They'll just be small businessmen posting about how they want someone to shoot Trump in the head and they want a revolution and they fantasize about guillotine.
- [04:14]
B
It's because nobody's ever handled, nobody's ever made them be held accountable.
- [04:18]
C
So they're doing that all the time. And the left has. In the case of Platner, what's really funny about it is they've just, they've actually like come out and openly said that they would never forgive Platner for his past if he were a Republican, but luckily since he is a Democrat, we know that he's okay.
- [04:36]
B
Okay, so what are some of those comments he's downplayed Made light of sexual assault and rape, at least in military context. Victim blaming apparently, is some of it. Or blaming intoxication. He's made racially charged remarks, questioning black tipping habits. He's been accused of misogyny, being homophobic. Homophobic. Crude language. So basically they've hurled a Lot of the same insults at him as they do the average right winger. He's made anti police sentiments. He said all cops are bastards calling rural white Mainers racist and stupid. Those are his future voters. Let's see if they end up pulling the, I guess, ballot for him. We'll see. And he self identified as a communist in some posts. So this is my question. Blake, you're a student of history. You understand ideologies and political philosophy. Is he a Nazi or is he a communist?
- [05:35]
C
No, he's. Yeah, first of all, yes. But you know, the thing about it is they could, they'll say he. Honestly, it's probably believable that he just got this tattoo because he thought it like looked cool and then covered it up later. Or he might just be this huge winger swinging back and forth every direction one way or the other. I assume that's his updated. Yeah, his updated tattoo. But like, what matters a lot more is the fact that he in recent history that he's supportive of antifa, which as we've tried to warn people, this is not just a left wing protest movement, it's a left wing street violence unit. The people they look up to, especially in Europe, this is a very refined art. They will go out, they'll bash people with hammers, they'll torch people's offices and stores.
- [06:23]
A
They will.
- [06:24]
C
They really believe in using street violence to get things done and then engineering the legal system to avoid consequences for it. And we're seeing that in America too. We see that with the brewing company guy out in Wisconsin.
- [06:35]
B
Was it Minocqua? Minocqua Brewing.
- [06:38]
C
These people.
- [06:38]
B
This guy's definitely not, not mentally well. I mean he's, he's. Something's wrong.
- [06:43]
C
Yeah, 100%. But that's. That is what. That is who antifa appeals to. That's why they get so much, let's just say it kind of disgusting. Riff raff.
- [06:51]
B
Well, this is why you have a lot of problem.
- [06:53]
C
People have a lot of problems are drawn into antifa and it's this radicalization engine. It makes them turn against everything functional in society. Anyone who has a business, especially small business antifa types, they hate small businesses vastly more than big business most of the time.
- [07:10]
B
Well, yeah, probably. And they don't mind vandalizing. This is why we actually also have to be worried about the epidemic of prescription medications and antidepressants and all this stuff. I mean, because there is a lot of mental illness out there and the more that we prescribe these medications, we're covering it up. And I'm telling you, a lot of these left wingers at this antifa types, there's a mental unhingedness going on. They are not mentally well. And we have to be very aware of the fact that when they go online and they see all this like crazy crap, they're liable to take hold of it and do something crazy about it. Last night this race was discussed on cnn. So I want to play some clips here. This is the old friend Adam Mochler. This guy, I mean, listen, if the roles were reversed and this was a Republican we were talking about, this whole answer would be opposite. That's all I'm going to tell you. Stop for now.
- [08:02]
D
If this were a Republican candidate who had had a Nazi tattoo, covered it up when he was running for something and had said all the things that he had said about black people, about women, about rape, et cetera, do you really think there's a world in which Democrats would be like, let's just let bygones be bygones. That's the past. Today's the President.
- [08:22]
C
I think we're entering a new era and we'll see what the base wants. We'll see who wins when the actual election happens. But for the past decade, Democrats have
- [08:29]
A
been unified by opposition to Donald Trump
- [08:31]
C
and now Graham Platner has a forward looking message. So if Donald Trump or if another Republican had a Nazi tattoo, I don't know. Donald Trump has dinner with Nazis. Not that far from, you know, happening.
- [08:42]
A
But there's also plausible deniability regarding Graham Platner's tattoo.
- [08:45]
C
We don't know if he knew. We don't know what he knew. But it's not just that. It's not just the tattoo.
- [08:49]
D
It's not just the tattoo.
- [08:51]
B
It's not just the tattoo. Adam Mockler is a total phony and he was doing cover for him because he's a young radical and that's his job. His job is to go up there and be the young guy that supports the new thing. It's so fresh. Fresh face. Ok, got it. How about Hasan Piker? He supports him too. SATS 6. Dude, are you unironically saying Janet Mills
- [09:14]
A
is better than Graham Platner?
- [09:16]
B
Please, dude, he was pro Hamas, OK? He was giving Hamas credit in 2014.
- [09:25]
A
OK?
- [09:25]
B
What more do you want?
- [09:27]
C
I think that really, I think that captures it better than anything, the direction we're headed. But it's not. In 2014 we're gonna have Democrats who just love Hamas right now.
- [09:36]
B
Yeah, everything's great. All right, so I gotta go into a story that I don't really want to go into. But you know what? Screw it. So there's a person named. And it's so funny. Cause I learned about this story this morning, and I was like, who? Her name is Vivian Kubrick. Okay, so Vivian apparently didn't like Erica's remarks earlier this week. And she went on some unhinged rant, basically attacking Turning Point, attacking Erica. And I was like, who is this person? Like, you know what? What? Why do I care? Well, it's because she's the estranged daughter of the now deceased director Stanley Kubrick, who did a lot of famous movies. I think his last one was that creepy one with Nicole Kidman and Eyes Wide Shut. Eyes Wide Shut, that's right. What's that?
- [10:38]
C
He did the Shining.
- [10:39]
B
The Shining.
- [10:41]
C
My favorite. Paths of Glory. Black and white.
- [10:43]
B
World War I. Oh, I've not seen that.
- [10:45]
C
Oh, it's good.
- [10:46]
B
Okay, well, interesting. Yeah. I mean, a very illustrious director, but she's a daughter of a director, so, like, who cares? But anyways, I took note of it because she basically says that President Trump needs to kill Turning Point. So that was, like, in this whole unhinged rant you'll see right there, New York Post. President Trump asked President Trump to kill Turning Point usa. So if you remember, like, what Erica was even talking about this week, and we devoted a whole episode of the show to it, and Erica did a great job. She said it's the dehumanizing language. And she was reflecting on the White House correspondence dinner, the three assassination attempts on President Trump, and obviously the assassination of Charlie, and basically said, you know, dehumanizing people leads to a really ugly place, and we need to stop. Enough is enough. We're done putting up with this, and something needs to be done. And then, lo and behold, somebody that steps into this role is Stanley Kubrick's estranged daughter, who became a Scientologist, it looks like, in the 90s, and is now an avid supporter of people like Candace and other people that are into the conspiracy world. Apparently, she was a QAnon fan, so I just. I'll be nice about it. I just want to say. To say out loud that you want to kill Turning Point usa. Vivian, I want you to understand that you are potentially stoking violent people to do crazy things, and that does not end in a good place. And so I pray that you restrain yourselves in the future and maybe get off the Internet and go enjoy life, because it's not worthy of anybody's time for you to be saying such Vile things. It's not a good look for you, it's not good for us. It's not good for the country. It's not good for your family or your reputation. So please stop doing it. I don't know, Blake, if you have any thoughts to add to it, but I wanted to address it. It's just another one of these things that pops up, and I wanted to address it.
- [12:53]
C
I guess it's just these, like, children of directors. They're even. Probably even more lamentable than children of actors or the actors themselves.
- [13:03]
B
Childhood actors.
- [13:04]
C
Child actors. No, some child. Some ex child actors are great, but
- [13:11]
B
ex child actors, well, maybe that's.
- [13:12]
C
Let me remind you, I believe it was. It was a former child actor who paid for the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse. That was great. That was a great heroic act.
- [13:20]
B
Some end up in a really good spot. I. That's what I want for all of you. I want.
- [13:24]
C
I want some children of directors to pay for Daniel Penny's defense and future.
- [13:30]
B
We have a deal to make with you. If you are willing, we can bury the hatchet and listen like my heart is one of peace. I want love. I want harmony. But don't come at us like that. And don't come at Erica like that. That's not cool. That's mean. It's mean.
- [13:47]
C
We don't need to phrase that. It's mean. Erica's a tough woman.
- [13:51]
B
She can handle people being mean.
- [13:52]
C
People are going to be mean. The left is very mean. But what she has been saying, I think is important to emphasize. She's talking about the dehumanizing rhetoric. And what she's getting at, I think, is an important thing to say, which is we have freedom of speech in the United States. And as you know, I'm basically an unhinged free speech absolutist. I don't. I don't. Hate speech is not a thing.
- [14:14]
B
Not a thing.
- [14:15]
C
In general, hate speeches, gross speeches. But a lot of people, they'll. They're much more willing to embrace, oh, I think this statement is threatening or, you know, should be indicted for this or that. And I'm almost always of the attitude that unless you are actively whipping up a mob to go burn someone's house down, go loot a business, go shoot someone. It's probably better to say that it's fine. Otherwise, you're doubt you're going down the path towards Europe, where.
- [14:41]
B
I'm not saying any of that.
- [14:42]
C
No, just say it. And there's been some lines on this, and I think what Erica is pointing out is when you have people recklessly fanning flames of hate, that is the step towards where people decide. Actually, we're okay with, we're okay with dialing back freedom of speech because the only reason we're going to have free speech stick around is if people want it to stick around and insist that it stick around. Right now we keep it because we have a good legacy of federal judges in the 20th century who really entrenched freedom of speech as a value in America such that it's hard to restrict speech. But the left wants to restrict speech. The left are the ones who go around saying there's hate speech exceptions and the public will go along with this if they're thinking there's gonna be violence.
- [15:32]
B
I just wanna be very clear. I'm not suggesting anybody's speech be restricted. I'm just saying I have my own free speech.
- [15:40]
C
We're gonna end up debating this in the next segment. Do we think James Comey did anything wrong?
- [15:45]
B
Yeah, well, that's an open question that we're gonna have. We're gonna have Mike Davis on in the next segment to discuss just that. And by the way, we also have gotten word that the DOJ is going to enforce the Supreme Court ruling that has called racial gerrymandering illegal, essentially. And so those two topics we're gonna get into with Mike Davis. But yeah, just to be very, very clear, I don't believe in the concept of hate speech. I think there is gross speech, there is vile speech, there is unhinged speech, there is, you know, all kinds of different categories. But I don't even believe in that category of hate speech. Not in America at least. And that is a beautiful heritage that we have. And we need to keep it strong and instill it and make sure it's defended and protected. Absolutely. But that's not what all. Not at all what I was talking about. Folks. Let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here. Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the usa built by people who believe in hard work, freedom and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something. And I drink it every day right here on the show. From morning reaper and brutal awakening to 1776 dark roast and their two a medium roast. They've got something for everyone. They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess. Just add water, stir, and you're ready to roll. Go to blackoutcoffee.com Charlie and use code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That's blackoutcoffee.com Charlie blackoutcoffee.com Charlie and for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscriptions, save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through their RE program just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule, and you never run out.
- [17:44]
A
That's blackout coffee.com Charlie. Check it out. Promo code Charlie.
- [17:50]
B
All right, Mike Davis. It's been a minute since we've had you on the show, my friend. Welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. How you been?
- [17:56]
E
I've been great. Thanks for having me back on, guys.
- [17:59]
B
So we've got a couple things that are on the docket today, one of which is this Comey indictment. So we'll put that one bucket. And then the other is this DOJ is now publicly said they're going to enforce the SCOTUS ruling on maps and redistricting. Both legal questions with a lot of, I guess, unanswered questions. So let's start with Comey. Blake is not convinced. What do you think? Did he do something when he posted that picture? 86. 47. Did he make a threat against the president's life?
- [18:35]
E
Yes. And you do not have a First Amendment right to threaten the President's life. You do not have a First Amendment right to threaten any federal officials lives. There's criminal statutes that are on the books. One is if you make an assassination attempt against the president, you're charged with that felony. Or make it a not. Not an attempt. Excuse me, a threat against the president, you're charged with that felony. The others, if you transmit it online, that's another felony. That's exactly what happened with James Comey. James Comey is not your average Joe who does not understand what he's doing. He is a former FBI director. He is a former deputy attorney general, the number two in the Justice Department. He's a former U.S. attorney. He posted this 8647 Seashell thread on Instagram after two assassination attempts against the President of the United States. He did this within days of releasing his new novel about coded threats by right wingers. James Comey knew exactly what he was doing. This is after the election.
- [19:55]
B
Mike. Mike, I wanna. Yeah, I think this is some of the context that gets lost in this debate. And listen, I'm a little bit. I'm not sure what's gonna happen here. If this Indictment's gonna stick and he's gonna get convicted. But I think that context is really important. So as a former FBI director, he obviously is very aware of criminal elements and criminality in general. Right. Secondly, President Trump at this point had just been survived two assassination attempts, and he wrote a book about coded assassination attempts. That part of this story, I think gets lost. You know, when you look at CNN or you look at Ms. Now or whatever, even Fox, whatever. But those are relevant and pertinent details. Go ahead, Blitz.
- [20:37]
C
First of all, I don't even. 86 isn't even a. It doesn't even mean kill somebody.
- [20:42]
B
Well, it can.
- [20:44]
C
Okay, it can, but so can like get rid of. Okay, so if you say we should get rid of Trump, is that an assassination threat? I don't think so.
- [20:53]
B
No, no, not if you say get rid of Trump. No, absolutely not. I think that the question here is when you talk about 86ing somebody, it could be like the President, I think, did a truth on this, where it could be like mob speak, violent speak for killing somebody. But that is one of the alternative meanings. But I do agree that the main thrust of that meaning 8647 is to eject somebody to get rid of.
- [21:17]
C
Yeah, I've heard it associated with restaurants and bars and stuff. Yeah, 86 that customer. I don't think that usually means so
- [21:24]
B
legally, Mike, how difficult is that going to be to prove in court?
- [21:28]
E
Well, I mean, that's a defense that he could make. He can say that that was not my intent. He'd have to testify to do that. And that wouldn't be very smart for him to testify. Look, at the end of the day, I have zero sympathy for James Comey. He's, he's a top law enforcement official. He politicized and weaponized the Justice Department to go after Trump. He, he set up Michael Flynn and, and, and caused a great deal of hardship for General Michael Flynn, President Trump's incoming national security adviser. I, I just, I have zero sympathy for him. And look, I'm not some principled conservative who, like, I'm not a high browed principal conservative. I am a partizan street fighter. And I love that James Comey is getting a healthy dose of his own medicine. Call it lawfare, call it whatever you want it. Two wrongs don't make it right, but it makes it even. So He.
- [22:29]
B
Mike, do you remember this clip when he was, he was sort of walking through how he'd like to see Trump in prison? Sat 24.
- [22:37]
F
Do you agree with that? That it would be difficult or nearly impossible for the law enforcement institutions to
- [22:42]
C
put him in actual jail.
- [22:44]
E
No, they would just put him in a double wide somewhere out near the fence, out in the grass, and he would eat there, he'd shower there, he'd exercise there. He'd be away, as Donna Perry said, from general population. But it's obviously doable.
- [22:59]
C
I guess I just feel skeptical here. James Comey, of course, doesn't like the President at all. They've had a decade worth of bad blood at this point. He was fired as head of the FBI. He's written stuff critical of Trump, he's testified in a hostile way to Trump, and he made posts on social media that are clearly hostile towards Trump. But I just feel. Do any. It stretches credulity for me, for anyone who saw that post to think James Comey is threatening to personally go or is inciting somebody to go and assassinate the President. I feel very skeptical of that.
- [23:35]
B
Yeah, I understand the skepticism. Were you about to say something, Mike?
- [23:39]
E
Yeah, I would just. I. Maybe. But I think that citizens on the grand jury disagree. And they weren't skeptical. They indicted them, so they found probable cause. I think there's more evidence that will come out that we haven't seen yet, but they're going to. I think there's probable cause that James Con Comey had the subjective intent he intended to for his message to be to threaten the life of the President of the United States, and that's why they indicted him. Look, I. I agree that you have to be careful about going down this road where you're going after people for their speech. This is not protected speech. Making a threat against the President is not protected speech. It's a federal crime. It's several federal crimes, as James Comey just learned, and it's dangerous. We just saw with this third assassination attempt that people take these messages and they act on them. And that's exactly what James Comey wanted. Again. He wrote a book about this, about coded messages like leading to political violence.
- [24:39]
B
That is wild. All right, I want to pivot really quick, Mike. The Justice Department says it will enforce the SCOTUS ruling in every state with racially gerrymandered districts. So we're talking South Carolina, I guess. North Carolina's already been done. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee. This could be a huge, huge shift politically, I think. I'm not overstating the case when I say that Democrats appear to be freaking out. Like there's actual panic amongst Democrats. And now AOC's out there vowing to Retaliate in every blue state. I mean, we saw this hypothetical map of Illinois where it literally has, I think, what, 17. Don't call me on the number 17. And they're all spaghetti noodles that run up to Chicago. So this is what they're going to try and do to counter it. What can they legally do to defend this? Meaning, can we actually get these maps changed quickly? Do they have the legal right and oomph to do it? Give us your take.
- [25:40]
E
Yeah. The Supreme Court's ruling 6 to 3 made crystal clear you cannot have intentional racial discrimination when you're creating these congressional districts. You can't have DEI districts like the Democrats have done for so long. You can gerrymander based upon politics, but you cannot gerrymander based upon race. And so when you have these blue states that have intentionally drawn their lines based upon race, DEI districts, the Justice Department's going to sue them and get those maps thrown out. And so this is. Look, it's gonna be an uphill fight for Republicans to keep the House, but this could change the momentum significantly.
- [26:26]
B
Well, yeah, and there's not a ton. You know, we talked about this with Ryan, James Gardusky yesterday. There's not as many swing districts as there used to be. So if you look at even between now and 2018, when the Democrats had that big wave election, I'm not sure there's enough seats to kind of replicate that performance. Yeah, we are down right now. There's a lot of time between now and November. And if some of these House seats Ryan was predicting about at least seven congressional districts will be able to get flipped as a result of this in time for the midterms. I think that's probably right. I looked into it last night, so we'll see what happens. But this is a huge, huge change. It's a massive, massive tectonic shift in our politics. What do you think about the legal process that's playing out in Virginia with their redistricting? Do you have any insight on that, Mike? And then if states like Illinois do these spaghetti noodle maps, is there a legal defense to block that?
- [27:20]
E
Yeah, I mean, I think that the Civil Rights Division, the Justice Department under Harmony Dolan, should sue these states. Sue Republicans need to. Need to fight and fight very hard to end these DEI districts. Look at New England. Republicans make up, like, 40% plus of New England. They have zero House seats in New England because they've been gerrymandered out of off the map. So Republican governors, Republican legislatures, the DOJ move forward aggressively and redraw your maps based upon politics and sue on the maps that are based upon race.
- [27:56]
B
We haven't talked about the legalities of this, but one of the outstanding questions with the SPLC story is that it seems like the. The FBI and the DOJ, they uncovered this $3 million plus scheme to pay informants that were actually the leaders, the organizers of this white supremacy stuff, the kkk, the Aryan nations, all that stuff. But they haven't charged individuals yet. And I wrote an op ed in Fox and I just said, listen, we gotta get accountability. Like individuals that greenlit this stuff. I don't care if it's the board or the executives. People have to be held personally accountable for defrauding their donors. First of all, I think that's the easiest claim you could make, but maybe there's other things that they could go after for these executives for. What do you think should happen? What's legally feasible here?
- [28:43]
E
I agree. I remember what they did here, that the Southern Poverty Law center was telling its donors that it was fighting the Klan when it was secretly funding the Klan. There's no way these little old liberal ladies would be sending their checks to the SPLC if they knew they were funding the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. And so you're exactly right, Andrew. There has to be. And I think there will be a superseding indictment or an amended indictment where they name the executives and they name other individuals who are involved. This entity didn't commit the crime on its own. It was done through the people who run the entity. So that I'd say, stay tuned on that.
- [29:30]
B
Okay, that's good. And could I say that your sources have, or do you just want to leave it there? Do you have sources?
- [29:40]
E
Look, I think that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a great American. He is bold and fearless, and he has a great team. And I have full confidence in Todd and his great team at the Justice Department.
- [29:53]
B
Fair enough. I'll leave it to the audience to interpret that as they will. But I couldn't agree more with you, Mike. I think individuals that have defrauded their donors here and really just done a heinous thing, you know, fueling the hate so that they can fundraise off the hate. And then the ideological blurring of the lines between Prageru and Turning Point and ADF and putting us on their hate map, putting a target on Charlie's back. You know, it was three months and 19 days after the SBLC put turning point on the hate map that Charlie was assassinated. I hope that sinks in for Everybody. It was 22 months after they put the Family Research Council on the hate map that their offices in D.C. got shot up. I want to ask you a question. Have you been following the Minocqua Brewing Company story? The. The brewery owner in Wisconsin that after the White House Correspondents Dinner posted that really obscene post about, you know, it was almost free beer day. Right. So the idea being, if Trump gets assassinated, everybody gets free beer for the day at his brewing company. So he's posted something here, and it says, hi, folks. Owner Kirk here. The Secret Service and FBI have contacted me. I'm speaking with them with my lawyer, Fred, in less than an hour at Minocqua Tap Room. I encourage supporters to come if you can, and make sure they don't do anything to me if you don't hear from me. Our socials tonight. Something is wrong. I am of sound mind and body. I would disagree with that. And he's also pretty overweight, too much beer, and in no way thinking of harming myself. If you don't hear back from me tonight, don't believe a thing you hear from the federal government. I think this is the front line. I mean, Blake and I are even in the breaks having a discussion about free speech and understanding that in this country, we have very established precedents about what is incitement to violence. Right. So this guy was obviously gleefully enjoying the near assassination of our president. Again, that's gross and disgusting, and it must be condemned. But at what point are we at risk of blurring those lines and infringing upon his right to say gross and vile, disgusting things?
- [32:06]
E
Yeah, I mean, people have the first. And I agree with Blake on this, people have the right to say gross and vile and disgusting things. I say them every day on Twitter, as you guys all read, by the
- [32:17]
B
way, follow Mike Davis on Twitter. It's a good follow. You will be entertained.
- [32:21]
E
But the issue is you can't threaten the president's life. You can't. That's where you cross the line.
- [32:26]
B
But that's the question. So he was celebrating. He was gonna reward his patrons with free beer should the president be assassinated. But he. I mean, listen, I find this to all be so gross and dehumanize. I think you have a. I have a righteous indignation and a righteous anger towards this person. I think he's mentally unwell. I think he's a total scumbag. But where is the line, like, what becomes incitement? Right? Like, what becomes. You know, what's the legal line here?
- [32:59]
E
Yeah, I guess I haven't read this post that carefully, but under the Supreme Court's precedent from a couple of years ago, it's called true threats. Meaning when you make a threat, it has to be a true threat. You have to look at their subjective intent. Did they intend to harm someone with their threat or is it political hyperbole? And that's, that's the line that you look at with James Comey. I guarantee you that grand jury heard evidence that he, that was his actual subjective intent to 86, 47 to assassinate President Trump. And so it's really case by case. But I would just say this more broadly, that here's the bigger problem is we have a Democrat party that promotes and celebrates political violence, including assassination. We saw this and it's one sided. It's coming from one sided. Republicans have a hell of a lot more guns than Democrats. With all of us own guns, we know how to use guns. We're not killing Democrats. It's one sided violence. We saw this with now three assassination attempts against President Trump, an assassination attempt against Steve Scalise, Justice Kavanaugh, Charlie Kirk, our dear friend. I mean, it's. We have an assassination culture.
- [34:21]
B
Luigi Maggione, and it's unacceptable. Brian Thompson. Yeah. Luigi Maggione and Brian Thompson. Here's the actual post. I just want you to see it. It says, from Anoccwa Brewing Company. Well, we almost got freebearday. Either a brother or sister in the resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We'll never know. Regardless, we stand at the ready to pour free beer the day it happens.
- [34:46]
E
That seems to cross the line to me when you're, when you're offering free beer. If someone kills the President, the Secret Service needs to go put this guy in jail.
- [34:58]
B
Blake. I know, I know. I feel you. I feel you. I feel the tension.
- [35:04]
C
It's genuinely tough, especially with the President
- [35:06]
B
just to work on their march because
- [35:08]
C
I think obviously it would be justified if you're literally offering a bounty to commit an assassination.
- [35:13]
B
That's an interesting crime.
- [35:14]
C
I think that's worth noting on the other hand is I will pour out free beer to celebrate the death of someone I hate. While gross and ugly. Does that really count as. I don't know. I'm. We always have to be careful about this because we saw with Biden. We know, we know the left very much loves to bring cases like this with a very sinister agenda. And I think it has benefited us a great deal.
- [35:38]
B
15 seconds.
- [35:39]
E
Let me say this very fast. This debate's exactly the problem on the right, we're principled and nice and the other. So we're debating principally and nicely and the other side wants to blow off our heads.
- [35:49]
C
Well, if I didn't want to be principled, I could go be a lib.
- [35:52]
B
Mike Davis, Article 3 project. Good to see you my friend. We'll see you soon.
- [35:55]
E
Thank you.
- [35:58]
B
I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face and that's health insurance. There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith based alternative to health insurance. And this is real stuff. Folks like you gotta listen in. With chm, you're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need because they they're not insurance. You get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. If you want to see massive savings in your healthcare budget. CHM has four low cost programs for every stage of life starting at just $115 a month. Plus you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith? Start today by visiting chministries.com and use promo code Charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's chministries.org Charlie and use promo code Charlie. It's our ask us anything hour. It's our final hour two of the week. And that means if you are a member@members.charliekirk.com then you can ask questions live on this show. And I'm excited about that. So who's up first? I guess we got Anthony. Anthony, welcome back. Tell us your question, sir.
- [37:31]
G
Hey guys. So it's kind of two questions. The first is can the President do anything to stop this AI tracking tech that will shut cars off starting in 2027. I know Chip, Roy, Thomas, Massie and a few others are trying to get it amended but for some reason 50 plus Republicans want it and I know Biden put it in in 2021. And then my other question I'll ask real quick so you guys can just answer back to back. Data centers. They seem to be popping up faster and faster each day and week. Other than being used to store data for AI, what are we going to be using these for? Because they're more of an expense to a local community than they are a revenue generator.
- [38:11]
B
You want to take either or either.
- [38:14]
C
I could do the data center one first.
- [38:15]
E
Sure.
- [38:16]
C
So the thing about data centers, I think a lot of people aren't necessarily aware of. Data centers do predate AI. A data center is basically a building that just has a ton of computer equipment in one spot. So you think of used to have mainframe rooms decades ago, but our need for computers has gone up exponentially since then. And so everything that you run through the Internet, which is all your banking, your purchases, your surfing on Facebook, all those photos you're uploading into the cloud, everyone stores stuff on the cloud, has to go somewhere. And the demands for it are so great that rather than, you know, Google isn't just going to have some room on their campus that does this. They're just going to build entire buildings dedicated to this stuff. And then what's happened is since AI started to take off, the demands for computational power online have gone up so much that anticipating how successful this is going to be, a lot of companies, Amazon, Google among them, Microsoft, they're building huge numbers of new data centers. And so it's become this front in the AI fight. But these do exist without AI, and they will continue to exist regardless. I know this is probably going to make me a giant target. I am relatively pro data center in the sense that I think AI is going to be something we're going to have to manage. But it's clearly a major new technology that's not going away. And we want the United States to be strong in new technology, want to dominate a new technology. We don't want it to be where we secede from this. And then China just eats our lunch on this powerful new tech. And that makes.
- [39:55]
G
That makes sense.
- [39:56]
C
And on top of that, I think I would have to check the numbers. But whether they're a cost center or a revenue generator, I know, I was reading in Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, which has a ton of them. They generate property taxes and they don't generate traffic, for example. They're a building that people pay property taxes to operate. They do consume electricity. And I know that that's a concern. They've gone up and they've raised energy prices.
- [40:20]
B
Well, the president has now sort of directed them to have to build their own sort of power source or augmented.
- [40:28]
C
That's a. That's like a stopgap that they're doing. And because it's easier. And what we're really confronting there, that's sad, is it's a lot easier for us to say. It's for a company to build a small inefficient power plant on their own thing because they're so desperate to get them up, they're willing to do this. But it would be vastly better if we were just building more normal power plants.
- [40:48]
B
Oh, I agree with you.
- [40:48]
C
And it's just we're.
- [40:49]
B
Here's what.
- [40:50]
C
I'm not able to do this.
- [40:51]
B
So I am a child of the West, Western United States. Charlie and I used to disagree on this stuff. Charlie was, I think, more amenable to some of Mike Lee's ideas about seizing a mass amount of federal lands, BLM lands, and putting houses on it. I thought that there would be better ways to do that. Okay. I am. As a child of the West, I actually love conservation. I love open spaces. One of the things I hate most is going through the desert and you can see it here in Arizona and seeing these massive fields of solar. Solar panels out in the middle of the desert generate.
- [41:24]
G
You start to see that in New York, too.
- [41:26]
B
Yeah, I think it's gross, actually. And I think that same about windmills. I want to see open spaces. One of the things that I don't really love is this move to build these giant data centers. These buildings, they're ugly, but I'm like, Blake, I'm pro growth. I want to see us advance and I want to see us lead in this way. And if there's a workaround when it comes to the power source and keeping the rates down for everybody else, I want any solution. So I'm sort of agnostic on the solution. But what I will say, Jack Posobic actually had a great idea. We have a lot of old buildings in this country that are basically dilapidated already.
- [42:03]
G
On development, his mall topic, he brought up the mall.
- [42:05]
B
The mall theory. I actually like that. I don't know if it's workable, so I haven't talked to anybody about it. But I like it directionally where you use old spaces that have become dilapidated, that have been underutilized, and you break ground there because it's already developed land. You're not going out into the middle of the desert here and building some monstrosity.
- [42:23]
C
Another great thing that's pointed out, a lot of them just they're built like ugly modern buildings. And in addition to use old buildings, the reason we want to use old buildings, old buildings are pretty. So we could just say you can build your data center, but it's got to be art deco. It's got to look like it fell out of the 1920s or make it look like a castle. I saw a tweet that suggested to make it look like a medieval castle
- [42:42]
B
or distribution warehouse around you.
- [42:45]
C
Yeah, we want to hit the other question as well. So that's about.
- [42:49]
B
I said 2021.
- [42:51]
C
2021. They call it the kill switch law. It was called the Halt Drunk Driving act, and I think it was even possible it was sort of passed. And the idea was, well, in the future, we're going to have more computerized cars. And cars need to include some sort of technology. They were pretty vague about it. To detect whether a person trying to start the car is intoxicated on alcohol. And then it would, as it says, kind of be a kill switch. It would prevent them from driving. And the idea is to prevent drunk driving deaths, which is a good thing. Thousands of people get killed by drunk drivers every year. But obviously there's this freedom dynamic, which we're basically. If we're going to add that tech to a car, what we're basically saying is we want tech in your car that is always spying on you. Can't be deactivated, can be used for infinity. Other potential uses. And, you know.
- [43:41]
A
Right.
- [43:41]
C
Law enforcement and authoritarian government would be eager to do that. Now, whether President Trump can do anything about it, as you said, it is an act of Congress. We know this administration is pretty creative. Honestly. One thing that comes to mind that I wouldn't be surprised if they came out, if they took a page out of a Democrat playbook and said, well, we can't repeal this law, but we can just announce right now we'll never enforce it.
- [44:02]
B
Yeah.
- [44:03]
C
And that would be a way to go about it.
- [44:04]
B
That's another slippery.
- [44:06]
C
I don't like it. I don't like that. But that is an option I could
- [44:09]
B
see this administration doing, or they find creative ways to litigate it, or it could get stayed in the courts.
- [44:15]
C
They could say they could. Another strategy they could do is they could invite someone to sue over it and say, we actually believe this law was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and we're not going to defend it and try to intentionally lose.
- [44:28]
B
I've seen some people online attack this law because basically you could. You could envision a situation where somebody's out in the field, they get injured. Maybe they're a farmer or a construction worker, they get injured, they drag themselves into their car, but the car detects them in their injured state with maybe dilated pupils. Whatever, it will not turn on, even though they're trying to drive themselves to safety. So that could be a realistic way to combat this law because it could get in the way of law abiding citizens that are just trying to get to the hospital.
- [44:58]
C
There's so many ways it could end up being annoying or obnoxious. And another thing, I would say a reason to delay this is this is a huge intrusion on privacy when we know, looking around that we're what, maybe five years away from everyone being able to afford a car that just drives itself everywhere and that's going to be vastly safer. And then we could just say we don't even need to ban driving your own car, but we could just massively increase the penalties for drunk driving because we'll be able to say it's super easy. Every car made these days drives itself. You have no excuse. Forever driving intoxicated. I think that would be a reasonable way through this. Just wait for technology to overtake us on this question.
- [45:36]
B
Yeah. But in general, we are very, very leery of it. Want to see it get stricken from.
- [45:42]
G
Because I'm actually looking to buy him.
- [45:44]
B
It's an act of Congress, so it's going to be tricky. I don't think we should just ignore the laws, actually. So anyways, next question up. Who do we got next? Elizabeth.
- [45:53]
D
Yes. Hi, Andrew.
- [45:54]
B
Hi, welcome to the show. Elizabeth.
- [45:56]
D
Hi, Blake. Hi. Thank you for having me. Quick idea. Can someone please sell a hashtag Team Erica shirt? Pray the demons away. I'd buy 10.
- [46:07]
C
Food for thought.
- [46:08]
B
Food for thought. Yes, exactly. Hashtag pray for Erica. Is that what she said?
- [46:12]
D
Team Erica. Pray the demons away.
- [46:14]
B
Oh, I like that even better.
- [46:15]
C
A lot of demons out there.
- [46:16]
B
There's a lot. Yeah. Well, and there's a lot of Team Erica. We've just been. Our inbox has been in.
- [46:20]
C
Yeah, we get a lot and we appreciate emails to that effect. I. We forward them on to Erica quite often. She replies to them quite often.
- [46:28]
B
No, yeah, she. Listen, she's doing great. I think this week was super helpful. Just, I mean, I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I would just say she's laser focused. Like, I feel like there was something. I was in the room at the White House correspondents dinner as well. And I will tell you, when you are hiding under a table and you could feel the Secret Service like rushing, I mean, the first thing I noticed, Elizabeth, was I looked to the back of the room, which was to my right, and I saw a chair flying in the air and it was this Secret Service guy that couldn't get through. So he just took the chair and flung it somewhere. Hopefully he didn't hit somebody with it, but you could tell something really intense was happening.
- [47:06]
D
It was very scary, especially.
- [47:08]
B
I hid under the table for. Yeah, I hid under the table going like, did somebody just kill the President? I had no idea. Nobody in that room knew what was going on. There was no service. We couldn't check our feeds, really. We just had no idea. And then, so we. Look, there's, you know, people rushing. There was a Secret Service guy who put his boot on my chair as I was hiding under the table, as he was getting around our table. So it was a really, like. I will tell you if you.
- [47:36]
D
Intense.
- [47:37]
B
Say that again.
- [47:38]
D
Intense.
- [47:39]
B
Yeah, no, exactly. It was super intense. And I mean, I'm not saying here I'm traumatized by it or anything like that. Like, listen, it was a short moment. I got over it pretty quickly, kind of gathered myself. It took a few minutes, but I went over to go see where Erica was, and thankfully, she'd already been moved to a safer spot. But I will tell you, it's a very clarifying moment. It's a very focusing moment when you live through that. And I think, listen, there's just so many takeaways. And I think she did a great job saying dehumanization leads to a point where eventually you can logically convince yourself that your ideological opponents don't deserve to exist. And we want to get away from that as a country. I think it's great that she's taken time this week to kind of just focus and just reflect. It's really powerful when you do that, when you have time to just be and think and think clearly. And again, I don't want to put words in her mouth, but that's my takeaway from this week. Enough is enough. What was your question, though? As I'm waxing my original question.
- [48:37]
D
I apologize. Whenever I call, I always digress before I begin. I apologize. Don't worry. I live in New York state, and in 2022, there was a redistricting lawsuit, and it happened after the original primaries, so they actually had to do a second primary. Now, anything that was statewide, Senator, governor, you know what I'm saying? That didn't have to be redone, but they had to do all the primaries over again for all the congressional seats. And so this excuse out of Georgia, we're already started our elections. What are we going to do? They can just redo the congressional districts and. And do the regression, the congressional primaries. We have a case study where it's already been done in New York state. Who do you guys know?
- [49:20]
B
Well, Louisiana is already moved to basically do just that. So I think it's gonna depend on the states. But I'm with ya, Elizabeth. I think you just gotta break glass sometimes. You gotta say, hey, where there's a will, there's a way. Let's get this done. But it's gonna be state by state, because not all these guys have a backbone. I mean, let's just be clear. Blake, do you have the details on that? New York.
- [49:39]
C
I'm looking into it right now. It's annoying because this is actually going back to the data center thing. I'm having to look up on AI because it's a pain to Google for these things. I'm trying to find, like, New York redistricting, redo. And it just gives me all this stuff about this year, and I don't want that. So I have to go on to this.
- [49:55]
B
Yeah, but I mean, in general, I would say that where there's a political will, there's usually a way, and these things will end up getting challenged in court. So then you need to be prepared to fight it. This is why so much doesn't get done in our culture. Just, you know, as we sort of reflect on some of the things that have declined in our country, a lot of it is because everything's litigated, everything's overly litigated, everything's challenged in courts. That has now become strategy number one, is that before you move or act, you just have to. You have to appreciate the fact that you're gonna be drawn into a court situation, right into a legal fight. And that can work in our favor, it can work against us. But I think as a whole, as Americans, we're just not able to get as much stuff done because we're constantly litigating everything.
- [50:36]
C
Yeah, no litigation question is a real one you think about. I think a lot about everything. The Trump administration, we were saying one of the reasons this administration has been better than the first one is they did so much stuff on day one. All those executive orders, because we knew so much of the best stuff immediately blocked by some Hawaii judge. Oh. Got to spend a year, two years worming up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court goes, yeah, the administration is obviously correct. They're allowed to do this. But it took two years, and there was so much great stuff the administration did the first time around that only came out in 2019. 2020 wasn't even in effect by the time there was a change of power. So it's much harder to undo a policy if it's in place. And the way you do that is by doing it early. And that's a little off topic from that, but yeah, we agree. If it requires messing with your primary. I'm looking, it looks like with New York, the result I'm getting is they delayed the primary by two months. I'm not sure if they reran it, but they might be mixed up about that.
- [51:34]
D
Like I said, the vote in two primaries that year, that's amazing.
- [51:37]
C
That sounds very funny, I must say.
- [51:39]
B
By the way, just, you know, LA will delay house primaries after Supreme Court redistricting ruling, which I would just say
- [51:46]
C
we should do anyway. I think one of the silliest things in America is when we have primaries in March or May or June, we should just have primaries in late August. We should have a shorter election season. I think it would be better for America if we spent less time running for office. Because think about, think about how annoying it is that anything this Republican Congress was gonna do, and it wasn't much, they had to do in the first year. Now it's reelection season, everyone's distracted. Shorter election seasons mean more time either governing or better yet, just more time not doing politics. Because the best things in life are not politics.
- [52:22]
B
Yeah. And that's interesting because absentee voting for the May 16 primary in Louisiana is already underway. Early voting had been set to start for all races this weekend, so it was a last minute move, but it can be done. That's the takeaway. Gentlemen, let's get real for a second. Are you frustrated with today's woke dating scene? The apps, the games, the endless swiping. It's a waste of time finding a woman who shares your values. Faith, family, patriotism. If it feels nearly impossible, it doesn't have to. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm, is changing the game. They connect strong, successful men like you. Men who love God, love America. Want a family with women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith driven women who put family first and still believe in traditional values. Imagine that if you're a single conservative man in his late 30s to early 50s in Southern California. Listen up. Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for the real thing. Here's the best part. Their candidate program is 100% free and confidential. Some of our closest friends, the show, have used selective search and let me tell you, they're meeting great, great women. High quality women. This is your chance. This isn't an app. It's your answer. The perfect conservative Woman is out there waiting for you. Visit selectivesearch.com california today. Let the professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like you in Southern California. Don't wait for the perfect match. Take action now. Go to selectivesearch.com California and start building the future you deserve. All right, we've got David Nurse. A nurse named David. I'm not sure. Excuse me. David, welcome to the show. Tell us your question.
- [54:11]
H
My question is very simple. I just heard you talk to Mike Davis about the gentleman who was threatening the president.
- [54:25]
B
Oh, yeah, the Minocqua Brewing guy. Yeah, from Wisconsin.
- [54:28]
H
Right. And we're in. We're in California. And we still have. That's my question. We still have men and women's sports or men replacing. In the girls high school division. And you know what, what can we do to fix that? Because it also. We're talking about it, but ain't nothing happening.
- [54:54]
B
Blake, you want to.
- [54:55]
C
Well, I mean, it's very tough if you're in California because our best venue for acting is at the state level. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has been making efforts in this direction. They've put certainly a lot of pressure on, justly so I think they put the most pressure on like hospitals that are like transing kids and stuff. But they've also embraced the no men and women's sports agenda. I know there's executive orders to that effect. They run into various. A lot of legal fights.
- [55:25]
H
But these guys are. People in charge are not listening because this guy who's. We're getting ready to go into the CIF prelims and we're going to the meet next week, he's still beating girls out and girls are still getting replaced. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
- [55:51]
B
No, no, no. So I'm just reminded as you're talking here, David, There was a March 2025 letter from US Education Secretary Linda McMahon and she sent it to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to take action against the participation of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports, referencing his own recent comments to Charlie in that podcast when he referred to it as deeply unfair. The letter followed a period of the federal government ramped up pressure in California. So they basically have threatened funding for the CIF and California Department of Education grants via Title 9 because they're allowing transgender girls to compete. Transgender people that are boys compete in girls sports. The federal. Federal officials gave California a 10 day deadline to comply with requirements including banning trans athletes and redefining sex based on biology. California responded. California officials rejected the demand with the state superintendent, Tony Thurmond urging districts to resist, and Attorney General Rob Bonta filing a pre enforcement lawsuit against the doj. So it's basically an ongoing litigated.
- [56:58]
C
Yeah, so, yeah, I was checking on that. Yeah. So they're suing them under Title 9. Title 9 is an old federal law that says you can't have sex discrimination in. In government funded education. I don't think they anticipated what they were uncorking when they did that, because I think that was just intended. Oh, you can't.
- [57:16]
B
Yeah.
- [57:16]
C
You can't be discriminatory between men and women. Now that's turned into transgender in sports. The Biden administration tried to use it the other way, where they said it would violate Title IX if you didn't let men join women's sports teams. Yeah, very fascinating stuff. But we're using it towards a certainly more justifiable goal right now. We'll hope that it triumphs in court. We have a relatively friendly Supreme Court. But we're getting back to what we were discussing in the last segment, which is the annoying fact that really, regardless of what the law says, regardless of how clear the policy is, everything needs to practically go up to the Supreme Court before you can get anything done.
- [57:51]
B
And I think they should probably just go ahead and pull the funding, to be honest, and then they'll sue about that, too. But that's how you ratchet up the pressure is you just say, well, listen, while this is getting litigated, whether or not we have a right to tell you to stop putting trans athletes in women's sports, we're just gonna pull the funding anyways.
- [58:08]
C
It would be very enjoyable if the Trump administration just said, given your pattern of willful defiance on this and on immigration, we're going to yoink all of your education funding. Elementary schools, high schools, colleges, the whole shebang. That would cause a very dramatic crisis in the state of California, which is a tumor. Constantly devouring federal funds for fraudulent purposes.
- [58:31]
B
Yeah, I mean, there's just so many instances of bad actors getting away with so much in California. Chris Ruffo has been doing some great investigative journalism. Our Frontlines team has uncovered a bunch of it, from the hospice care situations that we found in Los Angeles to the. Yeah, the trans athlete stuff. But there's just so much runaway spending in California that now they're trying to do this wealth tax, by the way, which is obscene. And, you know, and by the way, every Elon Musk has been making this point where every tax that's ever been proposed to just get the rich eventually gets Everybody. So you're on a slippery slope in California in that way too. But this is being litigated, David. That's the answer to your question. And we're gonna see where it goes. I might send a note or two to say, you know, what can we do to ramp up pressure? Because I think this. This is a fight that's worth fighting. Thanks for your question, David. Who do we got next, Blake?
- [59:25]
C
I believe we have Mick, and it's a question that they want us to read.
- [59:29]
B
Okay, so we'll do this.
- [59:31]
C
Mick says, I am frankly disappointed with the talking points that came up after Trump was almost assassinated this past weekend. I don't understand why Build the Ballroom was the main line when it should have been. We are going to arrest people who make any threats of any kind to anyone based on their beliefs. I understand. We have people who we can't alienate with super strong rhetoric. So how do we effectively communicate that violence will be dealt with while not alienating too many people?
- [60:03]
B
You know, I find it interesting about your question, Mickey, that you think that Build the Ballroom was the main talking point. It's interesting because that went viral on social media because the allegation was that there was some group chat or people were paid to do that. I was one of those people that posted that. And my story is way less cool than that. Nobody paid me for that. It was. Danny texted it to me. He's like, man, I wish we had the ballroom. And I was like, you know, I'm gonna tweet that.
- [60:27]
C
It was a natural. I think it. But that was a big response. We saw Congress did immediately introduce a bill to pay for the ballroom, which
- [60:34]
B
I think is the wrong. I think we should keep it privately fund.
- [60:37]
C
I think that's a better move.
- [60:38]
B
Yes. I think we should call it the Charles J. Kirk Ballroom. That's what I think.
- [60:43]
C
I think a way you could do it is just the fact that it hasn't. They argue that it hasn't been approved or endorsed. Is it would be good for them to approve it and maybe they could pro forma offer money unless private funding offsets it. And then you could. You can handle.
- [60:56]
B
But I don't think that should be the main talking point either. And I think it became maybe that in your mind because people thought it was a paid for post. It wasn't a paid. It was just a logical thing that I think a lot of people came to on their own. Or maybe they, you know, Blake's. Or was this yours or I think. I can't remember who told me this, but somebody was like, well, somebody said it on Fox News that night. And I bet, like, a lot of people were just watching Fox News and post it, you know, watching the breaking news unfold, and they were like, that's a good idea. I'm gonna tweet it.
- [61:23]
C
But setting aside. So we have to. You know the line, we're going to arrest people who make any threats of any kind. I think that should be something we're alert to. We should be.
- [61:32]
B
I think you've seen this in Minocqua.
- [61:33]
C
Yeah, we've seen this. Now, we do want to be careful because we, you know, we were just debating it a bit with. With Mike Davis. What qualifies as a threat. I think we should be careful about expanding that aggressively because it will be used against us. It will be used against us. And also, I strongly favor preserving a very robust free speech culture, which means one has to have a tolerance for a lot of stupid stuff. But you are correct. We should have very low tolerance for actual violence. And that is where I would really like to see things ramped up. Were very supportive of the charges brought against that family that assaulted Savannah Hernandez, for example. Family people who think that it's fun and games to bash someone in the face at a protest, shove them, rip up their stuff on campus. When you're doing Heckler's veto type activities, when you're doing riots, for example, that shut down that Charlie event at University of New Mexico. Things like that ship should be met with more force, in my opinion, as, frankly, the price to make sure that speech can be protected. We want to prevent the blurring of lines of violence in speech. And one of the easiest ways to do that is to make sure that low level, politically motivated violence just. Bam. You stamp that out really aggressively. Because that is not acceptable.
- [62:53]
B
Yeah. That's why I'm so supportive of what, to Blake's point, what happened in Minneapolis with the Ostrushko family, that they're attacking a journalist who was just trying to get B roll for a video. So really important that you make a very loud noise as well when you arrest these people or when you prosecute them. Because it's one thing to arrest them. It's one thing, another thing if nobody knows that it happened. So part of the job is on us to say, hey, this person was threatening the president. They have been arrested, and they're gonna go to jail for a very long time. It's not gonna go well for them. Okay. Anyways. Cause there's a lot of stories People forget that there was a Molotov cocktail dude that went into Mar a Lago when Trump wasn't at Mar a Lago. Like, these kind of stories happen and, you know, we don't even. We don't even remember them. Did you have something else to add? Sorry, I think I. Oh, wait, this is Mick. Nevermind. We're not even talking about it.
- [63:42]
C
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [63:44]
B
So we're gonna get to the next question in the next segment. We're running low on time here, but, yeah, the ballroom is just an aside. It was a footnote in that. Bernadette, you're up next. Please unmute yourself. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
- [63:55]
D
Can you hear me?
- [63:56]
B
Yes, again.
- [63:58]
F
How are you guys doing?
- [64:00]
B
All right.
- [64:01]
F
Is amazing. I've been on it since, God, three years. Even made a joke with John about it. I took it to all the meetings. Always had it with me.
- [64:11]
B
Strong cell, changing lives.
- [64:14]
F
My question is about Mr. Blakeman. I went to his fundraiser. The man's amazing. He's got a great plan. He wants to end sanctuary states, you know, cities. Right. Immediately slash utility costs, aggressive tax cuts across the. The board. Did a great job in Nassau County. I have a lot of the Turning Point chapter kids that are going to go and do some campaigning.
- [64:36]
B
Great.
- [64:37]
F
So we're going to hit the areas, you know, like upstate New York, some of the weaker areas. Kind of mentioned it to Tyler. I think that this candidate is a great. A great option for us against Kathy Hochul. I would love if you guys could get him. He would love to come on the show.
- [64:55]
C
Yeah, we should look into that now. We should.
- [64:57]
F
I did. Tyler and I. Tyler said he was going to get the number. I know he's busy because he's building the red wall. So we need to build the red wall in New York and stop some of these horrible, huge taxes. We have a Nassau and Suffolk County. You know, he wants to expand the law and order immediately stop, you know, increase the funding in our local police departments. Very concentrated on keeping our neighborhood safe like he did in Nassau County. He turned Nassau county around. I mean, we're pretty safe out here in Suffolk and we won't let it go bad. But he did do a great job, and he's really, really very interested in coming and talking to you guys. So I can send you. I sent you an email, Blake, and you know how you love reading my emails. So I did send you one. And I'll send you the contact for his campaign, guys, and he would love to get on there and tell everybody about what he's going to do to save us in New York. What do you think?
- [65:53]
C
Well, I would love to talk to him. I'd love to profile his campaign. It sounds like he has a lot of good ideas and we would love to see better governance in New York, which it's worth noting they've had a Republican governor within the past 20 years.
- [66:06]
B
Yeah. So it was an internal GOP poll from March had him down by nine. The public polling shows him down by 13. And you got to remember Lee Zeldin ran a heck of a. Lee Zeldin
- [66:17]
F
was at the same numbers.
- [66:18]
B
Lee Zeldin, Yeah. Lee Zeldin lost by, it looks like 6.4 points. And he actually ran a great campaign.
- [66:24]
C
That's the thing. So what's unfortunate here always makes it tough is there's kind of this idea you could use to describe a lot of Democrat politics, which is they've horribly messed up their states and they've taken it to the point where they have really driven a lot of people out. And the people they drive out are the ones most inclined to vote them out. And it's politically advantageous for them to do so. They're still at the top of the pile, even if they're making the state worse off. It's great to be on top of the state. And we. You can look at the domestic migration stats. I always like to look at those because that's the best proof we have that the blue state model has failed. What Americans who, when they move, they move to red states, they're moving to Texas, they're moving to Florida, Tennessee, everywhere in the south is gaining people from the rest of the country. But California is shedding hundreds of thousands of people like per year on average, in terms of. And New York is right behind them. New York is right behind them. I think New York, they're having their population, I think, decline year to year now because international migration has gone down. And that was their system, that was the Mamdani of New York is let's drive out tens of thousands of native New Yorkers. They're off moving to Florida, they're off moving to Texas, and they're replacing them with Mamdanis who either can't vote or when they get the ability to vote, they're voting lockstep Democrat. They're Third World Marxists. They don't.
- [67:48]
B
They.
- [67:49]
C
They're actively fine with just ripping the state apart. It's great for them and it just does make it harder and harder for us to win. I don't know that Rudy Giuliani could have won his mayoral elections in today's New York. And I don't know if Pataki could have won his elections in today's New York. So we're very optimistic for Blakeman, but it is a big hill to climb.
- [68:09]
F
Well, I think also, like I said, having the. I do. We have about 50 of your chapter leaders. We are going to meet with him in campaign headquarters in two weeks, and we're going to take on those areas that really don't know him, that can benefit him or. Or not. So we're going to go up to, like upstate New York, Upstate, where these people are just going to vote Democrat because that's all they know, and try to push his hundred day plan, ending the sanctuary cities, slashing the utility costs, aggressive tax cuts like he did in Nassau county, one of the richest counties, I might add, expanding the law and order and going against all of the things that are making everybody unsafe, poor and dangerous, especially the utility bill. $2.4 billion.
- [68:53]
B
Yeah. I mean, all of this stuff. Yeah. You're going through the laundry list of bad Democrat governance. And we totally agree. Can you send. Do you have his contact? Can you send it to our team? I absolutely do have it. Yeah, I'll reach out to him. We'll get him on the show. I absolutely. I agree with this. Charlie used to do this as well. Like, we keep talking about California, we keep talking about New York, because there will come a day, and I really believe this, where we will reclaim those two states.
- [69:19]
C
I don't think we're taking California. We will talk about it and we'll fight.
- [69:23]
B
Yeah. All right, so thank you for your call. Send us his contact. We'll get him back on. Awesome. Thank you. Send it to our trip. Thank you. God bless you. Blake, we have a final question.
- [69:36]
C
Final question. This is from Pete and it's another one we have to read. He says, speaking of fighting things with more force, as you guys just mentioned, regarding free speech, it's good that you finally showed a bit of fight this week. With respect to. Drum roll. Candace Owens. This is exactly what Charlie would have done. He wouldn't have sat back and let her set the agenda in her attempts to destroy Turning Point USA and to destroy Erica. He would expose her for exactly what she is. You need to dismantle her fake claims like they do on Paramount Tactical and speak more about their falling out. When are you going to take the fight up to her?
- [70:16]
B
So he's talking about, you know, Erica's speech that she gave on Wednesday and where she said that she's been accused of killing her husband, by which she has.
- [70:26]
C
There's been some fake nonsense where people say she's never been accused of that. Bogus. I've had to watch far too much stuff about this where if they're saying Erica should be arrested, that she's a robot, if this evidence was against anyone else, they would be on trial, which has been said. If they're saying she's part of a conspiracy, they are saying that she did it, period. And I'm not going to accept any nonsense saying otherwise.
- [70:51]
B
Correct? Yeah. And so I posted a screen grab where Candace was talking with a former employee of mine and saying my first question ahead of the Dec. 15 meeting that they had in Nashville is going to be, why did you murder your husband? So I posted that, and I think that's what Pete is referring to. Yeah, I mean, listen, I think that there is some truth to that. And you know, where the line really gets for me is if you're going to come for Erica Kirk, you're going to start having to go through me, Blake, and the rest of us, because I'm sick of it. And I'm sick of Charlie's widow getting attacked senselessly, and that's it.
- [71:30]
C
I'm sick of people. A ton of these people trashed Charlie right up to the point of his death. And then I'm sick of people who are trafficking in lies and presenting themselves as his best friend when they hate his organization, hate his wife, hate the people around him, hate what he fought for, hate the Jews, hate everyone. And they come out and they just deal in lies and manipulation because they think that'll make them rich and get clicks. For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.