THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 117- America First vs America Only? Luigi the Musical? Kids in Church?

Summary

The Charlie Kirk Show: Thoughtcrime Ep. 117

“America First vs America Only? Luigi the Musical? Kids in Church?”
Date: March 7, 2026
Host: Charlie Kirk & panel
Summary by PodcastSummarizer.ai

---

EPISODE OVERVIEW

In Thoughtcrime Episode 117, Charlie Kirk and his panel engage in a lively, irreverent, and substantive roundtable on several current and contentious issues. Central topics include the evolving meaning of "America First," the controversy surrounding "Luigi the Musical," prediction markets and military insider betting, and a debate over kids making noise in church. The hosts connect the news of the week to broader themes of national identity, morality, and political strategy, all with the show’s trademark blend of humor, culture war commentary, and unapologetic conservative analysis.

---

PANELISTS

• Charlie Kirk (Host, TPUSA Founder, timestamp [00:03])
• Jack (Panelist)
• Blake (Panelist)
• Danny (Panelist)
• Andrew (Panelist, joins later)

---

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

---

1. America First vs. America Only?

Defining Trump's Foreign Policy Doctrine
[03:10–23:45]

• Debate Over Trump’s Foreign Policy

  • Discussion kicks off analyzing what “America First” now means in light of recent military actions in Iran.
  • Stephen Miller’s comments are dissected:

    “No, America first means America will be the greatest, most unquestioned, unmatched power in the world.”
    – Stephen Miller [04:32]

  • Original "America First" was closely associated with non-interventionism and border-focused policies (2016–2020).
  • Recent moves and messaging suggest a shift toward a more assertive U.S. global presence, reviving some Cold War-style ambitions.

• Tension Between Pragmatism & Principle

  • The panel notes the generational divide, with younger conservatives skeptical of foreign interventions perceived as outside “American interests.”

    “When we say American interests, is that really America First? Are we kind of redefining the term?”
    – Danny [06:13]

• Panelists Express Wariness of 'Forever Wars'

  • General agreement that “America First” shouldn’t revert to neocon globalism.
  • Benefits of global primacy (e.g., dollar dominance, military leverage) are weighed against the cost and public appetite for intervention.

• Messaging and Generational Skepticism

  • Critique of inconsistent messaging from political leaders about Iran, uranium enrichment, and rationale for U.S. strikes.
  • Notable quote on presidential communication:

    “The President of the United States is his own best messenger ... There’s only one Donald J. Trump.”
    – Jack [13:03]

• Grassroots & Gen Z Views

  • Panel reaffirms most young and grassroots conservatives are anti-war. Cites skepticism due to conflicting statements from Rubio and others.
  • Concerns about creating “assassination culture” and war fatigue are echoed throughout.

---

2. Prediction Markets, Insider Trading & War

When Military Action Becomes a Betting Market [26:11–34:12]

• Prediction Markets’ Role in National Security

  • Reports of people—including likely military insiders—betting large sums on the timing and scale of U.S. strikes against Iran.
  • NYT exposes spike in $1,000+ bets immediately prior to military operations.

    “A disturbing amount of evidence that military insiders were able to bet on what would happen, for example, to the Ayatollah.”
    – Blake [26:11]

• Panel Dilemma: Regulation vs. Anonymity

  • Discussion of legal loopholes, use of crypto, and proposals to ban officials from trading on prediction markets.

    “We should treat that the same way we treat any other espionage ... If you do that, bam. Firing squad.”
    – Blake [31:04]

  • Concerns that markets could incentivize bad actors (potentially even influencing policy for profit).

• Potential for Market Manipulation

  • Panel suggests the U.S. could use false bets as strategic deception, but real leaks must be harshly punished.

---

3. Cuba, Iran, and the Monroe Doctrine

Hemisphere “America First” vs. Foreign Engagement
[35:19–39:00]

• Debate on Possible U.S. Action in Cuba

  • The panel discusses rumors and the rationale for U.S. intervention in Cuba, contrasting this with Iran due to proximity.
  • Jack explains the historical and strategic context:

    “Our oldest overseas base is Guantanamo Bay ... There was talk about annexing it after the Spanish American War.”
    – Jack [37:12]

  • Skepticism voiced about Cuba’s relevance today:

    “Cuba just is like a dump ... almost anyone who can get out of that country has left. Who cares?”
    – Blake [37:50]

• High Stakes: Monroe Doctrine Invoked

  • Panel notes the difference in public and strategic appetite for interventions “in our hemisphere”—Cuba vs. far-flung conflicts.

---

4. Controversy: Luigi the Musical

When Crime and Drama Collide on Stage
[46:56–57:55]

• Panel Responds to “Luigi the Musical”

  • A musical comedy based on the real-life assassin Luigi Maggione becomes a viral point of contention.
  • The panel reacts strongly to the narrative “glorifying” a left-wing assassin as a folk hero.

    “Not only do we see the transformation of Luigi Maggione into a folk hero ... but the judiciary is by and large in agreement with antifa activity here.”
    – Jack [48:43]

  • Reference to historical precedents:

    “Sacco and Vanzetti got what they deserved and Luigi deserves exactly the same. And yet here we are 100 years later ...”
    – Jack [50:11]

  • Compare reactions to January 6: Panelists point out (with frustration) a double standard in culture’s response to political violence.

• Satire, Morality, and the Limits of Art

  • Critique of the musical’s rationale:

    “Luigi the Musical doesn’t glorify violence, it interrogates it ... We need a ban on using the word ‘interrogate’ in describing anything that is not the police questioning somebody.”
    – Blake [52:11]

  • Concern about societal desensitization to violence and the proliferation of art that blurs lines between commentary and glorification.

---

5. **Kids (and Noise) in Church:

Are Crying Babies a Blessing—or a Problem?**
[74:29–82:44]

• Viral “Loud Kids Policy” at a Washington Church
  • The church posts a policy with four “options”: all simply different ways to say “bring your loud kids to church.”
  • The episode pits David French’s defense of family-friendly, tolerant worship environments versus Matt Walsh’s hard line for parental discipline and quiet.
  • Panelists, all fathers except Blake, discuss:
    • The difference between understanding and enabling: “If your kid’s being loud, if your kid’s being unruly, then they need to be disciplined. There’s no question.”
      – Jack [76:57]
    • The need for reverence in worship, likening church to weddings or funerals that should not be disrupted.
    • The benefits of teaching children appropriate context and respect—using both incentive (“going to Wawa”) and consequences.
    • Suggestions that “woke” liberal churches may over-index on inclusion at the expense of order and sacredness.

---

6. Political and Legislative Intrigue

Save America Act, the Filibuster, and GOP Strategy
[58:19–67:35]

• Breaking and Rumored Political News

  • Reports circulate that Trump may endorse Sen. John Cornyn over Texas AG Ken Paxton in exchange for passage of the SAVE America Act.
  • Debates about ending the Senate filibuster, green card reform, and efforts to pass conservative priorities before midterm elections.

    “If you want the SAVE act passed, you got to include it in the reconciliation bill in September.”
    – Andrew [61:44]

  • Panel argues over whether GOP should strike first by breaking the filibuster or wait for Democrats to do so.

• Grassroots Frustration and Turnout Concerns

  • Fears that unpopular endorsements (like Cornyn) will dampen conservative grassroots enthusiasm and electoral turnout.
  • Comparison to Warnock in Georgia, Warnock’s “fake Christian” persona, and the dangers of smarmy, establishment centrism in red states.

---

7. Message From Charlie: On Regretting Your Vote

[69:58–71:25]

• Charlie’s Advice to Disenchanted Voters

  • Clip replay (“be careful with that statement”) advises patience with Trump and warns against abandoning support over a single policy or moment of dissatisfaction.

    “Let him cook. Let the man cook. Let the man that we entrusted with our vote ... Let him cook.”
    – Jack [70:41]

• Strategic Ambiguity & Intra-movement Accountability

  • Panel reminds listeners that strategic ambiguity can play in Trump's favor. They urge continued pressure but insist that Democrats are an “unacceptable” alternative.

---

MEMORABLE QUOTES & HIGHLIGHTS

• “If the most important thing is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful.”
  – Charlie Kirk [00:03]

• “America First means America will be the greatest, most unquestioned, unmatched power in the world.”
  – Stephen Miller [04:32]

• “Is chanting a threat?”
  – Panel discussion on whether Iran's "Death to America" rhetoric justifies military strikes. [16:33]

• “Satire you have to take to an extreme so people know this is not about the people. It's about the themes that we're interrogating.”
  – Luigi the Musical creator [53:32]

• “If you are betting on a US Military operation based on insider knowledge, we should treat that the same way we treat any other espionage ... bam. Firing squad.”
  – Blake [31:04]

• “If your child makes noise, you are not bothering us. You are blessing us.”
  – From the Mount Washington Church’s “loud kids” policy [75:36]

• “If your kid's being loud, if your kid's being unruly, then they need to be disciplined. There's no question.”
  – Jack [76:57]

---

STRUCTURE & FLOW

The episode alternates between serious policy talk—particularly on the consequences and meaning of military actions—and lighter (if still pointed) cultural discussion, featuring substantial sarcasm and inside jokes among the panelists. The debate on foreign policy occurs early in the show, with the musical and cultural topics covered in the latter half.

Humor, irreverence, and pop-culture references (from “Dune” to “Madea”) are interspersed with earnest commentary on political philosophy and grassroots activism.

---

TIMESTAMPS FOR MAJOR SEGMENTS

• [03:10] America First: Isolationism or Assertive Leadership?
• [26:11] Prediction Markets & Insider Trading on War
• [35:19] Cuba and the Monroe Doctrine
• [46:56] Luigi the Musical: Satire or Glorification of Violence?
• [74:29] Kids in Church: Permissiveness vs. Reverence
• [58:19] Legislative Intrigue: The Save America Act and Filibuster
• [69:58] Charlie on Loyalty & Regret in Voting

---

FINAL WORDS

• Panel congratulates colleague Russ’s engagement and home purchase [86:12].
• Quick reminder: Daylight Savings Time is coming up—panel bemoans Arizona’s unique relationship to DST [84:48].
• Sign off: “Always go out there and commit more thought crime.” [87:28]

---

TL;DR

This episode dissects what “America First” means in 2026, grapples with foreign policy and domestic political divides, critiques cultural artifacts like “Luigi the Musical,” and weighs how society should treat noisy kids in church. Throughout, the team mixes meme-worthy banter with earnest conservative analysis.

---

For further info and resources:
Visit CharlieKirk.com.

Transcript

[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.

[B]

Use me.

[A]

Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. The Charlie Kirk show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold. But the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.

[B]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we are back with another edition. Live edition of Thursday Thought crime. Definitely been a little bit since we've been here on Live. Excited to be back doing this. We've had some elections going on. We've got a war going on, but the thought crimes never end. And that's why brings us back to tonight. So let's look around the room. Who do we have tonight? I know you got.

[C]

Right now, you've just got me and Danny will allegedly have Andrew join us eventually. We'll see Tyler Bowyer. I'm not sure what happened to Tyler. I have to assume Tyler. Whenever I can't find Tyler, I always jump to the first thing that comes to mind, which is that he's been forcibly conscripted by President Trump to go fight in the Spice wars on a different. On a distant colony planet.

[B]

I would like to know if the spice must flow. Is that true?

[C]

The spice has definitely gotta flow. And we all know that Tyler's really passionate about the spice flowing. We know that he has good relations with the President's mentots. We know he's got a long relationship with the Spacers Guild. And I think between all of those things, he'll be a real asset to the Spice Wars.

[B]

Has he passed the pain box as of yet?

[C]

Man, do you ever see if he did that? Do you know if Tyler ever passed the pain box?

[D]

I'll be honest with you. I don't know what the spice.

[C]

You don't know what the Spice wars are? The pain box. That's gonna get you Conscripted to fight in the Spice wars and not in like a cool Sardaukar regimen. You're probably just gonna be thrown into like the meat grinder.

[D]

Well, all right, sign me up then. Yeah.

[C]

I mean, you are an Ohio State fan.

[D]

What is, what is the Spice Wars?

[C]

The spice.

[B]

Benny Jesuit are very disappointed.

[C]

He doesn't know what the Spice wars are, Jack.

[B]

I. I don't think Jesuit are very, very disappointed.

[C]

We can't reveal the secrets of the Bene Gesaret to, to Danny.

[B]

No.

[C]

Not aware of these things.

[B]

He is certainly not. The quiz not tattoo.

[C]

Yes. He's not.

[D]

Yeah. This is all foreign language. I have no idea.

[C]

A typical Ohio State fan. Anyway, so we'll have to just jump.

[B]

Has nothing to do with. With current events whatsoever.

[C]

Whatsoever.

[B]

Just.

[C]

Just so disappointing. What does have something to do with current events though? Is our first topic. Everyone knows what the biggest event of the past few weeks is and, or the past. Well, definitely the past week. And it is of course our venture going down in Iran. We aren't going to get into the details of whether we should have gone now what the politics of it are. We wanted to discuss a very specific version of this, which is the topic of what's always used with this administration. The line America First. First and specifically what does America first mean? Does America first mean specifically America only? America alone, America as sole focus of all things. Or can America first. Does that imply it can be first? Among other things. And there's a heady debate about that. We were passing this clip around as we discussed with what to say about this. And I think a guy who's played a leading role in defining what America first is is of course the President's aide, Stephen Miller. Let's look at what he had to say about this on just a matter of days ago. 6:40.

[B]

I don't think that people understand the Trump Doctrine is not isolationism. Maybe you can help set them straight. Cuz I'm not too effective, I guess.

[E]

The President has made clear that he believes America's awesome military might should be used to protect and defend America's interests. Not to surrender the world to our adversaries, to our enemies, to those who would do us harm. Not to surrender the world's resources, lanes of commerce or capacity to keep our citizens safe. No, America first means America will be the greatest, most unquestioned, unmatched power in the world.

[C]

So that's kind of part of the debate is a lot of. I do feel Jack, and maybe you agree that maybe in kind of in the beginning of The Trump surge, 2016, 2020 range, where America first was getting thrown around a lot in politics. A lot of it actually. It did, let's be frank. It had something of a isolationist streak to it or a breakaway thing. That the time for putting America first meant a time of pulling back, pulling away from a lot of international obligations. The idea was that a lot of foreign adventures constituted putting the rest of the world first and that putting America first meant a refocusing on America. Now, Stephen Miller's MAGA credentials are pretty impeccable, I would say. And he's pushing the line now that America first, it almost means a revival of Cold War levels of American dominance, that it does mean preserving an American empire or American respect, American primacy. And is there, is there a conflict between those things especially, I guess, does it work as long as we are maintaining border security, for example?

[D]

Yeah. The thing that trips people up there is when he said American interests and that's more so like whose interests are we talking about here? Because that's where especially my generation gets caught up in with what like Marco Rubio said the other day, when we say American interests, is that really America First? Are we kind of redefining the term and creating new interests within the movement that quote unquote now fall under America First? So that's where definitely young men are pretty upset right now about that.

[B]

I am just cracking up because in the chat someone wrote after, after Blake drank all of that Strong Cell. I'm looking forward to see him coming on tposa with a three foot tall beehive hairdo.

[C]

Look, it says you need four.

[B]

Missed something. Did you, did you OD on, on Strong Cell?

[C]

No, I just been, I've just been diligently drinking my Strong Cell every day.

[B]

Jack.

[C]

Unlike, you know, Andrew went to D.C. he went to the State of the Union. He didn't bring Strong Cell with him. I think he reset the timer for whatever all progress benefits. Yeah, I don't think he's following the rules and so he's, he's lost the verve. Whereas I think I'm about, I think I'm about one week out and I'm. My expectation is, is that I will close my eyes one night and I shall wake up the next day with a full rich head of luscious hair.

[B]

I think it'll happen, I believe.

[C]

But Jack. Yeah,

[B]

not to dodge the question, although I, although I certainly, I certainly am to doing so. No, look, there's no question America first was always originally deployed as an Answer to the neocon sort of neoliberal policy of the day. Keep in mind that if you go back to 2015, 2016, you go back to that time frame. The United States was still involved heavily in Afghanistan. The United States still had troops in Iraq and Syria where we were fighting isis. The United States was involved in all of these conflicts all around the world. And America first meant building the wall. It meant putting the interests of Americans first. It meant taking the focus away from the federal government's focus, away from foreign conflicts, and focusing it on the American people and the American homeland. There's no question that's what America first always meant. Americans first when it first was deployed. So when I hear America first also being deployed as saying, well, wait, that doesn't necessarily mean that America is going to be, you know, last in the world. I think there isn't necessarily a contradiction in terms there, because you mentioned Stephen Miller because he's the guy who's been out front and center every single day defending ice, defending homeland security, which we're. Obviously, we saw some changeover today, defending the agents in the field and conducting whatever he can in terms of deportation operations. So, as you say, Stephen Miller is a guy who absolutely doesn't have a, you know, any, any questionable credentials when it comes to MAGA or when it comes to these issues. But at the same time, I think that the bigger debate, whether we get into a semantics debate about, about rhetoric, the bigger debate is, should America be isolationist or should America actually care about some of these things like influence in the wider world? And that's a debate that I've seen a lot of people get into. I'd love to see, by the way, if people want to get into the chat that we're into right now, you know, please go ahead, send in your rumble rants and in your comments. We're looking at it because we are live. I'm seeing your chats right there. Right here. President right here. Dylan Ivey says he had it in his 2017 inauguration speech. He said it twice. I remember. America first preserves American culture, and it certainly does. This is a huge part of America First American excellence. And look, at the end of the day, when it comes to these things like the Middle east, when it comes to these things like the others, I'm certainly not someone who's a proponent of these forever wars. I'm certainly not someone who's a proponent of, of all of these things. Like, and I don't think that Charlie was. We obviously have seen Charlie's. Charlie's tweets and statements on it. But at the same time, we don't necessarily want China and Russia just taking over all the entire world, do we, Blake?

[C]

No, we don't. And I think what we do underrate is America did get. We looked at a lot of the negatives because those were particularly severe in the Bush years and the Obama years. The downsides of American global power is it's like, oh, it just seems to be our job to perpetually have troops in dump countries like Afghanistan. It's perpetually our job to pony up tens of billions of dollars practically to have nations just kind of on the dole from us. I think that was really highlighted with the US Aid stuff that happened last spring where people flipped out because they learned, wait, we just spend $50 billion a year to basically be propping up programs that like, no one else in the world is funding. Like, no one. Supposedly it was an atrocity for us to defend usaid, but the European Union didn't replace that funding, so I guess they didn't think it was important enough to do and so on. But we do get benefits from being the top dog around, from having a lot of countries that matter looking to us. We look at that with the US Dollar being in the position that it is, and that if the US Dollar went away, I've seen people say it would be like if US GDP just sort of shrunk 5% overnight because that's the value of the dollar. Or the fact that us being so central to the defense of a lot of countries that did enable President Trump to use a lot of his tariff leverage on them, that South Korea, Japan, Europe, they can't just tell us to buzz off if we decide to pick a trade fight because they, they are reliant on us in so many ways now.

[D]

Well, we saw that with Spain and within the last two days where they said we couldn't use their bases. Then Trump says, okay, we're no longer going to trade with you. And now they've cradled right away.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. So, like, there is, there is real value to being an assertive top dog. And you have to. One has to be very careful in the path one charts under that. And I do think President Trump has been a lot more careful about that than prior administrations.

[D]

Yeah. And the main problem with all of this has really been messaging. In my opinion, the best defense of us attacking them that I've heard was Steve Witkoff when he was on Fox, and for some reason we hadn't heard that that line before from anybody else. Which makes no sense to me, because if they really had enough uranium to make 11 nukes, I feel like that would have been the top issue that would have swayed, persuaded people to being supportive of this. So I really think the messaging has been the problem how we're kind of all over the place, and that's really causing a lot of the discomfort among people who maybe don't want us to get involved.

[B]

Yeah. Look, I'll say, and I've said this a number of times, that the President of the United States is his own best messenger, he's his own best influencer, he's his own best spokesman. And that's nothing against Caroline or Witkoff or, or Steven Miller, Pete Hegseth or any of these guys. They're J.D. they're all phenomenal in their own right. But there's only one Donald J. Trump. And you saw the tour de force that he gave at the State of the Union. He got high marks from everyone on the State of the union. Even CNN's panel said this was a great State of the Union. And the Venezuela operation, I'll point out, and as I've said over and over, was something that was celebrated at the State of the Union. It had its own section. It had a medal of Honor associated with it. It was given high billing because of its level of success. And that was something where, again, that was an international operation. Now, of course, that was in our hemisphere. So that was kind of a little bit closer to the Don Roe Doctrine, if you will, as opposed to the Middle East. But at the same time, that's something where President Trump was able to smartly and swiftly get the United States involved in something overseas, then pull back with the success, come home with the W and create a new deal that benefited the United States economically. And a lot of people have been hoping for that same type of Venezuelan model when it comes vis a vis a vis Iran, where the leader has already been taken out. Now, at the same time, people want to hear that. And Danny, to your point, people want to hear that from the president. They want to see that moment of the president of the United States behind the desk, the resolute desk of the Oval Office, giving that address directly to the American people. And I think people are hoping and, and expecting a moment like that from their president to hear directly from the top what the game plan is, what the objective is. And if this is going to be longer than a couple of days, longer than a couple of weeks, the American people want to hear that from the president. There's no Question. But Danny, I'd love to ask you again. You know, you know, you mentioned, you know, younger people and their sort of view of this. I know that Blake, you and Andrew had interviewed some turning point chapter leaders and chapter members the other day, or I guess it was earlier today on the show. And you know, I just wanted to kind of hear. So Danny, like when you're, when you're talking, doesn't necessarily have to be TPOSA people, but just people in general, you know, when it comes to foreign intervention, foreign wars. We know that Charlie always said that that's something that younger voters, younger members of the coalition were just totally not interested in because they wanted to focus on domestic. They weren't focused on economic relief. What are you hearing from them?

[D]

Yeah, I'm hearing a lot of opposition to this and especially because of Marco Rubio's comments. I mean, it's no secret that Gen Z is very anti Israel and more so. Yeah, more.

[E]

I'm here now.

[D]

Jack doesn't want to get involved.

[B]

So a lot of them breaking. Breaking the jacket rule again. Yeah.

[C]

Get it off. Take it off now while he takes one off. We did get a rumble rant. Jay McGuire, 1995. Get cut the camera away from him. We can't show that there's children who watch this show. So he Sundays, as a 30 year old, I don't want war. However, this Iran war is America first as Iran is a direct threat when they are directly saying death to America while building a nuke with intent to use it on us. Although another guy in the chat is just saying. He's pointing out chanting. He says chanting is not a threat. I don't know. Is chanting a threat?

[E]

Listen, I think that you could definitely make an American first argument for this, but I am very cognizant of the fact that young people don't love it. I mean, they just don't. We sold President Trump on campus. Charlie did. As the peace president, as the anti war president, I'm already getting comfortable with the fact that this could have been the right geopolitical national security decision. Right. Especially after we talked to Matt Van Swall this morning talking about how basically I learned something this morning. Jack probably already knew it because he likes to study these things, but it basically takes the same amount of time to go from 0 to 5% enriched uranium as it does from basically 5 to 60%. So that first 5% is all you need to actually make nuclear energy from the.

[D]

The.

[E]

He basically said there's no good reason to enrich uranium up to 60%. Unless you're trying to do something nefarious with it or a deterrence, whatever. I'm actually open to the fact that Iran could have been more of a rational actor when it came to nuclear energy than most people believe. But regardless, they'd made threats. They wanted it to be a deterrent factor, maybe an offensive factor. Big story, big point. Rather, it could be the absolute right call from a national security perspective and the absolute worst political decision you could make. Sometimes in life you're forced with those types of decisions, and I think, you know, we might just be in one of those conundrums right now.

[C]

Yeah, I think it's. I will say, I mean, we have people in the chat who are saying, like, it's just not true that they were building the nuke. And what I will say is I don't know what is true. It is harder for them to make the case because I know and you know that they've been six months away from making a nuclear bomb.

[D]

Well, that they told us that they annihilated, like, all their facilities and everything in June.

[E]

Yeah. But then they finally told Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

So that's where to make.

[D]

But no one else has used that talking point other than Wyckoff, which leads me to believe.

[E]

And Jared.

[D]

Yeah. I'm not sure what you think. They just couldn't. I don't know. I would think that Rubio would have been starting with that, because that feels like the best talking point by a mile over. Israel was going to. Israel was going in first. So we should go in. I feel like it's much better.

[B]

Let me, let me, let me, Let me run if I can. What I said before in front of Andrew because. And this is what I've said, because obviously there have been messaging challenges on all of this. And my response to all of that, whether you have the Witkoff stuff and you have the Rubio stuff and all the rest of it, I said, well, I think the thing that the American people are waiting for is that moment where the President, United States delivers an address from the Oval Office. That would be the way to cut through all this.

[E]

Yeah. And it has to be really, really well crafted messaging, because I agree there is a little bit of. Well, they had nukes and they were gonna make nukes, but we've been being told they're gonna make nukes for a long time. I mean, I think that they might have just candidly had a posture where they're like, we're not gonna go full Nuke. But we just want to be close enough to be like, make them nervous. That could have been like, their position.

[C]

Sounds bizarre to me. Like you either.

[E]

Well, because they. The. But they. There was a red line.

[C]

Being in that position is the most dangerous one to be in. You should either have no nuke or you should have the actual nuke.

[E]

It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have made that decision because the entirety of the international apparatus was a raid against them to not get a nuke. Okay, so they maybe knew that that was a red line, but they wanted to be close enough to be dangerous and to make them nervous. Maybe that was their stated deterrent position. I'm just saying it makes a lot of sense that they had material to make nuclear warheads or dirty bombs, which you could do it at 60 to 80% enrichment, apparently 70%. And there's some indication that they used it in Iraq in 2020 already. I haven't seen that confirmed. I saw. Maybe it was Katherine Herridge that reported that, I believe. But. So here's the thing. The arguments are layered, though. Yeah. Maybe they didn't want to lead with the nuke because of the point that you were saying, Blake, that, you know, we've been told this for decades and it's never really materialized. But the idea about the missiles and the, you know, intercontinental ICBMs, though, I mean, they were building up an arsenal and a stockpile of missiles that could have been.

[D]

We have that graph, too. 504, if we still have that.

[B]

But they do not have ICBMs.

[E]

They have. What are they. They were asking for hypersonics. From CC. From the CC. I know that.

[B]

Maybe they still not ICBMs.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, fair enough.

[C]

IRBMs, intermediate range. A lot of.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

IR. Mr. And SR. Yeah.

[E]

So here's the graph. Iranian missile stockpile versus US intercept interceptor capacity. And so another part of the calculus could have just been this graph, right? That they were going to get further and further. You know, they were going to increase their ability to outpace our production to intercept those as a defensive posture. So, you know, there's.

[D]

Our production is.

[B]

But keep in mind that it's that. That the Iran also has an increased capacity for the shahed drones and drone swarms, which has been built up because of the Iraq or, excuse me, the Ukraine war and those drones, which we've now seen. If you go look at Bahrain and uae, it almost looks like Iran has switched from the ballistic missile posture to more of a drone attack posture because they can send Some money, or we're probably going to be starting to see, you know, they're cheaper, and you're probably going to start to see layered attacks because these air interceptors are so much more expensive. But at the same time, you've got to try to use them as much as possible to take out whatever you can. Meanwhile, you've got the kamikaze drones that could just slip right in. We talked about this so much when, you know, we were talking about the context of the Ukraine war. Now they're using it, you know, in a sort of a counter offensive, counter strike method. And it's very successful against air defense. It's sort of the answer to smart weapons is dumb weapons.

[E]

Yeah. I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, and I think that could have motivated the reason, the rationale for going now, I think the central question, though, is not about air power superiority. I think we've got that established. We can do what we want from the air. The question and why this could continue dragging on is why, you know, how much popular support did the Ayatollah and the IRGC and the regime have in Iran? And that is a question. And then if it's low, how much muscle memory is baked into the population after they just slaughtered 20 or 30,000 protesters that came out? Like, there could just be a function here where they're so scared to come out after getting 30,000 of them killed, they're not sure what happens next. Are they gonna go out on the street and then they're gonna get bombed by the IRGC also?

[D]

How would they organize?

[E]

Yeah, how do you organize? Like, how do you cause the dominoes to start falling to oust the regime? And I think that feels muddy to me. It feels very unclear how you start a popular uprising even with the air power raining down on the IRGC and the regime. I just don't know.

[B]

Whatever happened, we had air superiority. Whatever happened in Afghanistan for 20 years.

[E]

Correct.

[B]

Didn't cause the regime change.

[E]

Well, and we did boots on the ground right back. Yeah. And we did get regime change, but it wasn't a peaceful thing. We caused, you know, there was sectarianism.

[B]

We had massive ground invasion.

[E]

Yeah. I'm just saying, like, even with that, it depends on the nature of the country itself. Like, is Iran a country that could basically just at this point, peacefully turn over leadership, or is there 40% of the country that's gonna hang on for dear life? And we've been, you know, Blake and I kept talking about this. We had These Iranians that would come on the show during the popular uprising, during the protests. And we asked ourselves after it was done, we're like, was this an op? Like, are we getting spun? And, you know, it was unclear to us because they were all basically saying, nobody likes the regime. Nobody likes the irgc. And everybody loves this Pavla. Whatever his name. I always forget what's his name? Raza.

[C]

Reza Pahlavi Raza.

[E]

And Blake and I were like, yeah,

[C]

we just got endless. We just got endless stuff where it's like. I saw the funniest one, which was a thread online that was like. It was like, ask me anything. I'm inside Iran. And like, every other answer, he's finding ways, like, we're all just waiting for the Shah to order us to go into the streets. Yeah, okay, but. Okay, bud.

[E]

Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars, and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then Refi then. And remember, Yrefi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

[C]

But another thing, we want to hit here. So as Dan said, Gen Z seems pretty skeptical. We saw that with our students. But I think another interesting populist angle of potential anger on this war. This has become, I think, the first big story, first big crisis of any kind where we've had these modern prediction markets play such a huge role, which is we've got people casting bets on Kalshi, on polymarket, probably on other places as well, for how the war is going to go. And we have a disturbing amount of evidence that military insiders were able to bet on what would happen, for example, to the Ayatollah. The New York Times had an Article that about, I think about a thousand people were able to cast bets. Specifically that.

[E]

Thousand. It's big.

[C]

About a thousand people cast bets specifically that there would be bomb strikes on Iran, I believe on Saturday, because it happened Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon in Iran. And that was way more than any surrounding day. It's not just that a ton of people are betting. It was clear a ton of people had information. Some of them made tens of thousand dollars. Some of them, I think, made half a million dollars or more. Yeah, some people.

[E]

It's good.

[C]

Really get it cashed in on this. And there's two possible answers. One is there's people who are really good at reading the signals, maybe in terms of radio traffic, Internet traffic, like they can see the signs when a military strike is about to happen.

[E]

Traffic. Yeah.

[C]

Or we can do the much more direct thing, which is it's currently not even illegal to insider trade on this sort of thing. And you might have people in our admin, people elsewhere in the government, people in foreign admins, people in foreign militaries. And they got the news, this is going down. And the first thing they did was they opened up a prediction market and they said, yeah, I'm going to bet $10,000 that we bomb tomorrow.

[D]

Yeah. It was 158 accounts placed hundreds of bets of at least $1,000 or more.

[E]

Were they all in the Pentagon?

[D]

It would have had to be. I don't know.

[E]

Yeah. Like, who would even be the most, like, obvious actors here? Jack, did you place a bet? Did you do it? You've got good sources.

[B]

I don't gamble. And, you know, I've. I've actually kind of been racking my brain about this for a while now. And I just, I just, I don't have like a prohibition against gambling. I just don't do it. And I'm sorry, but these prediction markets are just gambling. They're just online gambling. It's online betting. There's no question.

[D]

But they were.

[C]

This is insider trading on kind of questions of importance. And there's like two levels.

[E]

I don't.

[B]

I mean, I don't think it had to have been insider training. I will say this because on human events, I didn't have any specific inside knowledge that the bombing was going to start on, on Saturday. But we told everybody that and, you know, we went and Andrew, you know, I remember, you know, you went and like kind of said, hey, let's all sort of be around the. Don't go too far from the studio this weekend. So, like, we kind of had A sense that things were up.

[D]

It's more so the thousand dollars or more.

[E]

I was going to say. It's one thing to say be available if stuff goes off. It's another thing to put money down, like, real money. No, I'm not.

[B]

Not disagreeing. I'm just saying there are ways you could have done it. Devil's advocate, but, yeah, this doesn't seem like that.

[E]

I think there's. But Blake brings up a good point. This is, like, not a regulated industry. You know, this is like, it's not necessarily illegal to do this.

[C]

And I've brought this up a few times before, and I'm just waiting because you create disturbing incentives when you can bet on this sort of thing. Because as an example, let's say President Trump was super 50, 50 on whether to do it. And a guy is like, I can make a lot of money if I can make a bombing happen tomorrow. And he tilts the President a certain way. He's one of his advisors. The best time to hit is tomorrow, not on Monday. And that doesn't have to be on war stuff. It could be. Imagine a guy who places a bunch of bets. Let's say Justice Alito retires from the Supreme Court, and there's five favorites, and like some long shot. And the guy. It's some guy who advises the president bets $1,000, $10,000 on this 1% long shot, and then he just endlessly lobbies the president on that specific guy, not because he'll be the best justice, but because that guy could make a ton of money. But obviously, it's most worrying on military stuff, because let's say Iran has guys watching these markets and they're able to see, oh, a crapload of money just came in on a strike happening tomorrow.

[D]

Yeah, I actually have it on Friday morning. It went. It was at 7% that we strike, and then it closed Friday night at 26%. So we went from 7 to 26% just Friday alone.

[C]

And I'm just saying strike. I think a straightforward thing we should say is, like, if you are betting on a US Military operation based on insider knowledge, we should treat that the same way we treat any other espionage deliberately leaking US Military intel. And I'm a bit of an authoritarian, I would say, you know, if you do that, bam. Firing squad.

[E]

Oh, come on.

[C]

Military intelligence.

[E]

I mean, that's true. That's true. Okay, okay.

[B]

It would actually be a good way to. To sow deception, though. So if. If Secretary Hegseth is watching this, you know, and we're about to launch another round of strikes or something. You should, you should deliberately bet money on like the wrong day or something and just show this huge spike going up on one day so that, you know, perhaps our adversaries think, oh my gosh, this is going to be the day they move things out of place. But then that actually isn't the day. And then you strike the day before or something like that.

[C]

Oh, that's for sure real. But I would point out that's kind of like you can have fake spies, fake double agents, fake leaks of intelligence, but you still have to very sharply punish real leaks of intelligence. Absolutely.

[E]

That's interesting. So Faz is bringing up a good point. You can use crypto on these prediction markets, which means there's a level of anonymity. Right. So senators introduced a bill to ban officials from trading on prediction markets. Jeff Merkley from Oregon and Amy Klobuchar. So two Democrats. I don't know. I kind of think it's right up there with like banning stock trading, to

[C]

be honest, which we should probably members of Congress. But it's both. In a lot of ways it's more sinister because you can have a direct financial incentive to just on any potential policy thing like, okay, you know, this company will benefit from Congress's regulatory actions. That's bad. And we know Congress does it. But now we're just on the level of whether we go to war or not is substantially based on how much one can insider trade on what the decision we reaches. That's really spooky.

[E]

Yeah, I actually think you're right. The more I'm thinking about this, the more we really need to kind of clamp down on this because as a matter of fact, the banning stock trading we should do, we should just do it all together as one bill. Ban. Ban officials trading on prediction markets.

[C]

Yeah. And officials and just. I just get generally concerned about the amount that the way these prediction markets let you corrupt the process of government. And I think it's just a ticking time bomb until we have a really bad scandal related to it. Like this is almost marginal. There's some. A really huge one that we could have and it's. It's going to eventually occur. A funny spin off of this, by the way, is that they had betting markets on Kalshi about whether the supreme leader Kameenei would be out by March 1st. And a lot of people were betting on that, possibly because they knew a strike would be hitting him. And Kalshe has announced that actually that was only related to him leaving Office.

[E]

Ah.

[C]

They can't bet on a death because that would create bad incentives. And so they say they are not fulfilling the contract for.

[E]

They're just returning the money.

[B]

Right?

[C]

They're just gonna return the money. And they're not letting people collect their winnings on him getting turned into, you know, pavement paint.

[E]

Got him on a technicality. That. That would be super bumpy. That would bum you out, though. Imagine if you're like the. Imagine like, Lindsey Graham betting on something like that. I bet he would have, like, put a grip down on that and then not getting the payout. Poor Lindsey. But by the way, can we just talk about this guy for. Okay, Lindsey Graham. This guy is, like, frothing at the mouse. Just like, let's bomb more. Let's, like, remove more dictators and regime change. And, like, for the life of me, I do not know why they let this man behind the camera. Why do they let this guy behind the microphone? Why every. If you are wanting popular support for this war, you should put a clampdown order on Lindsey Graham. Because every time the man talks like, I. I cringe. And it doesn't matter what good point that he may be making, I just can't listen to it anymore. That's my rant.

[D]

Well, now we're going a. Talks of Cuba coming soon now, so.

[E]

Yeah, well, listen, I think the whole point with Cuba is that you would maybe be able. Apparently, after Venezuela fell, Cuba's probably.

[D]

Yeah, well, and also Cuba's. I mean, affects us so much more than Iran, which is 7,000 miles away. Cuba's 90 miles.

[E]

Right. From Florida. Yeah. And by the way, you know, I. I do think that there is a case to be made that Cuba could fall just all on its own.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

People don't. And maybe, Jack, you might know this because you spent some time in Cuba, but the Cuban intelligence services are still one of the most highly regarded in the entire world. Like, the whole country sucks. But, like, the one thing that they have that is pretty effective is their intel op.

[B]

That's all the thing. It's the only thing they put their money into.

[E]

No, it's like their biggest export. It's their biggest. I'm not. They sell it to Venezuela. Yeah, it didn't help them.

[D]

Didn't help them much there, but.

[B]

Well, it's.

[E]

Yeah, that's true.

[B]

No, there's no question that the Cuban government, the Cuban communist regime has been definitely weakened for the first time since, I guess, the 1950s. You don't have a Castro in office. Right. And so this is a time where the cult of personality around the Castro family isn't necessarily there in the way that it was. It's something that's clearly right off the coast of the United States. It's something where. Look, it's our. Our oldest overseas base is Guantanamo Bay, where I spent a year since 1898. There was talk about annexing it after the Spanish American War. There's lots of arguments that America should have done this. I'm actually kind of partial to some of those arguments. Again, that's, you know, hypothetical alternate history type stuff. You know, obviously past is unchangeable at this point, but at the same time, it would clearly be much, much more in America's interests to have a friendly government there. In Cuba. There's no question. And it honestly would be in Cuba's interest too.

[E]

Monroe Doctrine. This is our hemisphere.

[B]

Yes.

[E]

I'm so listen, I have a. One frame of reference for far flung wars in the Middle East. I have a whole other frame of reference for wars in our hemisphere or at least, I mean, Cuba.

[B]

Havana is like 90 miles from. From Miami. Right. It's like right there.

[E]

Yeah. I'm not saying I want to go invade, just like I saw Danny give me the stink guy. I'm not trying to go invade Cuba. I'm just saying the interests are a lot easier to sell.

[D]

Well, yeah, and that's an easier thing to sell to the American people than Iran just because of its proximity to the United States.

[E]

Cuba, Blake, invade.

[C]

I just don't. I just feel like you're. Okay. Is it 1960 Cuba? Cuba just is like a dump that if we overthrew it, this would be a classic case of where we'd suddenly be suckered into giving them $20 billion. It's just this decrepit place. It has an average age of like 50. Almost every. Anyone who can get out of that country has left. Who cares it like we've. We've talked about Iran plausibly being this like cold war hangover that all these 65 year olds remember the hostage crisis and want to do something. Iran is. Is that on? Not around Cuba's that on steroids. It's people who are still mad about the Bay of Pigs and maybe the JFK assassination might have involved it. And yeah, they haven't done anything lately.

[D]

The only thing they have are good

[C]

baseball players and we get them to come here.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, listen, here's the thing.

[D]

Thing.

[E]

This is what I'm saying. Lindsey Graham needs to shut his yapper. Stop talking. Get him out of the view of a camera for the love. I know it's a fair, free country, but if I'm the Trump administration, I'm telling Lindsey Graham, stop talking. You are only harming the cause. That's all I'm saying.

[C]

All right, we're going to get off the war here in a sec, but there was a question for Jack from Sandra Gebhart. Jack, can you explain war, meaning we've been successful with quick attacks. Why do we need to keep going in? Now, I know it's not cut and dry, but there is a chance we can be done quick.

[B]

This, I'm reading this again. Why do we need to keep going in? Now, I know it's not cut and dry, but is there a chance we can be gun quick?

[E]

And.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, not exactly sure what the question is, but I guess I'll explain it in terms of this. You know, the difference here between Venezuela and Iran is the difference in regimes. So in Venezuela, you had a durable regime, but at the same time you had, you have a lot more influence to bear and a single singular person who's really in charge of that regime being, you know, in the case of, of that Nicolas Maduro and someone, Delsey Rodriguez, who was willing to work with the United States. In the case of Iran, it's much more of a mixed bag. And I was, I was on Piers Morgan with like, Tim Miller and some people, and they were like, laughing about this. And I was trying to explain to them that, you know, in Iran, it is mixed leadership. It's a decentralized, revolutionary regime where you have the irgc, military, you know, secret military, religious police kind of thing, which we don't really have a cognate for. In the United States, we have the civilian leadership in terms of the president, the foreign minister, and then, of course, the ayatollah and the system of mullahs and now the ayatollah son, who may or may not have taken over. And so it's not like you can just change out one person and suddenly they become pro US it's just not like that. They've also had much, much longer to be in power and have always been, since 1979, a revolutionary state for 47 years. And so they built up all of these institutions, they built up all of this power, all of this internal domestic control for the Islamic government. They just don't have the same type of government that a, a secular state would have. This is also actually, it's kind of the reason that they didn't always work with the Communists, Right. Because the communists were seen as atheists. And so even though they were roughly aligned with the Soviet Union during those years, they weren't necessarily super pro Soviet Union either. They also supported the Islamists in, and the mujahajin in Afghanistan for the same reason. So, you know, perhaps would have been better for their regime to have done so. But they're very fiercely independent, they're very hard to work with, and they are, for lack of a better term, actually Islamic jihadists and radicals.

[E]

You know, most people don't understand the ethnicities. How many ethnicities there are in Iran?

[C]

Yeah, there's a lot.

[E]

I was just looking at this though. Iran is a diverse, multi ethnic nation of over 90 million people with ethnic Persians constituting the majority, approximately, approximately 61%. Other major ethnic groups include the Azeris, 16%, Kurds, 10%, the Lurs, 6% Balak Arabs, and various Turkic tribes such as Turkmen and Qashqai. So this is, I mean, this is. Whereas Venice, okay, New World is different than Old World New World, you got Venezuela, it's got this like national identity. They kind of fall in line. Even though they might have different mixes of European and indigenous or whatever, this is something different. This is Old World stuff where these people have really deeply entrenched identities. And that's why you get factionalism, that's why you get this tribalism. That's why when there's a power vacuum, this tribe fights that tribe and this group, you know, goes.

[C]

I will say my understanding from people I've talked to is a lot of these groups are basically still just Persians like that. On your map here, you've got these purple guys along the Caspian Sea. They're totally just Persian.

[E]

I think you're right. I tend to agree with that. But it's still in. The Kurds are very different than, you

[B]

know, and yeah, the Kurds I would, I would put aside. But, but Persian identity, right? The Persian Empire is an ancient state. So it, it already had sort of this identity as a, as a country in the sense, in a, just in a different way that Iraq and Afghanistan never really had because there was this Persian Empire identity that they all sort of had to begin with. So it isn't necessary. You're not necessarily going to see the same level of separatism as you would in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now, the Kurds, obviously, I wouldn't necessarily put in that same bucket, but at the same time, there's real questions as to whether or not the Kurds are interested in going up against The Iranian army.

[E]

I agree. I think the bigger question is how much popular support does the regime still have? And nobody can give me an answer. By the way, we got a question.

[B]

You can see videos by the way of. Of people marching in Tahrir Square with pictures of the Ayatollah carrying flags of the regime. Again, martyrdom is massive in Shia Islam. To understand the power of giving them a martyr. Someone who died for the Islamic revolution, someone who died at the hands of the great Satan and the little Satan.

[E]

Right.

[B]

The U.S. israeli joint regime, again, putting it in their words. So they're certainly viewing him as a holy martyr. They're certainly viewing him as something, someone to uphold. And it's going to galvanize supporters of the regime in the same way that it may also lend some credibility to the opposition.

[E]

I hear what you're saying, Jack. You know, we got a comment from old Floridian, says you guys need to talk to Robbie Dawkins about what's going on inside Iran. We actually had Robbie on the Charlie Kirk show and got a lot of emails about him. And I've known Robby for years. He's a good dude. He's very bullish, though. And yes, he's in country. He says the popular uprising is gonna materialize in Iran International. They're circling Sunday at the break of dawn, that people are gonna hit the streets. I hope all of that's true. I'm just really skeptical because might not

[B]

want to tell the ROGC that.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, exactly. So anyways, here we go. All right, that's my thoughts.

[D]

Well, before we move on from prediction markets, Blake, I was just wondering if we could get a prediction market going on. A strong cell will grow your hair

[E]

back, and if so, what is the highway Eyebrow. Right.

[C]

I am 100% confident that I shall have a completely luscious and full head of hair.

[E]

He's got to be looking forward to sprouter. Right there. There's a sprouter.

[C]

Right bloom fourth. Like flowers in the. In the desert or something. And

[E]

before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the classics, the principles of the American founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him. They shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead. One of the courses he took was the Genesis story, taught by Hillsdale Professor Dr. Justin Jackson. This free Online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. It's a real college course. Rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith. Gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll today. That's charlieforhillsdale.Com Learn deeply. Lead boldly. Carry it forward.

[C]

But we have a very important topic that has nothing to do with Iran. It has nothing to do with Q. Cuba, mercifully. And that is Luigi the Musical.

[E]

Oh, not.

[C]

Not Mario's brother. That other Luigi. Luigi man.

[E]

G O N. I think Jackson go to the opening night. Do man on the street.

[C]

I want to go to the opening night.

[E]

Blake. You. You, Blake and Jack need to go.

[C]

I. The thing is, is I just. I kind of want to see the musical. Yeah, we have clips. I'm not sure if this is a clip from the musical or just about it. It just says clip clip. But I. I think we got to see it. It is $460.

[E]

Can I get it a soap and some towels?

[C]

I guess.

[B]

Yeah. Let's just check your balance.

[C]

Manioni.

[B]

It looks like it is $400,000.

[E]

Wait, what? What.

[B]

What are you talking about? What do you mean?

[E]

Where is that coming from? It looks like a couple of places.

[B]

MILFs for health care reform. Bottoms United for Luigi.

[C]

This last Lindsey Graham.

[E]

Okay. I saw that clip earlier. I didn't understand. Foz was like, oh, good tie in for the next clip. And I didn't catch it, but I actually, I LOL'd at the. the. Lindsey Graham.

[C]

Lindsey Graham. So that was an excerpt from. I suppose. Suppose not a song I want. What are the musical numbers in this?

[E]

No idea. But the San Fran looked fabulous. Yeah.

[C]

So for those who couldn't see it that had. They had Luigi in an orange jumpsuit. So I guess I think the context is that must be him after he's been arrested.

[E]

Yeah. He's getting a donation and you buy supplies and they check your. You know. Yeah. Anyways, I. I think. Jack, I think you should start.

[B]

I mean, look, this is disgusting. There's no question. And this is. It just goes to show you that the. The actual rise of support for Bolshevik activity is absolutely alive and well in the United States. Not only. No. So not only do we see the sort of transformation of Luigi Maggione into a folk hero who is an assassin, by the way, who shot and killed

[E]

someone in cold blooded murder on the

[B]

street, on video that we've also seen the. I can't believe we're showing the video. We've seen him lose the access to the death penalty. I think the death penalty has been stripped in, in both cases now the state and federal case which he's facing. And by the way, he shows no remorse for his actions. He was lashing out in court just a couple of days ago when he was in his last hearing. So certainly shows no remorse. Tyler Robinson also shows no remorse by the way, smirking and laughing in, in his court hearings. And you see Maggione also. I think they took away his murder charge in, in one of the cases. I'm trying to remember off the top of my head. But it's, it's. The way that this has been handled in the courts is completely insane. Public opinion is absolutely playing a role here. The judiciary is by and large in agreement with antifa activity here. And you know, what can I say? It's. It's. It's. Sacco and Vanzetti got what they deserved and Luigi deserves exactly the same. And yet here we are 100 years later and we just can't seem to deal with these Italian anarchists anymore.

[E]

A little swipe at the end.

[C]

I'm looking at whether it's any good. And I guess so the. It had a San Francisco run. Now it's just. It's running in New York only a few blocks away from where they actually did the murder. Where the murder was committed. A theater critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, which I guess it's something called the newspaper. I don't know if those. I didn't know those existed still. But. So this Lily Janiac said, if only the show itself could justify the hype bringing national attention to the often underappreciated Bay Area theater scene. Unfortunately, it just isn't any good. Which I've got to say. How can San Francisco, like. How do they produce a bad musical if there's. I feel like if any town has

[E]

enough, you know, Remember the gay men's choir?

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Should be able to produce good musicals. It should be San Francisco.

[E]

Where's that. That musical that we're coming for your kids. Yeah, Children.

[D]

Gay San Francisco Gay Choir.

[E]

Yeah. You think that. Yeah, that wasn't any good either. It was just shockingly horrific. So. So it says the musical is satirical prison comedy inspired by the bizarre. True story. It's not bizarre, it's murderous. It's disgusting. Of three high profile inmates housed together at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn sold out its preview run and is now adding new. Part comedy, part social commentary, Luigi the Musical reimagines larger than life public figures as exaggerated characters representing three disillusioned pillars of American life. Healthcare, Hollywood and tech. Luigi the Musical uses comedy to bring deeper questions to the surface, says director and co creator Nova Bradford. But it says, Luigi the Musical doesn't glorify violence, it interrogates it. Oh God.

[C]

We need a ban on using the word interrogate in describing anything that is not the police questioning somebody. Because they do. That's a total college, postmodern world word.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

So what they do, Would they do a J6 musical? Would they say, oh, J6, which you know, where. No one died. No one was killed on J6. No one was killed by Maga. Right. On J6, Ashley Babbitt died. You know, the protester who died. No, because they would lose their minds if anyone did something like that. But if you do a Luigi Maggione musical where Luigi Maggione is clearly, by the way, the protagonist of this thing where he's not a comedy that. Yeah, he's, he's. They're basically. I don't even think they're giving him an anti hero arc. I think they're just showing him as a hero. Yeah, they're just, they're just making him like the hero and everyone's a celebrity and he's just.

[C]

What if they made it?

[B]

I wonder, I wonder if he can. I wonder if he's actually getting any money out of this thing. Probably not because it's.

[C]

I think it would be illegal for him to get it under Son of Sam.

[B]

Yeah, there's that act that's. I forgot what the, the name of the law is. But you can't benefit from.

[C]

Because the actual Son of Sam sold his memoirs, I believe so.

[B]

Sam law. Yeah, that's right.

[E]

So yeah, here we got the clip. It's 6:35. Let's play it.

[C]

Saturday Night Live does this all the

[E]

time, which is why we lead into satire.

[B]

Satire you have to take to an extreme so people know this is not about the people. It's about the themes that we're interrogating. The reaction, I think about whether we were in the right to be creating art in this way also overlooks the fact that we are all kind of exposed to, to frequent information and takes on these things all the time.

[E]

There is a lot of violence surrounding us right now and of course we are not. Our intention is never going to be to make a mockery of the. Of that ever. We would never make.

[D]

Every single person was gay.

[E]

All three of them were gay mafia people.

[C]

Did that guy.

[E]

Here's the issue.

[C]

Did that first guy have like a Hitler mustache? He kind of looked like he did.

[E]

No, that's just a San Francisco gay men's choir.

[C]

We need to zoom in on maybe the same producer.

[E]

We should look back.

[C]

That's a toothbrush.

[E]

Filmography or whatever. I think that stageography. So here's the big problem. And I'm stealing this from Faz. He's totally right on this. The big problem is that there's a freaking audience for this. We have become so unmoored from, you know, morality. We've become so unmoored from the value of life and that life should be protected at all costs. Okay. Yeah. You can interrogate the healthcare system without, you know, further contributing to creating a folk hero out of Luigi Maggione who is a cold blooded murderer who is guilty of first degree murder and assassination. And you know, what happened to Charlie? I mean, I'll never forget the clips of Charlie warning about the rise of assassination culture. Only to see him become a victim of it and for them to do this and to completely brush it off and talk about his art and that. This is some elevated thing. No.

[D]

Well, we have a graph on it. 31 is the graph that 30% of lives believe it's totally justified.

[E]

Yeah. Violence will live in infamy. Disgusting.

[B]

I'll just, I'll just say, you know, because I know we're all thinking it. They would do one of these about Charlie if, if Tyler Robinson was, you know, more photogenic and. Yeah, and. And if they could get away, I

[E]

would, I would literally, I would. There.

[B]

You know, they would.

[E]

I would, you know, they would. Absolutely nuts. And I would do everything in my power to just ruin their days.

[C]

Everything in your power?

[E]

Not, obviously not that legally speaking. In Minecraft, I would, I would. I would try and block it. I would sue them. I would. I would protest outside the venue.

[B]

But does anyone disagree?

[E]

Do you? I totally agree with you. I agree. I agree. Yeah.

[C]

I.

[B]

That they would. They'd be laughing about it and they would, they would. They would clearly be mocking Erica. There's no question about that. We see that every day now, which is disgusting. And they would make that a huge part of it and it would be. It would just be turned into a huge joke.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's sort of like this giant mockery. It really is. It's a. It's making a mockery out of something

[C]

Extraordinarily, I can see, I can see the reality manifesting in front of me where the show keeps playing or they just bring it back. Where they successfully. They meme this so hard that Luigi gets off on a heinous murder he committed and then he shows up at his own musical, his own satirical musical.

[B]

There is a musical called the Assassins, isn't there?

[C]

I don't know. I'm not a huge musical theater enthusiast, but.

[B]

So there's a musical by Stephen Sondheim called the Assassins. It is a. You know, this is kind of a. Also uses satire. I mean, Stephen Sondheim is very, very famous musical theater guy. And I'm trying to remember the cat. So the characters in this are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon czolgosz, who shot McKinley, Giuseppe Zingara, John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald. So those are all, those are all cast members of, you know, members of the, of the show in the Assassins. And it's, you know, it's, it's all about them. Pretty fun.

[C]

Well, in the book, Genghis Khan, very, very famous. In the Book of Mormon, they have Genghis Khan, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Johnny Cochran appear during a song set in hell.

[B]

They also have a general. I can't remember his name. Do you remember his name, Blake?

[C]

General. I can't say his name because this is merely a PG13 show, not an R rated one.

[E]

Breaking inside scoop from our friend Grant Stitchfield. Trump will endorse Senator John Cornyn over Texas ag.

[C]

That's barely breaking. I feel like that was breaking.

[E]

And there's a video to save America.

[B]

So are we getting the SAVE act?

[E]

Apparently. That's a thought. Is it worth having Corny in the Senate for six more years if you get the Save America Act.

[C]

So is the SAVE act and the

[B]

Save America act, is that part of the scoop?

[E]

Yeah.

[C]

Is it? You know, I kind of wonder because

[E]

Paxton's been promised a very big position within the Trump administration. Cornyn's going to agree to pass the Save America app.

[D]

Does that mean we're getting rid of the filibuster?

[E]

It could be me. It could mean that we're getting rid of Pam Bondi.

[C]

Oh, boy. I mean, that'll be a fun confirmation fight, too.

[B]

I mean, you still have to.

[C]

There's so much exciting things that can happen.

[E]

Well, I would. I don't think.

[B]

I don't think Bondi goes anywhere.

[C]

I mean, our, our chat is not enjoying this news, by the way.

[E]

Yeah, I'm, I'm just. Listen this is from Grant Stitchfield. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying he's. He's saying it's an inside scoop.

[D]

Wouldn't that mean that we have to end the filibuster then? Because they're not gonna be standing.

[E]

I don't know what it would mean. Maybe they'd be willing to do it finally just for this.

[C]

I mean, it does strike me as the sort of thing they might promise him where they'll say, well, now he's on board, but we can. You can't do it because this other senator.

[E]

Well, you'd have to get a. Yeah, I mean, if they're smart, they would say, Listen, we need McConnell on board. We need Susan Collins on board. We need least. Because I guarantee you those senators want Cornyn to stick around. They don't want another bulldog like Paxton.

[C]

Now, will it. Is it worth passing the SAVE Act? I know a lot of. I mean, one of my thought crimes is I know a lot of people are very invested in it. I don't know that that act is. If I was going to say, if I needed one piece of legislation that I could repeal the filibuster pass. I don't know that it would be that.

[E]

You know what mine would be?

[C]

Immigration reform.

[E]

Oh, yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[E]

I take the annual green cards down from 1.2 million to about 0.2, which is about net. Net zero immigration. And I change them all to like genius visas. Yeah, genius visas and gold visas. You know, I. Turns out this whole Trump thing where he's like, you have to have $5 million of net worth and you get a gold. Gold visa or whatever, you have to invest. Turns out a lot of countries have that and they're very successful. So I'm open minded to that.

[B]

But the problem with ours, though is historically with the EB5 program, it. It.

[D]

The.

[B]

The investments are always end up kind of being like scams.

[E]

Yeah. So totally.

[B]

Like the Chinese investors get their green cards and the jobs and projects never materialize.

[E]

No, you're totally right. It would have to be actually stringently enforced. But here's the benefit. If you drop the number down of total green cards, then you'd actually be able to.

[D]

Well, Andrew, if we had. If we had real senators who actually showed up to work, we could get more than one thing done, too. If we passed the filibuster.

[E]

Yeah. Well, if we didn't have a fake and gay Senate, then it would be actually something we could do.

[D]

But none of them actually show up to work.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, the whole thing. Blake has a great take on this. That the most positive upside of nuking the filibuster is that Congress would actually have to do work. Yeah, yeah.

[C]

You know, and it'll be tough because this is why. But I feel like you kind of want to have the Democrats break it because one, there will be some.

[E]

We don't have the brakes.

[B]

Right.

[C]

There will be some criticism.

[E]

Utah this exactly so fool too.

[C]

And like, there will be some backlash against the party that does it. It'll take them time to do it. We seem to constantly be oscillating back and forth. You don't want to be breaking the filibuster to pass one bill only three months before likely losing the ability to pass.

[E]

So here's the deal. I've been told very affirmatively that really the way to do this will not impact the midterms. If you want the SAVE act passed, you got to include it in the reconciliation bill in September. And then it won't. It will be ready for the presidential election. 28, but it's not going to be ready before then. The other thing they should. They should include in this. I don't know if there's a way to do it in reconciliation. Redo the damn census. The thing is.

[D]

No, they can do it before the president has the power to call for it.

[E]

In theory. In theory, the Commerce Department. Yeah. Could call for it. But then you need to fund it. And the question is, how do you fund. I mean, listen, where there's a will, there's a way. I believe that that's the way democratic republics should work in theory. I don't know. The problem with letting derail us.

[D]

Well, also the problem with letting the Democrats do it first is they're just gonna call for amnesty.

[E]

Well, they're gonna call for amnesty. They're gonna make Puerto Rico state so

[D]

we'll never win again anyway.

[E]

And then they're gonna. They're gonna pack the Supreme Court.

[D]

So then waiting to get back in power by letting them do it first. It doesn't really matter anyways because they would have already.

[E]

Why don't we match their state for state thing and basically turn eastern Washington to a state. Why don't we turn eastern Oregon?

[C]

Well, you do. To dismember states. To do dismember states. It cannot be done without the permission of that state. So you'd have to be cutting pieces off a state that agrees to this.

[E]

All right, well, then break up Republican states into two.

[C]

I think at the point where we're Creating new states by splitting states in half. I'm just going to say it. We are at. We are at the point of just national deaths spiral. You might as well just fight a civil war.

[E]

Yeah, no, I. I don't disagree.

[C]

I think.

[E]

I think a.

[C]

More likely it'll be funny for them to start trying to make Puerto Rico a state, and then they'll just have to confront what a disaster. What a disaster piece Puerto Rico is as an entity.

[E]

Yeah, Puerto Rico. Oh, we have that on standby.

[C]

I guess we do.

[D]

I guess we have a floating pile of garbage. That was the line.

[E]

What?

[D]

The floating pile of garbage. That was the line. I guess what we could do.

[C]

What we could. We could. We could use the. We could get rid of the filibuster and we could impose independence on Puerto Rico.

[E]

Preempt them.

[C]

Preempt them.

[E]

Now he's thinking side.

[C]

We just give the presidency to Puerto

[B]

Rico for our Caribbean operation. So it makes sense. We have a lot of naval. A lot of naval infrastructure down there.

[E]

Well, we just have to lease that piece of land like we do with Guantanamo Bay. Here's the other part we could do. And I saw this floated in an article. So based on the history of how D.C. was laid out, you know that the original map was stretched much further into Northern Virginia.

[C]

Yes. It used to be public square.

[E]

Yeah, exactly. So square. The point is you could capture back something like 600,000 or 500,000 Northern Virginians and put them back in the District of Columbia. Apparently by presidential edict.

[C]

That's what they claim.

[E]

I'm not sold on that. I know, I know, I know. I'm just saying if you're gonna. If you're. If you're preempting their preemption. Right. If you're getting ahead of this, you make Puerto Rico independent, you permanently lease the naval facility there, then you grant back the land in Northern Virginia. So you make Virginia essentially a red state. Then by giving all the dems back to D.C. and couple, and then you do the immigration thing. Those are the things you really end the savings.

[C]

Yeah, it's tough.

[E]

Those would be preemptive measures to block their ability to. Really.

[C]

It's tough. It would be interest. Just a side effect of creating a real Congress is it would be hard to know exactly what would unfold because people have gotten so used to voting with a Congress that's fake. So you'd probably. You'd probably, in the end, end up getting more moderates in Congress because people would get a little more spooked by the promises People make because we're so used. Like, you want to vote for people. Like these days, people are voting for these absolute fire breathers in part because I think deep down they know that nothing is ever getting passed by this Congress. That's my gut feeling.

[E]

I don't know about that.

[C]

Maybe not, though. Like in. I guess, to go the other way. In the. I guess I would say in the uk, they have a lot of squishes in parties and in the uk, they do have total, absolute sovereignty of Parliament, can pass whatever it wants at any time. And there's definitely no filibuster. And you always have majority control because that's what decides who is the Prime Minister. And as a result, you seem to perpetually have a bunch of squishes in the House of Commons. And I think. I think you see that in a lot of different ways.

[E]

I think you might be right in the long term, but in the short run, we've got this muscle memory built up for fire breathers and we want them. I mean, this is the whole point of, like, it's dumb for Trump to back Cornyn when you have Paxton sitting there, who's proven he can win a statewide race by 10 points. By the way. Not saying he would repeat that. Maybe it'd be closer, certainly, because that was a wavy or a little bit with Trump winning. But anyways.

[D]

Well, and also, if.

[E]

I mean, grassroots is upset about.

[D]

Yeah. The grassroots may not even show up, though, also in the process.

[E]

This is what I'm worried about. You take everything good off the board and you think you're gonna energize the base. Yeah. You have another thing coming. Like, you have to give the grassroots its due. You have to give.

[D]

Especially when the turnout was already going to be low. So now you just.

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

Kick them again.

[E]

Fully believe that. I think there's been a lot of press. I think the thing that turns turnout out is press. Just people talking about it. Talrico. The drama. Like it's going to turn out people.

[B]

Yeah. But you got to figure that if the grass corner is a guy who was booed off of the stage at the NRA convention in Texas just a couple of years ago. So if the grassroots aren't fired up for this guy. No, that's because he. Just because he gets the endorsement. Right. As powerful as it is, that doesn't mean you're going to get the same A level, the same level of turnout. And then this is a race we know where the Democrats are going to put a ton of money into. We just Know, they're going to. They're going to look at flipping a seat.

[E]

And I got interviewed by this New York Times reporter, real seasoned political reporter, because I was tweeting up a storm yesterday about Tariko, and she kept. You could tell what she was really driving at. She's like, do you think this poses a more serious danger to the Republican Party when you have a evangelical that kind of presents the way he does? And I. My take on it is, you know, maybe in the context of Texas, he'll fool some, like, normie, middle of the road people. But, like, if you're a real Christian, a real evangelical, like, steeped in the culture of evangelicalism, the big mega churches in Texas, this guy makes your skin crawl because it's like this fake religious skin suit that he's wearing, this golly gee shucks, like God's non binary. And it's like, you know, trans abortions and pronouns on your business cards. It's like, no, this guy. This guy will animate the base in a massive way. So I actually think Talrico is so hateable that he's going to animate a big turnout. But you're right, Cornyn is not going to animate a big turnout. I think Texas is different than a lot of states. Like, Texas has its own identity. Texas has its own gravitational pull, you know, and I think Trump's endorsement is only going to carry so far.

[D]

It is very similar, though, to Warnock and the fake Christian act that they pulled there in 2020 and the 2021 runoff there, too. They got him to become a senator. Yeah, a lot of people stayed home after 2020, and it with the. And then independents either voted for him and fell for that or just didn't vote at all.

[E]

Yeah, well, interesting.

[D]

Mike Pompeo has also just endorsed John Cornyn, of course. Yeah.

[E]

All right, listen. Politics is the art of the possible. You don't get everything you want. It's important to say that. You know, we were looking at that one clip, Blake, where some caller called in. Jack, you'll appreciate this some. It was an email we got. You read it to Charlie and maybe I just saw it. Maybe you didn't see this clip, but the email said, I regret voting for President Trump. This was, you know, 2025, early 2025. And Charlie just immediately said, be careful when you say that we have the clip.

[D]

I think we do.

[E]

All right, if you have the clip. And I, you know, it's moments like this where you got to remember that President Trump has been an absolute fighter for the grassroots. He doesn't get everything right. And it's moments like this that.

[D]

491. Yeah, 491. We have this.

[E]

491.

[C]

Joe Spinella, $5. I regret my vote voted Trump 16, 2024.

[A]

Let me just pause.

[C]

We're almost done.

[A]

Well, no, no, I wanted to pause. Be careful with that statement. Who is his. What's his name?

[C]

Joe.

[A]

Joe. Because if all of a sudden the economy's booming in December and we're getting spending cuts and the border secure and we're on project 10 million. Be careful. Just saying you regret it if this just might be one night you don't like. Just be careful with such a statement like that.

[E]

That was pre. Strong sell. Blake.

[C]

Yeah. Had no hair upon my face.

[E]

Jack, you are. You are an avatar for many in the maga movement. Reflect on what Charlie said there.

[B]

Yeah, I get what Charlie's saying. Charlie's saying, let him cook. Charlie saying, let the man cook. Let the man that we entrusted with our vote, the man who rose up at Butler, Pennsylvania, to his feet and roared like a lion, the man who we put all of our hopes and dreams into in 2024. Let him cook. All right? Literally, just let him cook. And you don't always know what the end game is going to be with President Trump because he operates from a level of strategic ambiguity. He uses strategic ambiguity to his benefit. I mean, you might go to sleep on Friday and wake up and find that we've arrested the President of Venezuela. Right. Without, you know, any question about that.

[E]

It was a little bit of a surprise.

[B]

It's just something where I think what Charlie's saying is, you know, wait until you see the results. Wait until you see the results.

[E]

Here's what. Here's where I go back. I fall back on the fact that Democrats are simply unacceptable. And so, yeah, we need to keep the fire on. We need to keep the pressure on. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is a personal friend of mine, but he's now going to be in charge of dhs. I will absolutely light him up with a billion texts if he starts, you know, getting soft. And so you keep the pressure, but I think you'll. But listen, here's. Let me just preview what's going to happen here. They're going to put negotiating pieces on the table at DHS to get sanctuary cities to fall in line. The question is, what do you put on the table to get that done? Anyways, I'm just. I'm. I'm previewing where this is going to go and everybody needs to brace for impact. I will say you will get commas, not drama. You know, that was the expression that one of our guests used on the show today. If you get them to hand over the criminal illegals that are just arrested in normal due process, okay, you will get massive results if you get that. So are they going to try and trade amnesty for some? Are they going to try and trade guest workers for some? Are they going to say, hey, we'll leave the peaceful ones alone? Are they going to say DACA recipients get citizenship, whatever that thing is that they're gonna put on the offering block? It's gonna be. It could be, you know, I don't know. Just, just, just. I'm warning you. But the point is, Democrats are simply unacceptable. We gotta keep the pressure on. But like, the reason we're even talking about somali fraud at $19 billion, the reason we're talking about 20 million illegals flooding the border, the reason we're talking about Catholics getting surveilled, the reason we're talking about J6ers getting imprisoned, the reason we're talking about all these terrible things is because Democrats. So they're simply unacceptable. Is as frustrating as the process can be. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi? For some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. All right, last topic.

[C]

If we want to keep going, if we have five months, we could do kids in church.

[E]

Yeah, let's hit kids in church. You like that one?

[C]

We're diving into it. All right, so this is all. This was all sparked. I believe we have the church in Washington. Let's throw that up. And let's post David French, too. Well, we need the initial prompting. So this is a church in Washington and they publish their loud kids policy.

[E]

They have four options, which is.

[C]

At Mount Washington Church. We are committed to transparency and accountability in all matters of church life. The following document outlines our comprehensive procedures regarding loud children in worship. Please consider this your official notice of policy clarification, effective immediately. If a family is considering visiting Mount Washington church and they have a loud kid, the following options are available. Option one, the family brings the kid. Option two, the family makes sure that they bring the kid. Option three, the family is to see that the kid is brought to church. And option four, the kid is absolutely welcome and. And respected. So this went viral. Of course, they say policy enacted, no exceptions. They're saying, bring your kids in. It doesn't matter how much they scream or puke.

[A]

My.

[E]

The final line was the best if your child makes noise, you are not bothering us. You are blessing us.

[C]

So there were a variety of responses to that. That was embraced by a man I feel like we don't hear as much from lately.

[E]

He's relegated, but he was.

[C]

He popped up a lot during the early Trump days and he does still exist, and that is David French. And David French strongly endorsed that. He thought that was a great policy for churches to have. But there was also a competing response. Tweet from Matt Walsh, a guy a lot of us know, and he said, I don't love it. He says, I'm actually considerably less tolerant of loud kids in public now than I was before I had my own. Your children should not be allowed to. To disrupt a church service or any other public gathering. If they're being unruly, remove them. If they're old enough to know better, take them out and discipline them. And if they're too young to control themselves, then again, remove them. I've had to do this many times in many situations. It blows my mind when parents just let them just sit there and let their kids totally disrupt and irritate an entire room full of strangers. I don't have any kids, but how do, how do you guys feel about this? Jack and Andrew.

[E]

Jack's. Jack's the Catholic guy. Go first.

[B]

Well, I'll go. Yeah. So, I mean, we look when, when your kids are little, that's a time where, you know, like, like babies and, and, and toddlers. Each kid, you know, kind of grows out of it at a certain time. They're going to go through that crying stage and yeah, there are times if the kid's just wailing, you go in the back, you just. You take them in the back, you hang out there till they. Till they've come down, and then you bring them back. You want them. You want them to experience as much as possible. So one thing that we do at church that we've done since we've had kids is that we sit in the very front row, or at least as close to the front row as possible so they can see everything that's going on. And we tend to choose churches that have, you know, have much more going on in terms of what you see. Not just stained glass windows, but artwork and, you know, more traditional services than sort of like the YMCA with a cross kind of churches, if you know what I mean. And so we want them to be able to see all of that. But at the same time, if your kid's being loud, if your kid's being unruly, then they need to be disciplined. There's no question. And I use a variety of. Of incentives and punishments. Right? So, you know, it's. It's the carrot and stick method, but the incentives are, hey, you know, usually what I'll tell the kids is, all right, guys, if you're good in church today, we're going to Wawa. But then if they're not good, I'll sit there and go, is that Wawa behavior? Is that Wawa behavior? And then they'll kind of realize, if not, and if they're really bad, guess what? We don't go to Wawa. And if they're worse, they go. They go in the back and they get time out. There's no question. So you have to discipline. So I think there's a, you know, look, I don't want to ever come down on a parent that's, you know, that's got a kid that's not listening. But at the same time, you do have to have, like, actual, you know, just basic social understanding and social graces when you're out in public, not just in church.

[E]

Yeah, I sounded off on this and got, like, quoted in a few places. Surprise. You know, it's just like, listen, I'm a father of three. My kids are crazy. Crazy. They're really good kids. Pretty well behaved when we give them, like, when we prep them, but they're loud. Like, we have energetic kids. I actually think, Jack, your kids, from what I've gathered, are better behaved in public than mine. So there's zero judgment here coming from me. But the thing is, there is a Big difference between fostering a reasonable tolerance for families and that kids are going to cry and they're going to be loud sometimes versus just embracing and endorsing absolute chaos and disruption mixed places. We're talking restaurants, movie theaters, churches. Kids should absolutely be on their best behavior. And if. I totally agree with Walsh, if they're not, you remove them. And by the way, we have a whole deal with our kids. It's like if you guys don't shape up, you get a warning. We'll just leave. And yeah, it's embarrassing for the whole family. We'll leave, we'll say, sorry, I gotta go. Our kids are monsters right now and we gotta leave. So I think. And by the way, once you do that once or twice, the kids figure it out and they stop acting up. And as soon as you give them that warning, they'll usually simmer down. And this is the other thing. I'm all about having like context for kids to participate in church life and in the mix. Not just in kids church or childcare or whatever, but it's like, you know, they, they, they have to be respectful. And then if they don't prove that they can be respectful again, you remove them. So, yeah, I think this is just like, this feels like a woke liberal church that French would go to.

[C]

I don't know if it is a woke liberal church or not.

[E]

I don't know.

[C]

I think that you, I think you would commonly see this in. I think it's a way of saying like, oh, we're pro family, we're pro. Like it's a, it's kind of aligns with pro life stuff to be like super pro baby in all contexts. I think it's probably a misguided impulse over.

[E]

That's what I'm saying.

[C]

I don't think it's a big deal either way. I think one thing that is interesting is there's probably an aspect of maybe low church versus high church there or something.

[E]

Yeah.

[C]

Like there should generally be a degree of solemnity to a lot of religious services. Yeah. And if you're just letting a kid scream, this is. It does disrupt solemnity. There should be an element of the sacred.

[E]

This is what I think. If you don't care about young kids disrupting your church service, you don't have a high regard for what your pastor's preaching or the word of God or the homily or whatever. That's what I would say.

[C]

To put it another way, for example, would you want a kid screaming as loud as possible during a wedding During

[E]

a funeral, during your favorite movie.

[C]

And for a lot of parishes, you should view a weekly religious service. I mean, certainly if you're a Catholic at a mass, Orthodox at a mass, you should see that as similarly sacred, actually, to a funeral or a wedding.

[E]

I agree. Jack, you were about to chime in.

[B]

No, of course. I was just gonna say, you know, when you talk about in. In when you go to Latin mass, it's. I mean, you see so many kids there because it's. There's so many young couples these days. And, you know, kids are all over the place. However, when church starts, they stay in the back. If they're, you know, below a certain age. If they're below the age of being able to control themselves, then they hang out in back with mom and there's,

[E]

you know, it's just totally. It's totally magical. It's common sense. Faz says should be more sacred than a movie theater. That's my point. Most of these people that wrote this letter would get more upset if these young kids were allowed during their trip to the movies and a date night than they would if they interrupted their church service.

[C]

Yeah, probably.

[E]

Blake.

[C]

I don't know. I don't have any kids. I don't have a super strong investment in this.

[B]

Blake is really loud during movies, though. I remember whenever I'm in town and there's a new Tyler Perry out, Blake is always demanding that we go see it, especially the Medea series. He's never missed a single one opening night, by the way. And he's.

[C]

Jack, you know that's not true because, you know, I make sure to never travel when there's a new Madea movie coming up now.

[B]

No, that's what I'm saying. I'm in town when I'm in town.

[C]

I would never let you. I would never. I wouldn't want to be hosting you when I could be going to a Medea movie.

[B]

Don't go in there. Don't go in. Don't open that door. Blake. You're excited for Scary Movie six too, right?

[E]

Scary movies.

[C]

They're up to six of them.

[E]

I can't believe those are still going. I've completely.

[D]

We have something scary loaded, though.

[E]

We wait. We have something terrifying. Look, I think this here's the poster for scary movie 6. The strong cell is fully kicked in. Strongcell.com 90 day risk free money back guarantee. You too could have Blake as good or his hair as good as Blake. Oh, my goodness. Yeah, it's funny. If you throw back to that clip of you and Charlie and how, like, just everything was shaved.

[B]

Blake, you look like a newborn in that cliff.

[C]

That's why I'm not allowed to scream in church.

[E]

Screen grab of that looks like the

[B]

gerber baby Was that. Yeah.

[E]

Screaming in church, Blake, is. We need. AI could make this happen.

[C]

You guys are weird.

[E]

Well, that was fun. Blake,

[B]

Baby, stand up comic. And he's. It was. It was hilarious. He's like. He's like, so what's the deal with breastfeeding, huh?

[E]

My.

[B]

My food comes from my mom. It's crazy.

[E]

All right, we. Before we go here, Jack, we have to. I'm just waiting. Are we sure? I'm getting. It's typing. I'm gonna say something. I just want to make. It's personal information. Hold on. Stand. Standby. Oh, wait. One Waiting.

[B]

Waiting.

[E]

Never mind standby. I'll do the second part of this. Don't forget daylight savings. It's happening.

[C]

I want to forget it.

[B]

Yes.

[D]

Yeah. Us not changing.

[C]

Luckily, we get to forget it. We don't have to change it. Yeah, we still have to change the time.

[E]

We come to work. Our show's an hour earlier. Yeah.

[C]

Which stinks, by the way.

[E]

I know.

[C]

Super lame.

[E]

An hour earlier does. Does kind of stink for us.

[C]

So sinful dst.

[B]

Wait, wait, wait. You have to explain this for people who don't understand that outside of you guys, it's effect. You guys get affected by daylight savings way more than everybody else because in a way, your time doesn't change, but your relationship to the rest of the country changes because Arizona doesn't have.

[D]

We also don't get as much light, like, at night. It's terrible.

[E]

Okay, hold on. Go back to the. Go back to the Blake fro650. So caboose just goes. Blake looks like he's about to kneel for the national anthem. It's so true. Colin Kaepernick, I think you are the same. You have the same pigment as him.

[C]

By the way, I think my friend may have literally just done a Colin Kaepernick me mashup there.

[E]

Is that what that is?

[C]

I might literally do that.

[E]

All right, fine. You have the exact same pigment. All right. And we have a big family business announcement. Our boy Russ, who works on human events and also on this show. So it's. One of Jack's producers has gotten engaged.

[B]

Let's go.

[E]

Let's go. Congratulations to Russ. You are joining the club of the. Well, almost joining the club.

[D]

Danny's next, hopefully, maybe.

[E]

And then Blake.

[C]

Yeah, we'll see.

[E]

Send your emails freedom, charliekirk.com if you are. There it is. Congratulations to our guy Russ. This has been. He's been planning this. He was gonna come into work today, and I was like, no, you can't. And, you know, anyways, so that's Russ, one of Jack's producers.

[B]

He also. He also just became a homeowner. I believe in. In the last.

[E]

Let's go checking off the boxes. He's living the American dream.

[B]

Total, total life upgrade for him. House is swank, by the way. Got to see some of the pictures. Haven't gone and visited myself, but Rusty, great guy. And, you know, I said, just make sure. Make sure she's not a spy, bro. Just make sure she's not a spy. Because, you know. You know, that's what always happens around us. What can I say?

[E]

Oh, man. Hopefully she's been properly vetted, so. Well, There you go. That's it. What a good note to end on, you know, crying babies. Russ is gonna have some soon.

[C]

Church wait in church, probably.

[E]

And strong cell is working to great effect. All right, Jack, you want to take us out?

[B]

Ladies and gentlemen, as always, always go out there and commit more thought crime. For more on many of these stories

[C]

and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.