When Should Trump Say "No More" To the Courts?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show – "When Should Trump Say 'No More' To the Courts?"

Host: Charlie Kirk
Guest: Mike Davis (also referred to as "Cremeux")
Release Date: March 25, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, host Charlie Kirk delves into the pressing issue of judicial despotism and its impact on presidential authority. Joining him is Mike Davis, an expert in judicial matters and statistics, who provides critical insights into the overreach of unelected judges and discriminatory practices in higher education admissions.

---

Judicial Activism and Presidential Authority

Charlie Kirk opens the discussion by addressing the growing concern over judicial activism, particularly how unelected judges are undermining the will of the electorate and the constitutional powers of the President. He introduces Mike Davis to provide a macro analysis of the current judicial landscape.

Notable Quote:

Charlie Kirk (00:00): "How do we reign in the judicial despotism?"

Mike Davis responds by detailing President Trump's efforts to counteract judicial overreach, highlighting his administration's initiatives to enhance government efficiency and combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government. Davis emphasizes Trump's commitment to upholding executive powers under Article II of the Constitution, contrasting it with the perceived overreach of activist judges.

Notable Quote:

Mike Davis (02:19): "President Trump is doing what he promised American voters he would do, and he's doing it fast."

---

Case Study: Judge Boasberg and Judicial Overreach

A significant portion of the conversation focuses on Judge Boasberg, a federal judge accused of exceeding his judicial authority. Davis critiques Boasberg's recent orders, including the controversial directive for President Trump to redirect $2 billion in foreign aid and halt military operations by turning around planes carrying foreign terrorists.

Notable Quote:

Mike Davis (05:00): "He's trying to sabotage the presidency because of policy and political disagreements."

Charlie Kirk probes further into the practical implications of such judicial overreach, questioning the recourse available to the President when courts issue egregious orders. Davis emphasizes that impeachment, though challenging, remains a viable threat to restrain judicial despotism.

Notable Quote:

Mike Davis (06:50): "This is not judicial power they're exercising. They're trying to tell the president that he has to turn around planes during a military operation."

---

Strategies to Combat Judicial Despotism

Mike Davis outlines a multi-faceted approach to counteract judicial overreach:

1. Political Counterpunches: Engaging in political actions to challenge judges who overstep their boundaries.
2. Jurisdictional Challenges: Targeting the jurisdictional authority of overreaching judges.
3. Funding Cuts: Reducing financial support to the judiciary to limit their influence.
4. Impeachment Threats: Utilizing the threat of impeachment to impose accountability, even if immediate removal isn't possible.

Notable Quote:

Mike Davis (06:50): "Impeachment as the sword of Damocles over their heads."

Kirk concurs, emphasizing the severity of the issue and the need for decisive action to protect executive authority and national security.

---

Discrimination in Higher Education Admissions: The NYU Leak

Shifting focus, the podcast addresses a leaked NYU dataset revealing significant racial disparities in admissions, with black students being admitted at higher rates despite lower average SAT scores compared to white and Asian students.

Key Findings by Mike Davis:

• Average SAT Scores:
  • Black Students: ~1290
  • Asian Students: ~1486
  • White Students: Lower than Asian but higher than Black in admissions.
• Rejection Statistics:
  • Rejected Asian students have an average SAT score of ~1382.
  • Rejected White students have an average SAT score of ~1361.
  • These scores are significantly higher than the average admitted Black student score.
• Impact: NYU's admission practices favor Hispanic and Black students beyond what their academic credentials merit, leading to decreased overall academic standards and future professional competency.

Notable Quotes:

Charlie Kirk (20:01): "NYU is really pushing down on Asian and white students and boosting Hispanic and Black students beyond what is justified."

Mike Davis (21:53): "There is a roughly 200 point gap between black and Asian students. It's like comparing a neurosurgeon to a man on the street."

---

Implications for Campus Culture and Society

Mike Davis explains the broader consequences of discriminatory admissions practices:

• Academic Standards: Lowering entry requirements results in less rigorous academic environments, necessitating remedial courses and diminishing the quality of education.
• Professional Competency: The pipeline from undergraduate to professional fields like medicine becomes compromised, leading to underqualified professionals.
• Social Impact: Increased likelihood of dissatisfaction and dysfunction, both within academic settings and in broader societal structures.

Notable Quotes:

Mike Davis (26:07): "This makes it so you need remedial mathematics courses, you can't have rigorous organic chemistry classes."

Mike Davis (28:17): "Less qualified doctors make more mistakes, and this is obviously bad."

---

Conclusion: Addressing Systemic Discrimination and Judicial Overreach

In closing, Charlie Kirk and Mike Davis reiterate the urgent need to address both judicial overreach and systemic discrimination in higher education. Kirk underscores the importance of legislative and executive actions to restore balance and uphold constitutional principles.

Notable Quotes:

Charlie Kirk (35:37): "We are taking back our country from the black robe coup."

Mike Davis (17:42): "The Chief Justice needs to get his judicial house in order, or Congress is going to do it for you."

---

Final Remarks

The episode concludes with a stark warning about the ongoing battles against judicial despotism and institutional discrimination. Kirk calls for active listener engagement and legislative reform to preserve constitutional integrity and meritocratic principles in education and governance.

Overall Impact: Listeners are provided with a comprehensive analysis of the threats posed by unelected judges and discriminatory practices in higher education, coupled with strategic recommendations for combating these issues. The conversation emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring equal opportunities based on merit.

---

Note: This summary excludes promotional segments, advertisements, and non-content sections to focus solely on the substantive discussions between Charlie Kirk and Mike Davis.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey, everybody, it's time to Charlie Kirk show how do we reign in the judicial despotism? Mike Davis joins the show and shocking numbers out of NYU of a leak that shows how significantly easier it is for a black student to get into NYU than a white or an Asian student. If you are a white or an Asian person listening to this, you are actively being discriminated against when you try to go to college, when you try to get into certain schools, if you are a grandparent of a kid that wants to get into these schools, you need to listen and listen carefully and text this episode to all of your friends. Email me as always, freedomarliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. Become a member today members.charliekirk.com that is members.charliekirk. com Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

[Mike Davis]

Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

[Cremeux]

I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful, powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[Charlie Kirk]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold [e-mail] that is noblegoldinvestments.com it's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com email us freedomarliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. That is the Charlie Kirk show podcast page. Become a member today, members.charliekirk.com that is members.charliekirk.com joining us now is Mike Davis. Mike, welcome to the program, Mike. We have not talked about Mr. Boasberg for a couple days and I want to talk about all the courts and kind of how they're acting. I first want a macro analysis from you. What is your take on the judicial activism and the pernicious nature of the unelected judiciary undermining the will of the sovereign?

[Cremeux]

President Trump campaigned on the fact he's going to hire Elon Musk. He's going to set up the Department of Government Efficiency, and Doge is going to go after Waste fraud and abuse in our federal government. And we've seen a lot, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. President Trump also campaigned on the fact that he's going to secure our border borders. He's going to designate Trend Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, and he's going to get these terrorists the hell out of our country. And the American people like what they heard. And on November 5th, they gave President Trump a broad, decisive electoral mandate. 312 electoral votes, all seven swing states, the popular vote. We kept the House. President Trump won back the Senate with a comfortable margin. I'm glad the Senate finally understands they wouldn't have a majority for Republicans if it weren't for President Trump's decisive win on November 5th. And President Trump is doing the unthinkable in Washington. He's actually doing what he promised American voters he would do, and he's doing it fast. The first time he ran, he had never ran for office. He had never served in office. He made mistakes in his first term, even though it was an incredibly successful first term. A big mistake was personnel. He's not making those mistakes this time. He had four years in office. He had four years to reflect. He faced the Biden lawfare, the unprecedented Republican ending lawfare. He's ready to govern on day one. And the last line of Trump resistance is the these activist judges, you have these Democrats, partisan plaintiffs and lawyers run into these Democrat activist judges, particularly in Washington, D.C. and they are trying to sabotage the presidency. They're trying to sabotage President Trump under because of policy and political disagreements. President Trump is not trying to steal Congress's legislative power under Article 1. President Trump is not trying to steal the Supreme Court's judicial power under Article 3. The President is exercising core Article 2 executive powers under Article 2. And you have these activist judges sabotaging him. These are judicial saboteurs. And it's not only is it extremely lawless, it's getting very dangerous. You had a judge in D.C. a Canadian foreign citizen to this day has a lifetime appointment on the bench. Judge Oli.

[Charlie Kirk]

They bragged.

[Cremeux]

The Biden administration bragged. He's the first Muslim, he's the first Arab federal judge in D.C. several weeks ago, this judge ordered the president to send out $2 billion in foreign aid over the president's national security Review to make sure we're not funding Hamas terrorists to kill Americans under the guise of humanitarian relief in Gaza, or we're not funding waste, fraud and abuse like transgender mice, research in Kazakhstan or whatever hellhole we were funding. That research through usaid, the Supreme Court failed to stop this Judge Ali. And two weeks later, you have this D.C. obama Judge Jeb Boasberg, not only he held a Saturday hearing last Saturday, two Saturdays ago, where he exposed an ongoing military, law enforcement and intel operation putting American allied lives in grave danger. He even ordered planes to turn around with Trende Aragua foreign terrorist and MS.13 international gang bangers. This judge thought he could not only expose this military operation, but ordered the President to turn around planes. We saw in El Salvador that this president had a massive security footprint of military, law enforcement and intel officials ready to accept these terrorists. We did not have that same footprints in America. How would Jeb Boasberg have known what we had in America for security? How would Jeb Boasberg have known? Fuel on the.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, but then what is the recourse? He's just gonna keep doing this and ignore people. And so impeachment is not going to happen. And that's largely a waste of time. We just don't have the votes to do that. So then how do we reign in this judicial despotism?

[Cremeux]

Well, I would say this on several fronts, Charlie. I was the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I had the oversight portfolio for the Federal Judiciary. Right. And I know how these judges think, and I know how the Chief justice thinks. I clerked on the Supreme Court and, you know, was around the Chief justice person personally, a pleasant guy, but he operates in a very political way. So it's time. If these activist judges want to take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches like we saw with Judge Ali and Judge Boasberg, we need to throw political counterpunches. And that means going after their jurisdiction. That means going after their funding. And yes, it means having impeachment as leverage. It's not a waste of time. Even if we don't have the votes in the Senate to remove them, it's the mere threat of impeachment. It's the mere sword of Damocles over their head. It's the, the, the scarlet letter these judges would have if they faced an impeachment inquiry. They don't want that. I know they don't want that. And so you use impeachment as the sword of Damocles over their heads to get them to understand that if they keep being activist judges, this is not judicial review, what these judges are doing. This is judicial sabotage. It is a clear violation of the separation of powers. This is not judicial power they're exercising. They're trying to tell the president that he has to turn around planes during a military operation. Last time I checked, Jeb Boasberg is not a black trans woman. So I don't think Joe Biden would have hired him to be an air traffic controller. And he's certainly not the commander in chief who can order the president to stop in the middle of military operations and turn them around and then make doubling down on, on his, on his danger. He's act. He's asking the Justice Department to come in and reveal these classified or highly secret military operations. Why would a foreign leader want to deal with a President of the United States on a high risk operation like this, like this Salvadorian president just did. If the mission is going to get exposed publicly because an activist judge held a Saturday hearing, it puts American and allied lives in grave danger. And if those planes would have turned around, the Salvadorian president would have been waiting there with hundreds of government officials to accept these terrorists and they didn't show up. That would have, that would have humiliated a foreign ally. Makes it less likely they'll do business with us. That undermines the president's power as the commander in chief has power to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the, on behalf of the country. So I would say this directly to the Chief Justice, John Roberts. You need to get your judicial house in order. And if you don't, Congress is going to do it for you. I know that there is appetite to do this because I'm working with House and Senate leaders on this bill. And I'll tell you what, that there will be 60 votes if we have a bill that works with people like Sheldon Whitehouse to bring ethics reform to the Supreme Court, which is long what Sheldon Whitehouse is doing. So this is very serious, and I hope the Chief justice understands how serious this is when he lets his judicial saboteurs destroy the presidency.

[Charlie Kirk]

This is a huge issue, and I want to get even further deeper into this. Is there a moment where President Trump and his administration should say, we're just not going to listen to you, man. We're not going to do this. And it is time for the Supreme Court to intervene. And I hope everybody in the audience understands this, that two partner countries of ours, Brazil and Israel, are living under similar judicial despotism. But it is far, far worse if you have Brazil and Israel. They're basically controlled by an unelected Supreme Court that calls the shots, that can impeach presidents, that can overturn laws. District courts should not have the authority to enjoin the Entire country. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. Remember that we vote every day with our dollar. One of the best ways to support America is by buying from local farms and ranches. Good Ranchers makes this easy by delivering 100% American meat to your door. When you shop with Good Ranchers, you're not just getting the best meat for your family, but you're also supporting American farmers and ranchers instead of buying imported meat. Support American agriculture and our local economy. I've used Good Ranchers meat for quite some time and they never disappoint. Whatever your choice of protein is, you'll be pleased with Good Ranchers. Use code Kirk for $25 off your order and your choice of free chicken breasts, ground beef, bacon or wild caught salmon for a year. It's time to take a stand. Vote for American Meat with Good Ranchers. Your purchase helps keep American farms thriving and ensures you get the highest quality meat for your family. Visit good ranchers.com and use promo code Kirk today that is goodranchers.com promo code Kirk. So, Mike Davis, is there a moment where you would advise President Trump and his team that to flat out ignore an injunction from a district court judge?

[Cremeux]

Yes, and I've done this very publicly with Judge Boasberg's lawless, dangerous order two Saturdays ago when he ran into court and said that the President had to turn around planes full of terrorists and bring them to America. And I don't say this lightly. I've never called for anyone to ignore a judge's order. I've never called for an impeachment of a judge like this. And I've done both with Judge Boseberg because it is not only so lawless what he did, he not only does he not have the jurisdiction to do what he did, he does. He is not. He does not have the power to do what he did. It's very dangerous what he didn't. If the President would have complied with that temporary restraining order and turned around those planes full of terrorists, or the President would reveal these sensitive, confidential, classified military operation details to this judge, it is going to cause severe damage to our national security and our the President's ability to conduct foreign relations on behalf of America. Again, why would a foreign leader want to do business with the President if an activist judge in America is going to expose the military operation, caused the operation to cease, sabotage the military operation, and creates political and personal risk for the foreign leader? He had hundreds of officials awaiting these terrorists in El Salvador. And he's standing there, you know, he's standing there looking Stupid. If. If he. If we don't actually deliver these terrorists and we. If we don't follow through, this president is humiliated and it puts him at risk because now these terrorists have made him and his family a target.

[Charlie Kirk]

This is wrong on so many levels. What is the battle plan here, Mike? So you talk about potentially impeachment. What else is there? If you were to design the master plan, you are the supreme general of the allied forces, the supreme commander. You are Dwight D. Eisenhower. What is the attack plan? Go. 1, 2, 3, 4. We got a couple of minutes remaining.

[Cremeux]

This is so easy. And there is an audience of one here, and it's the Chief Justice. The Chief justice needs to get his judicial house in order or Congress is going to do it for him. You are going to see a scenario where Boasberg, Boasberg the clown, this activist judge in D.C. is going to keep digging in, doubling down, and you're going to see the President of the United States have to ignore him. That's going to be his constitutional duty to ignore this lawless, dangerous order because it puts our national security at risk. It makes it hard for the President to conduct foreign affairs. And when that happens, the American people are going to be behind the presidents. And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy with the American people, it loses everything. It does not have an army. His. Judge Bourg's law clerks are not going to be able to turn around planes. He. Even if he holds people in contempt, the President doesn't have to follow through on those contempt orders. He can pardon people in contempt. He cannot have the executive branch arrest people. This is the red line. And the Chief justice needs to understand. He needs to get his judicial house in order. They need to move forward in the House with. With impeachment inquiries. They need to cut funding. They need to change jurisdiction. Judges have a modest but crucial role. It is to decide cases or controversies for parties before the court with redressible claims. They. That's it. They wear robes, not capes. It's not their job to set national policy. It's not their job to fly around the world and save terrorists. They have a more modest but crucial role. And that's Article 3 under our Constitution.

[Charlie Kirk]

One would think. Final point here. Just to reiterate something you said previously. John Roberts and the U.S. supreme Court could put an end to this. Is that right? They could send a statement. And I believe. I have no inside information to believe this. Okay. But I believe based on public remarks, that Clarence Thomas is chomping at the bit. I think he believes Based on previous opinions that this nationwide injunction fury needs to be put to a stop. And I believe Alito agrees. Now, whether or not Amy Coney Barrett, you know, Keg City, Cav and Gorsuch, we'll see what happens. Final thoughts.

[Cremeux]

Mike Davis, you saw Justice Alito put out a powerful dissent when Judge Ali ordered the president to send $2 billion out the door to his Hamas terrorist friends and transgender mice research. Right. And it is we can't have these judges take over the president's powers, especially dealing with commander in chief powers and foreign affairs powers. It is very dangerous. The judges are not equipped to do this. They, they are not equipped to write laws through nationwide injunctions through TROs. The Chief justice has to get his judicial house in order. And I promise the Chief justice, if that does not happen, there are going to be, there's going to be a severe backlash, political backlash from Congress. It's going to go after your funding, it's going to go after your power and it's going to go after impeachment.

[Charlie Kirk]

Mike Davis, thank you so much. We are taking back our country from the black robe coup. Did you know that private student loan debt totals over $300 billion? About 45 billion of that is labeled as distressed. They provide you with a custom loan payment based on your ability to pay. Why refi does not care what your credit score is. Many clients are not able to make the minimum monthly payment on their private student loans when they first come in contact with Yrefi. If you go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com you can read testimonials from other people who have been where you are and how they have escaped may not be available in all 50 states. They've been amazing supporters of our campus tour. So check it out. Bad credit is accepted. Go to why refi.com that is yrefy.com that's yrefi.com can you imagine being debt free and not living under this burden anymore? The first step is contacting yrefi. Go to yrefy.com Part of this program is brought to you by yrefi. They've been great supporters of our show. May not be available in all 50 states. Go to yrefi.com, yrefy.com okay. Over the weekend, a hacker took over the webpage of NYU New York University. Obviously we don't approve of breaking the law. But what's interesting is what they did while taking over the website. What they did was publish a chart of test scores of people who got into nyu. What that chart showed was that despite an order from the US Supreme Court two years ago, NYU engaged in extreme racial discrimination against whites and Asians. The war on white people continues. We have a very special guest. His name is Cremeux. He is a statistician and he posts actively on X and also is a very successful substack blog. He says he's been given access to this data that this hacker is publicizing. He also prefers to maintain his anonymity. So he's going to join us using an AI generated voice, which I completely support, by the way. We can make fun of it. Anonymous Speech is uniquely American and we should protect it at all costs. CREMU joins us now. CREME U, thank you for joining the program. What did you learn in this data dump from nyu?

[Mike Davis]

Hi there, Charlie. So, first of all, this is an amazing data dump. This is the data for 3 million students going back to the late 1980s. And there's just a huge amount of information here. There's test scores, there's grades, there's extracurriculars. There's all sorts of information about where these kids are from and what their backgrounds are and just all sorts of stuff that tells us how well qualified they'll be to do well in when they're at nyu. And what we found is that NYU is really, really pushing down on Asian and white students. And they are boosting the. They're bringing in a lot more Hispanic and black students than would be justified from their GPAs, from their test scores, from anything we can see, like, for example, Asian students, they tend to do a lot of ext. They do more than white students, they do more than Hispanic students, they do more than black students. Somehow, despite more extracurriculars, more impressive extracurriculars, more Olympiad wins more. Basically, everything that, you know, signals a good student, they get admitted way, way less than they should. And if they were admitting meritocratically nyu, the number of Asians would double. The number of whites would go up by about a quarter. It would go from about 23% to about 30%. The number of Hispanics, we go from about 10% to roughly 1%. And the number of black students, we go from about 4% to about half a percent. So they're putting a really, really heavy hand on the scale here.

[Charlie Kirk]

And it's against federal law and federal guidelines that President Trump issued. Walk us deeper into the numbers. What is the average SAT score that a black student gets to go into nyu? And what does the equivalent average Asian or white Student need to get to get into NYU.

[Mike Davis]

Yeah. So the average black student who goes to NYU has an SAT score of 1289.87, so about 1290. The average Asian student who goes in has a score about 1486. So there's a roughly 200 point gap between black and Asian students. It's interesting though, if you look at the rejected students, rejected Asians have an average SAT score about 1382, which is still about 100 points higher than the average admitted black student. So even when they are, they're, they're rejecting lots of qualified Asian students, they're rejecting lots of qualified white students. Their average rejected score is 1361, which is also higher than the accepted black average. It's accepted higher than the accepted Hispanic average. They are just, they don't seem to be caring much about the qualifications of the students. They care a lot more about race. And to be fair, they said they were going to do this. Back when the Supreme Court made their decision, NYU immediately called it a step backwards. And then they said that they would be remaining committed to promoting diversity on campus, which was basically an admission they were going to do exactly this. So they said it and they didn't.

[Charlie Kirk]

So a lot of schools are doing this. Are they just gambling that the courts won't crack down on them, that they're just gonna be blatantly breaking the law? Is that basically their current calculation?

[Mike Davis]

Yeah, and there's some precedent for this. So a lot of schools have actually been breaking the law for a long time, even after they've been explicitly told to stop doing this on their own. So, for example, the University of Michigan was told back in the day that they should not be doing affirmative action. They were big explicitly banned from it directly in a Gore case. And what did they do? They still engaged in affirmative action. They tried to claim that they were doing it through, for example, stepping up the recruitment efforts by recruiting people, specifically in inner cities and whatnot. But the reality is that there was still no way to explain the results they got from what they did. So schools actively defy court orders. They believe that nobody's going to punish them. They think they're above the law, and it definitely seems like they are. There are not enough court cases being brought forward, and unfortunately the administration hasn't compelled universities to release the data required to show that they're breaking the law. We're lucky that this hacker has jumped in and provided us with all the data we need to show. Yes, they are definitely breaking the law. They are doing what they're not supposed to be doing. This is a rare insight.

[Charlie Kirk]

It is a very rare insight. Can you explain to the uninitiated in our audience the standard deviation difference between getting a 1485 on the SAT and a 1289? Some people might say, well, that's only 200 point difference. But talk about how big of a standard deviation that is in test scoring, especially with moving averages and admission. Is that remarkable, that kind of a difference?

[Mike Davis]

That is very remarkable. This is a very, very large difference. So this is the difference between, for example, being put in a remedial mathematics course in high school and being in an AP class. This is the difference between a doctor, like a medical doctor, your average medical doctor, and your average man on the street. This is the difference between. My gosh, it's a massive, massive difference. It's a whole standard deviation. And when you have selection, meaning the university selects people who are talented enough to go there, you know, with their hand on the scale, when you have it, it reduces the variance more, so this difference becomes more magnified. This is actually closer to one and a half standard deviations. So it's like comparing really like a neurosurgeon. A neurosurgeon to a man on the street. It's a very, very large difference. Everybody can kind of understand that. That's pretty huge. And I think that that's just how it is. It's remarkable how diplomalled it is.

[Charlie Kirk]

I can grasp that. Talk about what this actually then means for the campus culture. Not that this is the most, what I think is the best argument, but what does this then mean for a classroom where you have someone that should not be in the class? Does this bring down the quality of instruction because teachers then have to instruct the lowest common denominator?

[Mike Davis]

Absolutely. So what this does is it makes it so, for example, you need to have remedial mathematics courses, you need to have courses that are simpler. You can't have rigorous organic chemistry classes, you can't have all of the difficult weider classes because, well, they're just too hard for a lot of the students who are coming in. These students, they fail more often. They are more likely to just not do anything interesting during their time. They're less likely to have research experience, and yet they're favored all the way. They're favored in terms of getting admitted and they're favored in terms of getting picked up later. And they kind of. So it's a pipeline from undergraduate admissions through to graduate admissions through to medical school and all that. And by letting under qualified students in at these early stages, you also let them in at later stages. And that reverberates so throughout society. We're going to see a lot of professionals who are underqualified everywhere because elite schools like New York University, like Northwestern, like Harvard, like Yale, they let in people who just shouldn't have made the cut or should have gone elsewhere into the go, launder the status of those universities, the degrees they get from there up towards brighter horizons for them, but a bleaker future for the rest of us. We're going to have to end up with doctors who are less qualified to do their jobs. We're going to end up with researchers who are, you know, it's somewhat zero fund, zero sum or research money out there that they're going to divert funds from smarter people, better people who could have done a better job towards people who are less qualified and less capable of actually making a difference with that money. The social implications of this are huge. The implications on campus are huge. You're going to see more protesters, for example. A lot of them are like under qualified people. People who have a lot, you know, don't really value their time very much. The sorts of people who are more likely to be lazy in high school and so they didn't get as good of grades as those Asian kids who, you know, put in the work and should be there about, you know, twice the rate they are. It's, there's really enormous implications here.

[Charlie Kirk]

So let me ask you in closing here, you're a data guy. Do we have the data of what all these results, with all these results in, do less qualified doctors make more mistakes? What does this then mean for society at large?

[Mike Davis]

They do, yes. They are more likely to get complaints against them by patients. They are more likely to be sued. They are more likely to, you know, have malpractice suits brought up. They're more likely to injure people. They're more likely to fail at surgeries. They are more likely to have a wide array of bad outcomes. And this is obviously bad. There is some need to have doctors who, you know, aren't super smart. They can just like, you know, prescribe antibiotics. But when it comes down to the specialties, when it comes down to the end of life stuff like, oh, you need a critical surgery for your cancer, you need a critical surgery for fixing something in your brain. And then you really want the best qualified people. And unfortunately those prestigious programs, they love to pick people who are, I hate the term, sounds insulting, but it's the reality. It's they are affirmative action candidates because they want to launder prestige towards these people. They want to take people who are not qualified, were historically underrepresented and they want to make them look considerably better. And that leads to massive misallocation that is arguably worse in the most important fields because those are the highest prestige fields and because the highest prestige fields are getting messed up the most, the impacts are larger than you might expect from just a glance. It can be pretty bad.

[Charlie Kirk]

Cray Mu Excellent analysis. Thank you for taking the time. I want to put that chart up one more time here before we say goodbye. This is what's happening to our elite institutions. Look at that. That at nyu. This is New York University blatantly violating federal law. Average test score for a black student that comes in. Average test score for an Asian student that is active discrimination against white and Asians. You want to see DEI in practice, affirmative action in practice. It's right there. Thank you so much Kramer. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you. By the way, the 14th Amendment allegedly says all this is illegal. Why should the federal government fund discrimination based on race? Are you tired of Hollywood elites and woke corporations deciding what gets made? Do you want to take back control of culture and support stories that reflect your values? Then it's time to join Angel Guild where real Americans like you have a voice in the future of entertainment. Angel Studios, the powerhouse behind the Sound of Freedom and other culture shifting films is giving you a seat at the table. No more Hollywood gatekeepers, no more anti American propaganda. Just bold, faith driven, freedom loving content chosen by the people for the people. Join Angel Guild today and help fund projects that inspire, uplift and defend truth. The best part is you'll be able to stream and amazing amplifying content like Sound of Hope After Death micros, something to stand for and homebound. New shows and films are released every week. Be part of a movement that's taking back storytelling from the radical left. This isn't just entertainment, it's a cultural battle. Join today by going to angel.comkirk and let's work together to create stories that honor faith, freedom and family. Email us freedom charliekirk.com do you want to be happy? If you want to be happy and if you are a woman, it's pretty simple. Get married and have kids. That's not just my opinion, that's not just the truths of the scriptures. Look at this latest data. The latest data shows very simple that women's happiness by marital status and children ages 18 to 55 if you are married with no kids, you rate yourself as pretty happy or very happy nearly 84% of the time. If you are married with kids, you rate yourself as very happy 39% of the time or pretty happy 47% of the time and not too happy 12% of the time. But if you are unmarried without kids, which of course is the base of the Democrat Party. The base of the Democrat Party is unmarried, no kids, you are not too happy one out of four times. One out of four times. And you're only very happy 21.5% of the time. Now, we know this to be true because women largely are designed to have children. They want to have children. They have a biological urge and a need to have children. And suppressing that need turns you into a deeply unhappy person. Here's our family right here. You could put 122 up on screen. The happiest you will be is when you start to have kids. And the modern left tells you to ignore that, to wage war on your own biology. This is the new Snow White, the new Disney boss babe. Who is Rachel Zegler, the inverse of Happy Now? I'm guessing that she's not married. I'm guessing that she doesn't have kids. The movie is a complete disaster, by the way. Play cut 121.

[Rachel Zegler]

I mean, you know, the original cartoon came out in 1937, and very evidently. So there is a big focus on her love story with a guy who literally stalks her.

[Mike Davis]

Weird. Weird.

[Rachel Zegler]

So we didn't do that this time.

[Mike Davis]

So no prince or a different kind of prince.

[Rachel Zegler]

We have a different approach to what I'm sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because, like, we cast a guy in the movie. Andrew Burnout. Great, dude. It's one of those things that I think everyone's gonna have their assumptions about what it's actually going to be, but it's really not about the love story at all, which is really, really wonderful. And whether or not she finds love along the way. Is Anybody guests until 2024? All of Andrew scenes could get cut. Who knows? It's Hollywood, baby. But it's. It's one of the things. It's an inner. It's an inner journey that she goes on to find her true self. And she meets a lot of people along the way that. That make the journey really incredible.

[Charlie Kirk]

An inner journey to go find her true self. The movie is doing catastrophically. They spent $300 million and it currently has a 2.2 out of 10 rating. A 2.2 out of 10 rating on IMDb. That's really bad. Now Disney, I'm not here to try to save you money, but Bob Iger obviously does not have control over all the wokies and you cast her as Snow White. I could have told you that would not have been a good idea. And she's the inverse of happy. It turns out people do not want to spend their hard earned money to go watch rubbish to go watch a steaming pile of garbage against nature. Rachel Zegler puts on her social media. Not exactly sure what she's saying here, but she says we must forge a new path forward. May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace. Oh, that's when Trump got elected. Okay, I didn't know what that was. Well, Snow White didn't do very well. If you want to be happy as a woman, you should probably get married and have children. Otherwise you might be miserable. Thanks so much for listening everybody. Email us. As always, freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless.

[Cremeux]

For more on many of these stories.

[Rachel Zegler]

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