Andrew Burkhart Explains The Tyler Robinson Case + AMA 276

00:00:03 Speaker 1: 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'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point, you would say, college chapter. Go start atturning point you say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 2: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 1: 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. 00:00:46 Speaker 2: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot com. 00:01:17 Speaker 3: All right, welcome back everybody. It is Friday. That means hour two is gonna be our ask us anything. I guess we have a huge treatment store. Steve Dace is going to be joining us for the entirety of hour two. So if you're a member at members dot Charliekirk dot com, you can join us and ask questions live on Aaron Hour two. So get ready for that. I'm all pumped up about that. We love that hour and our one is packed too. We have Andrea Burkhart right at the start and we're gonna get started with her in just two seconds. But we also have a Vita Duffy to talk about all the craze that's going on with the duff Duffy Klan as they come out with their Great American road Trip documentary and people are losing their minds. 00:01:54 Speaker 2: So she's gonna respond. 00:01:54 Speaker 3: To the controversy road because you know, he's a he's a transportation secretary, so it's like they think you're not supposed to do these sorts of things. I think it's great, great celebration of America, but let's get into it. Andrea Burkhart, Legal commentator, experienced trial and appellet litigator. You can follow her on substack and we recommend you do that also YouTube on x She's very active. Andrea Burkheart dot substack dot com. Andrea, welcome back to the show. You know that we crave your analysis because you don't let us down gently. You tell us terrible news like we have to wait till twenty twenty eight, and then you post those clips. 00:02:30 Speaker 2: Or responded by line and you break our heart further. Just kidding. 00:02:33 Speaker 3: You're just kind of a straight shooter. You don't pick sides. You just call balls and strikes, and so we get what we get with you, all right. So we got a bunch of questions post this debate between Kandas Owns and Andrew Wilson, and there's just kind of a lot of controversy swirling because each new defense or state brief it raises new questions. Okay, I think key among those and got you saw this from the debate. Certainly was this idea that oh, hey, candas Is position was that the parents they don't believe that Tyler is guilty, but they won't talk yet because of strategy, because of strategicy. So the question is sort of a larger one. If there is exculpatory evidence at the preliminary hearing stage of this. 00:03:17 Speaker 2: Whole ordeal, would they bring it up? 00:03:20 Speaker 3: If they're sitting on something like the parents actually don't think he did it, would they bring that up in the preliminary hearing? 00:03:26 Speaker 4: Sure? So, in almost twenty years practicing as a criminal defense attorney, I cannot imagine having exculpatory evidence and not bringing it up at the probable cause stage, particularly in a context like this. The whole point of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is justification to believe that this particular person may be involved with this particular crime, so as to justify moving forward and requiring the full trial process. So, if you have evidence that your defendant didn't do it, you know it isn't guilty, then the probable cause determination is absolutely the time when you would be bringing that up, because if you can win that issue at this stage, you don't have to take the case any further and assume any risk of a bad trial outcome. 00:04:24 Speaker 3: Right, So, just to be clear, you're saying it's not some five D chess, it's not seven D chess. There's not like some grand plan here that they're going to like drop the hammer at the actual trial and be like, see, we told you this shouldn't have gone a trial. They would have brought this up now, you would see it in the briefings you would have sought in the preliminary hearing July six to the tenth. Those things would have come out, so other buckets, Yeah. 00:04:49 Speaker 2: Go ahead. 00:04:49 Speaker 4: It's extraordinarily unlikely that there is some kind of five D chess going on here. And part of the reason why is because, especially in a high profile case like this, there are two things going on. One, you're fighting the case itself. You're dealing with the court standards. What they're actually there to accomplish your the scope of your right to present evidence that tends to negate probable cause in order to try to get your client out of this process and out of jail at the earliest opportunity. But this is a very high profile case, and these attorneys are extremely aware that there's also a lot of public attention on it, and so to not strategically use information to benefit your client's position in the court of public opinion in a high profile case like this, it just also strikes me as extremely unlikely. 00:05:44 Speaker 3: All right, Blake, I know you got a question, but I also wanted to say, send us your emails Freedom at Charliekirk dot com, Freedom at charliekirk dot com. If you have questions for Andrea, send them in. We're going to do a rapid fire quick I know we all are very verbose around here, but we're going to try and do a rapid fire audience question and so send them in Freedom at Charliekirk dot com. We want to answer your questions with Andre. I have another question. Do you have a questions you can go and go. So the other claim here that seeing and you saw this in the state's last nineteen page brief, which was that you know, they're they're kind of going through inferences versus speculation, informed inferences versus speculation, and one of it kind of made me think of some of the other themes of that debate where they're talking about hearsay. Right, so at a preliminary hearing, reliable hearsay is admissible, and there was claims that it was all reliable. Here say that there was nothing that was not hearsay. Why don't you explain the difference between hearsay, reliable hearsay and a preliminary hearing, what's amissible and what does that really indicate? 00:06:41 Speaker 4: Sure, So, Utah has this very specific definition of what reliable hearsay is their constitution. Their statutes allow reliable hearsay to be used at this stage of the preceding. The Utah Supreme Court has upheld that in past challenges. But reliable hearsay it's technical, not just anything somebody says can come into court. It has to meet certain minimum qualifications to fit this definition. So there were several things that were presented at the preliminary hearing that were not reliable hearsay. And the best example of that was the very first witness who testified was a law enforcement officer who was present, I'm not sure formal law enforcement or just the university police, but was present for the events and testified about his personal perceptions of what he observed, how that led him to the rooftop and discover the sniper pad, and basically all of the investigation that unfolded from that. So, no, it's not all reliable hearsay. What this rule essentially does is it allows them to because this is a preliminary proceeding. This is a screening process to decide if the case should go forward to trial or not. It's not itself a full trial where all of this evidence is going to be tested. So what it does is it simply allows them to use materials that are pretty commonly relied on by the attorneys and all the participants in the course of the case, things like the police reports, forensic evaluations, and evidence of that nature, to use that in lieu of requiring the person who wrote the report to fly into Utah, arrange their day, et cetera, and be present to give live testimony in the courtroom. So it's not an indication particularly of the quality of this evidence. Nor does that preclude the defense from being able to use their rights to present evidence and their rights to cross examination to raise points that tend to negate probable cause. 00:08:54 Speaker 3: Does the not challenge the subject substance? Okay, this is that they're saying that the defense is not challenging the substance. Is it a deliberate you know, meaning like their silence on some of the central claims. 00:09:07 Speaker 2: Are they admitting guilt? Yeah? 00:09:08 Speaker 4: So I think part of the challenge here is that there is a lot of language being used, a lot of equivocation about language that's being used in a lot of conflation of different things. So in their filings, the defense has not admitted anything. The defense has not made any any kind of formal admission of guilt, or. 00:09:27 Speaker 2: They did admit. 00:09:29 Speaker 3: Right Andrew, they did admit that it was him on the surveillance video. 00:09:34 Speaker 4: I would not count that as an admission. I would call that careless wording on the part of the defense, but I wouldn't necessarily call that an admission that I think is different from a concession, which is refusing to argue a position that you might otherwise be expected to argue. And so in the context of this case, what you have is the state arguing there's sufficient evidence here to believe that Tyler Robin is the perpetrator and therefore he should be bound over for trial. The defense has raised only the argument that hearsay evidence should not be allowed to decide whether or not he should be bound over on murder charges. But they aren't arguing that there's any substantive problem with that evidence. So essentially they are not taking a position contrary to the state's argument that, assuming the court's going to allow the reliable hearsay to be used, as the Utah Constitution says, as the Utah Supreme Force says, that there is in fact going to be probable cause to bind him over on these charges. So they're not contesting that substantive position. They are making a procedural. 00:10:44 Speaker 2: Argument testing That's what I think. 00:10:46 Speaker 4: Is fairly characterized as a concession. 00:10:48 Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough, and so that's why so much of it is fixated on the aggravating factors. Okay, let's go to the emails here. 00:10:56 Speaker 5: All right, Well, we've got several here, so let's try to get through. Feuse the first one from Charlene. Why isn't there a ruling to stop all the talking about this case online before the trial? I think fake news hurts justice. 00:11:09 Speaker 2: We'll do in rapid Because of the. 00:11:10 Speaker 4: First Amendment, we have a strong preference against what they call prior restraints in the United States, so gag orders generally, the circumstances in which those are allowed are extremely limited. You can't back gag the public, you can't gag the media. 00:11:25 Speaker 5: All right, fair enough, much better and notably much better than the UK, where it's very common for them to gag almost all discussion and we've seen problems with that. All Right, we got this from HC. What would be the expected timeline for a trial you think at this point and if convicted, a potential execution if the death penalty is imposed. 00:11:45 Speaker 4: Great questions trial. I had previously said early twenty twenty eight. Since we're approaching September without bind over, I'm going to probably have to extend that out now to more like the end of twenty twenty eight. In terms of if there were a conviction, the timeline for execution that can be decades. Utah is not known for being quick with its death row. They have inmates currently on death row that have spent more than three decades there and are still actively litigating their cases. So I would not expect a rapid execution, meaning like earlier than twenty years. 00:12:24 Speaker 3: Andrew, I have a tack onto that. How do they determine the mode of execution in Utah because it's one of the few states that notably has like firing squads and things like that. How do they figure out how they're going to do it? 00:12:34 Speaker 4: Yeah, So these are decisions that are made legislatively. They have to approve methods of execution, and so the primary method of execution in UTAH remains a lethal injection. However, in the event that the lethal injection drugs are not able to be secured for some other reason, they aren't able to carry it out by that method, then UTAH does allow the firing squad as an alternative. 00:12:58 Speaker 5: Got okayah kind of morbid to think about. All right, So we have another one from Katie. Can Andrea please go over the DNA and the degradation. 00:13:10 Speaker 3: Of DNA on what they mean by that also fingerprints though I actually legitimately got confused where they talking about fingerprint degradation or DNA? 00:13:20 Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, dive into that. 00:13:21 Speaker 1: Well. 00:13:22 Speaker 4: So DNA degradation is such a massive topic. I've actually been very much thinking I probably need to do a video on this to spell some of it out. But when you're talking about touch DNA in particular, meaning when you swab areas, not because there's a blood stain there or something like that of biological fluid, but just because you believe somebody may have physically contacted a particular item, you're dealing with touch DNA, and what you get from touch DNA is highly variable. Sometimes it's very high quality, sometimes it's very low quality. We are only like still in the early stages of understanding how humans transfer their own DNA into the environment. So the fact of degradation is pretty easy to observe in a DNA sample. It's there's literally a shape in the graph that is produced of the results that tells you that degradation is happening. What you cannot infer from the fact of degradation is what it means, how it happened, why it happened, whether the DNA was already degraded before it was deposited, which can happen with certain like skin cells are already degraded, or whether it's the results of different environmental factors that were present at the time of the deposition. So there's a great amount of variability in these samples. And that's why, as we heard in the preliminary hearing, the federal the Department of Justice analysts people who work for the Department of Justice. They are not allowed to testify in court about any opinions that would relate to the timing of samples being depositive. 00:15:00 Speaker 2: Tell you when it was deposited, absolutely. 00:15:02 Speaker 4: Not, Yes, that would be a very unscientific claim. 00:15:06 Speaker 2: Okay, all right, this one. 00:15:08 Speaker 5: I'll admit it's getting more into the conspiracy direction, but let's engage with it. And good This is from Nelly. Why were items that belonged to Charlie and were part of the crime scene his necklace, his microphone, a jacket of his given to Erica? Also, why dig up the crime scene ten inches down and then speedily poor there left here Andrew. 00:15:29 Speaker 4: Yeah, so we are first off, what we actually know about the investigation is very much in evolving question because a lot of this information is, uh, we only know about it because of search warrants. It hasn't come up in case yet in the case yet, and search warrants are often sealed for a certain length of time. They're also a little bit hard to track down given Utah's filing system. So we have learned that personal property of Charlie was the subject of one of the very earliest search warrants that was issued in the case. That would include things like his phone, his clothing, So we know that that was at least initially in the possession of law enforcement for them to do what they needed to do with it. With respect to the crime scene, it's normal for police to hold the crime scene and secure it for as long as they need to do their physical investigation. There are steps that they can take. Very common one these days is called Pharaoh scanning. It's a three D scan that allows them to create a digital copy of like the measurements and where things were located and stuff like that to be able to recreate the crime scene later. But the general idea is that that initial period of the crime scene being secured is as long as it needs to be for police to get what they want, and once they're done with what they need, they return it to the property owner. 00:16:54 Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly perfect, Andrea Burn, thank you so much. A lot of questions, a lot of questions. 00:16:59 Speaker 2: Thank you guy. You we'll talk to you soon. 00:17:03 Speaker 3: Midterm elections are coming up and control of Congress is on the line. If there's one thing financial markets hate, its uncertainty, and uncertainty is exactly what the next few months are going to bring in twenty twenty four. If it taught us anything, it's that uncertainty breeds volatility. Between now and November could be one of the most volatile stretches for the stock market and the economy. So you owe it to yourself to have a plan. Here's the good part. There's a simple way to protect what you've built, and that's gold. Physical gold and silver. Let you hedge against that volatility, and there's no better partner for it than Noble Gold Investments. For over a decade, Noble Gold has helped everyday Americans protect their wealth with precious metals. They make it simple, they make it easy, and they make it safe. 00:17:48 Speaker 2: You can trust them. 00:17:49 Speaker 3: Give them a call eight seven seven six four six five three four seven. That's eight seven seven six four six five three four seven, Or visit them online at Noblegoldinvestments dot com slash and find out how to protect yourself, your wealth and your family Noblegoldinvestments dot com slash. 00:18:05 Speaker 2: Kirk Election days. 00:18:06 Speaker 3: Coming, don't let it arrive without a plan. And here's the best part to celebrate America's two fiftieth just mention the Charlie Kirk Show. When you call Nobel Gold and they'll send you a free ten ounce silver bar when you open a new qualified account mentioned the Charlie Kirk Show. That's all you gotta do and they'll do the rest. 00:18:25 Speaker 2: All right. 00:18:26 Speaker 3: Joining us now is a Vida Duffy Alonzo. She is a you've probably seen her all over the place actually, and obviously she's the daughter of Rachel who we love and Sean who we love. 00:18:39 Speaker 2: Avida, welcome to the show. It's good to have you. 00:18:42 Speaker 3: I gotta say, you guys just have a knack for being in the conversation as a family, as an entire family. 00:18:49 Speaker 6: Yeah, we're in the news all the time. 00:18:50 Speaker 7: Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but you know, I'm always here for it. Right Our family is I think a symbol of really positive conservative values and when you when you show that to the world, you're always going to have people. 00:19:02 Speaker 6: Hating on you. 00:19:03 Speaker 3: Well, and we had your husband on the show a couple of times right before his big primary win. 00:19:09 Speaker 2: So congratulations there. 00:19:11 Speaker 3: You guys are a lovely family and we're just totally I mean, it's like straight out of Central Casting of kind of what Charlie would envision for the future leaders of America. And you guys are doing great, So no longer future, we're looking at current leaders of America. Okay, So you guys are doing this thing as a family. It's like the Great American road Trip, which I think is perfect. Your mom and your dad both have a reality TV past and that kind of helped launch them into some stuff. So they're doing kind of a big documentary. You guys are a part of it, and a lot of people have a problem with it. But he's the Transportation Secretary and he's celebrating road tripping across America. Explain to me what the real problem is here. 00:19:54 Speaker 6: Well, so the road trip. 00:19:56 Speaker 7: Really it's this idea that to love America, have have to see America. And this is something that our family has been talking about for a long time. You know, I'm a gen Zer. I grew up in a country where I was taught to hate my nation, that Christopher Columbus is the greatest villain of all time. That I can't be proud of where I come from, that I have to apologize and be ashamed of being an American. And I think what a road trip does is subvert what we're being told in a classroom or through your phone screen, because it allows you to actually go and see America firsthand, to be inspired by it. And the way that Alexis to Tokville was when he toured America. He's a French philosopher famously wrote this book called Democracy in America that has really inspired people around the world to become Americans or to emulate American ideals for a now a couple of centuries. So the road trip is promoting travel, yes, for my dad's purview as a transportation secretary, but it's also about rediscovering who we are at a time when so many people, so many forces in our culture are trying to lie about what America is and make you hate your country. You should love America because it's worth loving. 00:21:07 Speaker 3: It's also about family too. I mean, like you guys have like there's like forty eight of you running around. I mean, it's wonderful in the best way. I mean that as the largest compliment possible. It is we need to be fruitful and multiply. And the Daffy family has put has led by example, and I love that. And so let's go ahead and play. This is your dad talking about this sotnin My. 00:21:28 Speaker 8: Mom, she had a longer time frame in which she was passing. It was months, and my whole family would have had a lot of time to spend with her. And invariably all the stories that were told by her kids about their favorite memories were the road trips that we went on. And maybe that's why I want to do this as I thought about the special moments with my own mom. It was about travel. 00:21:51 Speaker 2: I love it. 00:21:52 Speaker 3: I love it, And there's this other part where and I'll just play the clip your dad, you guys go and visit the Liberty Bell, which is like a fast story unto itself about you know, how the crack came about and the inscription on the Liberty Bell. 00:22:07 Speaker 2: So I just love it. 00:22:08 Speaker 3: So I think this thing is just so well done, and your your family so good on camera, So let's just play it. 00:22:14 Speaker 2: Side eight. 00:22:15 Speaker 8: The Liberty Bell is a great symbol of religious and political freedom in America, and so I thought for the kids that should be the first stop. 00:22:22 Speaker 2: This bell. It was first cast in England, so you're exactly right of being too England. Yeah, Whitechapel Foundry. So this bell arrives, they do a test ring on it and it cracks on the test ring. 00:22:35 Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, imagine that right refund, Yeah exactly, and they got they got a new bell board. 00:22:41 Speaker 2: Are you in that scene? Are you? 00:22:43 Speaker 9: Did you? 00:22:43 Speaker 6: I am in that scene? 00:22:45 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:22:45 Speaker 7: I have a like a little black skirt and like a white top on it. 00:22:48 Speaker 4: Yeah, So that I mean that. 00:22:50 Speaker 7: I love that clip because what we're trying to convey with this road trip is it's a civic experience, right when you go and you get in the car and you go and you travel and see a mayor firsthand, that is actually something so profound you can't you can't. 00:23:04 Speaker 6: Replicate that in a classroom. 00:23:06 Speaker 7: You can't scroll through TikTok and and get the same sense of what America is and who we are as a people and the history of this nation like you can out on the open road and Yeah, our family's there were a big family. And I think that's part of why we've been attacked so viciously for this is this is a beautiful example of a very large, very traditional, very Christian family going out and celebrating our country in a really beautiful way, in a very public facing way. And I know we haven't really exposed ourselves like this before. My parents have been asked to do a reality show with our family for twenty years now, and for twenty years my parents have said no, And instead they said, we're going to for free do the Great America Road Trip, almost like a like a birthday present America to fifty birthday present to this country, because we want to have to inspire other families to do the same, and I think that's probably where a lot of the vitriol is coming from. 00:23:56 Speaker 6: But I love it, and I think a lot of people who watch it in good faithor. 00:23:59 Speaker 3: Liz, you may get some vichy'all, some controversy, but there's a there's a ton of love. And I can guarantee you if Blake just checks the emails, everybody's gonna be like. 00:24:07 Speaker 2: If it is so great. 00:24:08 Speaker 3: We love Rachel, Sean's the best, and so there's a lot of love here too. But this is this is where it gets really fun, in my opinion. So I guess you have a sister, Paloma who's thinking about Harvard. 00:24:19 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and your dad I just like. 00:24:22 Speaker 3: Like so much, like my heart swelled with pride that he's my transportation secretary because he's like. 00:24:28 Speaker 2: Hold on, hold on, Harvard, man, I don't know about this. 00:24:31 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, we've got a We've got an ivy leaguer here, so he understands. 00:24:35 Speaker 5: But it's the better one or it's a more road tripable. Right there you go, All right, let's play the clipst six. 00:24:40 Speaker 7: I'm nervous about the idea of Poloma going to Harvard if. 00:24:45 Speaker 8: I send you there. I think what happens is they have professionalized figuring out how they can take good young girls like you and I think corrupt their minds. You don't have to believe what I believe, have to have the political viewpoints that I have, But I do think it's important that you make those choices for yourself and you have a fair representation of what they are. And I don't think the Harvards of the world give you that kind of well rounded. 00:25:13 Speaker 3: Picture based based He's got a point, He's got a point. So this clip is making their rounds right now, I'll just let you react to it. 00:25:22 Speaker 2: What do you think? 00:25:23 Speaker 7: Well, I think it's incredible that the left has clipped it and they seem to be genuinely shocked that this conversation is taking place, which is really funny to most conservatives because it's one that's being replicated in kitchens all across America. Right people are wondering, hmm, should I spend you know, a quarter of a million dollars sending. 00:25:41 Speaker 6: My kid to a school that hates me and my values. 00:25:44 Speaker 7: Because the legs, of course, destroyed our education system by injecting cultural Marxism into literally every aspect of education. 00:25:52 Speaker 6: And are you guys covering this Lindsay Clancy case. Have you guys been talking about that? 00:25:56 Speaker 1: Oh? 00:25:56 Speaker 2: Oh have we ever? 00:25:58 Speaker 7: Okay, So I think that there's actually a connection here. You know, those women who are outside of the courthouse applauding a child murderer, right, they have been. They've had their brains melted by radical feminism. Radical feminism, the ideology behind it is coming out of our university system. And these universities believe that everything in life can be looked at through the prism of oppressed versus a pressor and systems of oppression. 00:26:23 Speaker 6: So that's why leftists are soft on crime. Right, they don't care. 00:26:25 Speaker 7: They let, you know, crazy hoolums run through the streets and punch people like they were at the Wisconsin State Fair last week. Right, they just like, that's okay, because this is a product of underprivilege or of systemic racism. In the same way you have Lindsey Clancy supporters saying, oh, well, this is a product of the patriarchy, or it's a it's a it's a product of you know, gender inequality, or or the oppression of motherhood itself. 00:26:46 Speaker 3: Well, no Avida Avida. They're blaming, They're searching for things to blame other than the actual murder who admitted to the crime. There is Patrick Clancy. It's the system that, by the way, like Patrick Clancy, he worked for home got her and nanny literally got her all the best things that money could buy, but the system failed her. Like what more was the system supposed to do for Lindsey Clancy. Anyways, everything is to blame except the murder. And that's yes, that's the system of oppression you're talking about. 00:27:17 Speaker 5: I'm just I'm just circling back to, you know, the broad based negativity and rage, Like why are they angry? It's not just that they're a nice family going on a road trip. I think a lot of people the left has gotten to this weird point where I think, like almost road trips themselves might be coding to them as like a gross thing because it means celebrating America. 00:27:37 Speaker 2: It's like America is ikey. 00:27:38 Speaker 5: You have to drive through all of these counties and small towns and a lot of people have Trump signs in front of their their houses in those small towns, and well, see, I'm very messed up, man. 00:27:47 Speaker 3: I have to pull this I wasn't gonna go here with you, but you brought it up a Vita. This is from Peachey Keenan, who is a friend of the show, and she says, why are so many women so angry? They won? They got everything they wanted. Men have never been doing this badly and women have never been doing this well. They make more, They have more a majority of the jobs. They are the majority of college graduates UCLA undergrad a six percent female. They make more money, have much more, lower rates of suicide, addiction, alcoholism, live longer, et cetera. They won, And so I replied, I was like, you just answers your own question. They're unhappy because they won. They got everything the feminists told them they should want, and it's left them miserable. And yet here you are pushing a much more traditionalist view. You're always so supportive of your husband who's running for Congress, and you seem extraordinarily happy of Vita. 00:28:37 Speaker 2: What is this dynamic? 00:28:39 Speaker 6: So actually what. 00:28:40 Speaker 7: You're saying is backed up by the data. I've written a couple articles about this. Left Wing women, and particularly left wing single women, are not only the most unhappy demo in America, they are also the most mentally ill. So yeah, they think that they've won all these realms, right, they're beating the patriarchy at every step of the way, and it's not leaving them fulfilled, and it's not leaving them happy. And it turns out that actually, some of these systems that we've created in the world right so over the centuries, especially ones informed by Christian civilization building, are actually good for people. 00:29:12 Speaker 6: They actually make people happy. They're Therefore, the left wants to dismantle all these things on purpose. They say they're terrible and wrong. They're not. They're there for a reason. 00:29:21 Speaker 3: Imagine, maybe we've had things right all along, and we've been raging against good things. 00:29:27 Speaker 8: Maybe I don't want an institution to undo what I think is the great upbringing we've given them. 00:29:36 Speaker 11: I think it depends on the kid whether or not they're sort of coming with the virtues necessary to live out that life. Well, but I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. You come here because it's the best opportunity, and if someone has like a sense of themselves and a sense of God before coming, I think that will only flower. 00:29:55 Speaker 8: So you say there's a culture that she could seek out that would match the way raise. 00:30:00 Speaker 11: Yes, and not only just a culture. I think it's a very strong, flourishing Catholic culture on campus. The students are wonderful and you can see like the faith growing and students during their time here. 00:30:11 Speaker 3: All right, So we just had to play the other side of it. That's the Harvard priest encouraging the Duffy family to send Paloma there and that you will be well careful. So Avida tell us about that seed because we were just talking about faith. 00:30:23 Speaker 2: Guys. 00:30:23 Speaker 3: I believe that I believe two things. I think feminism. If people dive into like the roots of feminism, you know, they actually there was like this women's Bible that they came up with. They kept they were going around the country trying to encourage women to you know, with the vote and suffrage, and the women kept voting it down. It was very like women didn't want suffrage. But then they this woman's Bible is actually like devoted to Satan. I kid you not, This is like a real story. 00:30:49 Speaker 2: Look it up. It's actually true. 00:30:51 Speaker 3: But my point is that there's two sort of inter connected themes here. Church and faith in Jesus Christ will bring you joy and purpose. And feminism is one of the most destructive. Radical feminism was the most destructive I think veins of ideological movements in the country in our history. And then here you go, you got this priest at Harvard, very liberal place, telling you there's a vibrant culture there. 00:31:17 Speaker 2: What was that moment? 00:31:17 Speaker 9: Like? 00:31:18 Speaker 6: It was actually kind of vindicating for me personally. So I actually disagree with my parents a little bit on this Harvard debate. 00:31:24 Speaker 7: Do I believe that Harvard is woken and you know not. 00:31:27 Speaker 6: What it used to be is not living up to its legacy. Yeah, of course I agree with all of those things. However, I don't. 00:31:35 Speaker 7: Believe that we should abandon our institutions to the left. And the same way, I don't want the media to be run by the left or our government to be run by the left. I don't want our elite academic institutions to be overrun by the left. And I think that there are some kids who will do very poorly at a place like Harvard and they will lose their faith. And there are some people who are I think, very grounded already, who I have a strong sense of character and could end up leaving those universities more conservative than they entered them. 00:32:06 Speaker 6: That happened to me. 00:32:07 Speaker 7: I went to the University of Chicago. I was canceled for opposing socialism. I received death threats by my peers. They said that they didn't like the way I looked, that I didn't deserve to vote, that they were going to remove me from campus. The actually David Axelrod, who at the time was in charge of the Institute of Politics that U Chicago, had to step in and tell the students to stop bullying me. David Axelrod, Obama's former chief advisor. So what I'm trying to say is some kids can come out of this. Okay, maybe some can't, and it's the job. 00:32:35 Speaker 6: Of a parent to decide whether that's good for them or not. 00:32:37 Speaker 7: But ultimately, I don't want to see all conservatives check out from these institutions, because if we do, we see them to the left. 00:32:45 Speaker 6: And that's not good. 00:32:46 Speaker 3: I totally agree by the way, I you know, the left talks about the long march to the institutions. 00:32:50 Speaker 2: We need to take it. 00:32:51 Speaker 3: We need to reclaim these ourselves. We need to march right back through them and clean house. That's why I love, by the way, what Scott Besson's doing with like the Smithsonian stuff. Like the guys doing a great job. All right, So I got to throw this graph up here. This is two twelve. It's making the rounds here, Avida. The number of unmarried men is surging. Okay, now it basically doubles married men. And this is from the ages of twenty to thirty nine. This is a big problem because you will get radicalized politics if people are a nation of renters and if they don't get married and have kids. What's driving this? In your opinion, especially when you're talking about gen Z. I know there's a lot of consternation and friction between the sexes. 00:33:35 Speaker 2: What do you see when you see this graph? 00:33:37 Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean it makes a lot of sense to me, even inter personally, as I look at the men and women that I know in my own life. Men are dramatically more right wing than their female counterparts. I think that, you know, actually, women are eleven percentage points more. 00:33:51 Speaker 6: Likely to graduate with a four year degree than men. 00:33:54 Speaker 7: Men are kind of checking out of that system, and women are being fully I think it doctrinated by it and brought into it. The thing that I will say, and I'm actually happy that men are doing so well, they're going towards the political right. I'm not happy that they can't reconcile that with their female counterparts. I will say as a note of maybe some hope, there is a growing trad movement among young women. I think women are especially attracted to aesthetics, to beauty, to truth reflected through beauty. 00:34:21 Speaker 6: And you're seeing female. 00:34:22 Speaker 7: Influencers like Nara Smith and Ballerina farm Really, I think make those lifestyles attractive, make motherhood and womanhood attractive, womanhood attractive. You know, when I first had my baby, I had her May twenty seven, so I'm a very new mom of this year. 00:34:37 Speaker 6: And thank you. 00:34:38 Speaker 7: And when I posted some really beautiful photos when I like right after I had her because I wanted and I had curled my hair and I did my makeup before I actually gave birth, and people are like, that's crazy, But I didn't want to feel ugly as I was going with this beautiful you know, a world of motherhood, as I was going to meet my baby for the first time. 00:34:57 Speaker 6: And I think showing women. 00:34:59 Speaker 7: That these things be beautiful and wonderful and aspirational is going to be really helpful as we try to bring them back from left wing I think in doctrination and so there there is positive things happening, especially in the social media world and bringing females, females back. 00:35:15 Speaker 9: Into the fold. 00:35:16 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it all feels really interconnected because even some of the pushback that you're seeing online about this Lindsey Clancy thing, they're saying, Conservatives, you're doing it wrong, you're turning women away, and postpartum psychosis is real, and it's like, I don't feel I feel like we're talking past each other. Actually because I don't I don't see people making the argument that postpartum depression isn't a real thing. 00:35:35 Speaker 2: Of course it's a real thing, but. 00:35:38 Speaker 3: It doesn't excuse killing your three kids and I and so. 00:35:42 Speaker 5: I don't take hot take no real controversial. 00:35:46 Speaker 3: But it does feel like we're talking past each other and so many things, and you know, we just need to get back to the biblical roots that like, yes, husbands, you are supposed to serve your wife, and I understand no fault divorce and these things have hollowed out the institution. But like opting out is so cringe and so weak, like don't opt out, don't opt out like final ninety seconds to you Avida, your message to gen Z women like what what do you hope that they see? 00:36:15 Speaker 2: What do you hope that they do with their lives. 00:36:17 Speaker 7: I don't think we're promoting the positive sides of motherhood enough. You know, when I had my baby first fall, it was an amazing experience. 00:36:23 Speaker 6: It was not it was it was painless. 00:36:25 Speaker 7: I took all the drugs right that that helps, but I but it was I had postpart of euphoria. 00:36:30 Speaker 2: You don't. 00:36:30 Speaker 6: Not everybody has postpartum depression. You can have post part of euphoria. 00:36:33 Speaker 7: And I'll also say, you know, if you want a good example of a wonderful, loving family discovering America, you can watch The Great America road Trip for free on YouTube at said the US Department of Transportation's YouTube channel. 00:36:43 Speaker 6: You can see all the. 00:36:44 Speaker 7: Episodes in mini series, and I think you'll be inspired by it. 00:36:47 Speaker 3: No, I love that because you guys are I mean, really, that's what you're doing. You're doing You're lifting up a positive example because I agree. I have three beautiful kids, beautiful wife. 00:36:56 Speaker 2: I love it. 00:36:57 Speaker 3: It's the best thing in the world. It's hard, sometimes it's stressed. Sometimes you don't get enough sleep, but like you can't imagine your life any other way. Once you go down this road and it's by the way, it's grounding you all of a sudden, really care about your country, You care about your local politics, You care about the laws that are getting passed, and you opt in. So get married, have babies, be like the Duffy family that is doing their part. Avin It's so good to have you on the show. It was really too long in coming, actually, wasn't it, Avida, God bless you. 00:37:27 Speaker 2: We'll talk to you soon. 00:37:30 Speaker 3: So I don't know what the last year of your life has brought you, but for me, I can tell you it has been a season of monumental change. Change where my family lives, change how we're doing basic things in our life. And I will tell you it has made me appreciate the need to make sure your family's protected should something happen. I can't say that enough, can't underscore that point enough. Policy Genius is a way for you to make sure you have life insurance in the best life insurance at the best price. You got to prioritize peace of mind, lock in your life insurance today. Policy Genius is an online insurance marketplace that allows you to compare quotes from some of America's top insurance side by side for free. Their licensed team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life easily. Find what you need coverage, amounts, prices, terms. There's no guesswork, just clarity. Policy Genius helps you find your most affordable policy that meets your needs. They have thousands of five star reviews on Google and trust Pilot from customers just like you who found the best policy fit for them. So with policy Genius, you can find a twenty year life insurance policy starting at just two hundred and seventy six dollars a year for one million dollars in coverage. 00:38:43 Speaker 2: That's a great deal. 00:38:44 Speaker 3: So head to policygenius dot com to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could say. That's policygenius dot com. Be prepared, put your family first. Go to policygenius dot com. We have so a treat for you an hour or two and oh with the wide shot you see part of yeah exactly. Savannah Hernandez tpsa frontlines reporter and resident based female. For the hour, we appreciate her she's been very good on Lindsay Clancy, very very good. 00:39:13 Speaker 12: Yeah, you know, Andrew, I was actually just here visiting and then I got scooped up and now I'm on the show. 00:39:18 Speaker 3: But we wouldn't do that with just any any run of the mill female, just the based resident females. And we also have the great Steve Dace joining us remotely for the entire hour. Steve, welcome, my friend. 00:39:31 Speaker 2: Good to see you. 00:39:32 Speaker 10: Good to see you guys as well. Always a pleasure to be a part of the show. 00:39:35 Speaker 3: Well, we've got a bunch of questions lining up in the queue and we are going to get to them, Steve. But you had a great take this morning on this graph. We just covered it with Avida Duffy, actually Avida Duffy Alfonso. 00:39:47 Speaker 2: I want to make sure I get that right. 00:39:48 Speaker 3: Her husband is likely the next congressman from northwest Wisconsin. 00:39:54 Speaker 2: So you threw up. 00:39:55 Speaker 3: You have this reaction to the graph, and I want to make sure we put it up there. It's whatever the graph is, guys. I don't have the number this one, but it's showing the yet that's the one. This number of unmarried men is surging, and I think it's so fundamental. Before we get to the questions from the audience, Steve, your take was spot on. I think, explain why you think this is critically important to understand. 00:40:20 Speaker 10: Well, just to show a rare moment of me saying something profound is Joel Berry and Aron McIntyre both told me today they really like this post. And if you guys know anything about those two getting them to agree on anything, that's not easy to do. 00:40:34 Speaker 2: Wow. 00:40:35 Speaker 10: Right, So there you go. I we like that the blind squirrel finds acorn. Yes, but you know there's an argument right now. And let me use those two guys as kind of the archetype frankly, since I know them both. I mean, Joel would make the argument, Hey, what's going on with the young men? We're overreacting. We don't have to reordinate society for this. It's just a phase of rebellion, and all young men kind of go through this, particularly throughout you know, the modern West. And I would say that we're at an existential cliff here, which requires a massive paradigm shift and a complete reevaluation of how we are doing politics and what we're going to proceed and do in the next generation. And so the reason why there's an argument for this is because they're and they're arguing so vehemently. They're both smart guys, and there's ample evidence for both. But I think this chart really is the thing in which you'll catch the conscience of the next generation guys, because you know, I think of myself as a gen xer. So in this last election, the only generation that overwhelmingly voted Trump was the was my gen xer was voted for Trump by ten points. Boomers were the next closest. They were a tie, all right, and so but we were also the generation many of the pathologies were concerned about with young men. Right now, we kind of started many of these, right. People are kind of concerned about sort of nihilistic, econoclastic comments, social commentary of the Nick Fuinteses of the world. Well, I mean, that's essentially what gangster rap was back in the day. I think Nick wants to be compared to black guys, but that's essentially what it was. Okay, I might still years later, I might. 00:41:57 Speaker 2: I might still. 00:41:58 Speaker 10: I might still know many if you popped in straight out of Compton, don't, but if you did, my subconscious might still remember many of those lyrics. 00:42:05 Speaker 2: Frankly off the top of my. 00:42:06 Speaker 3: Head, right, I think I think we might have a ban on gangster rap. I don't know if cabooz is even willing for better keep going those. 00:42:16 Speaker 10: If you don't, it starts now, it starts now. 00:42:18 Speaker 2: If you don't, yes, the uh, then you look at a lot of the things. 00:42:22 Speaker 10: We're concerned about, you know, only fans kind of slut cause celeb Well we started that. I mean, porn stars became household names. And my generation when you could go into the back of a video store first uh, privately and then at home on your computer privately and without you know, the stigma of going to the red light district being able to acquire this stuff. 00:42:42 Speaker 2: A lot of it started with us. 00:42:43 Speaker 3: Yeah, you were ground zero for all these path pathologies in our culture. 00:42:46 Speaker 2: And yet right, you voted right, what's the key? Right? 00:42:49 Speaker 10: We got married and had kids, and we grew up. We were afforded the luxury of growing up and then the responsibility of it. Right, And so it's it's natural within young men. We were the latch key kids. So for the really the first single parent household or no parents when you came home household generation. And so it's natural in all young men to want to rebel against authority, to test boundaries. We want men to do that, which required our fathers and pastors who then say, here's where you properly and constructively, you know, direct that energy. And we don't really have too many of those in this generation, which is why Charlie's voice was so vital and carries on, you know, without him, into immortality, because it still resonates almost a year after his assassination. Because he was filling a void left by a generation of of of a lack of masculine leadership, and so without the hope of marriage, and that chart is just devastating. Without that hope being as acute as it was in my time, this means that it's more likely Orn's going to win the argument than say, you know, than the other guy will, then Joel will, and that's what we have to fix. 00:43:49 Speaker 3: So, Steve, we have a resident based female here in Savannah. Hernandez, Like, when you see a chart like that and there's this surge of unmarried men, what did you instantly think. 00:44:01 Speaker 12: Well, based off of what we saw this week with the Lindsay Clancy trial and women's subsequent response to it. On TikTok. I understand why this chart looks the way it does. And we have multiple issues in society right now. Right we have women who are girl bosses who quite frankly, don't want to be married. We have the concept of the family that is so degraded, and the average person is told that having a child is going to ruin your life, when in reality, having children is what, like Steve talked about, wakes you up to reality and wakes you up to how degraded our modern day society is. So again, when I see this chart, I see it as an example of the propaganda war that has been waged on women and essentially men's response to that. I mean, you have had women on TikTok this week throwing ice cubes in their bath pub because they are so enraged about the fact that they're. 00:44:53 Speaker 2: The best of us. 00:44:54 Speaker 5: But like, but anyway, it's am So if you guys have special questions about for Steve or for especially Savannah about working frontlines, because we don't usually have one of you guys on for it, UH, definitely send one in. But our first question today is from Abby and Abby unmute yourself and what's your question? 00:45:19 Speaker 2: Hi, guys, can you hear me? 00:45:21 Speaker 9: Good? 00:45:22 Speaker 1: Oh? 00:45:22 Speaker 13: Good, I don't hear myself. Okay, I have a question, and then I had something that's been on my heart to say to you guys. Okay, So the question is how does TPOSA go about choosing candidates to endorse, as in, how do you gather actual like factual information about them? And what credentials do you look for? 00:45:39 Speaker 2: Okay, And so's that question. 00:45:41 Speaker 5: We should always be precise because Turning Point USA. 00:45:44 Speaker 2: Does not endorse. 00:45:46 Speaker 3: We have an endorsement process where it's evaluated by our we have a whole team and there's a whole questionnaire and then it's approved by a leadership uh and then the board. 00:45:55 Speaker 2: So of Turning Point Action. 00:45:56 Speaker 3: So there's a whole step by step process that involves interviews. So if you're a candidate running and you seek out our endorsement, we'll interview, we'll do a questionnaire, and then you have to you know, approved by a leadership. 00:46:08 Speaker 2: On our board. 00:46:09 Speaker 5: So, which is funny because I just I loved Charlie's story about endorsing jd Vance. 00:46:15 Speaker 2: That was much more. That was that was early. 00:46:17 Speaker 5: Yeah, Basically he meets with Charlie and Tyler and they're like, oh, he seems great, we should endorse him, and then they accidentally like jumped the gun on it before Charlie had talked to that Stakeholder's an hour worked out a little bit, but I always got a kick out of that story. 00:46:31 Speaker 3: We've got a minute left, So what's your what's your what's been on your heart to tell us? 00:46:36 Speaker 13: I wanted to thank you guys for picking up the baton that Charlie left to you guys and continuing this race. Thanks to you guys continuing the show. You've helped me grow immensely in my knowledge and in my faith and as a person. And I've even entered like the political scene, and I know what things are going on now and I didn't know that before. So thanks to Charlie and all of you guys continuing it, including Steve and Savannah. Just thank you so much for growing my knowledge. And it's the highlight of my day to watch the show. 00:47:05 Speaker 2: Oh man, that blesses us like you can't imagine. 00:47:08 Speaker 3: And it is very fitting to have Savannah and Steve here because both of them knew Charlie. Both of them were inspired to do what they do because of Charlie. 00:47:16 Speaker 2: And we're all. 00:47:17 Speaker 3: You know, people always ask the silliest questions, who's going to replace Charlie? And the answer is nobody ever, can, nobody ever will. He's one of one, and it takes all of us to do our small little part. And so for sure, God bless you. 00:47:29 Speaker 2: That was very sweet. Thank you. It means a lot. I want to tell you guys about Oh go. 00:47:34 Speaker 13: Ahead, was that you guys are very loved. 00:47:37 Speaker 3: Oh thank you, Thank you so much genuinely, because we hear a lot of the other stuff too, So this is great. John is next? John, please unmute yourself. Welcome to our ask us anything. 00:47:48 Speaker 14: Hey, hope you guys are having a great day. I just I have a question in a related comment. So first I just want to know what was Charlie's stance on the death penale? And then Andrew Blake, would you think your stance is any different than his, given the pro life stance? 00:48:08 Speaker 3: Yeah, so I would say my understanding of it, because Charlie was against the death penalty for a long time. 00:48:13 Speaker 2: Actually he was. He didn't think it was evolving. 00:48:17 Speaker 3: Is I'm I'm ninety five percent sure by the time we lost him, I think he had come full. 00:48:25 Speaker 2: I think he was. 00:48:27 Speaker 3: I don't think he was vocally like I don't think it was like his time yeh, bloodluster, but I think he. 00:48:32 Speaker 2: Had basically become convinced that it was something that was acceptable. So we have a clip on this. 00:48:37 Speaker 5: I don't know when exactly it's from, so it could be at any point in this evolution. 00:48:41 Speaker 2: But let's just play it. It's miant long. Let's play clip seventeen. 00:48:45 Speaker 1: When you take another person's life, you already took your own life. I want you to think about that. If if someone were to murder Alex or murder me, they already murdered themselves in that action. They already bestowed the punishment upon themselves. We are so completing the task, and think about it. Some people will say, but Charlie, you know it's not fair because of whatever sob story liberal reason. 00:49:11 Speaker 2: How is it? 00:49:12 Speaker 13: You know what it is? 00:49:13 Speaker 1: And honestly no, And I'll just close with it. I'll kind of finish with this. But you know who it's not fair to. It's not fair to the victims. You are cheapening the lives of the victims. You are basically saying the victims die and you get to live. So you get to continue to live even though you took the lives of others in order to say that those people's lives mattered. The only just thing that we could reason ourselves to is to take that person's life. 00:49:42 Speaker 2: And that is not murder. 00:49:43 Speaker 1: That is killing, and it's societal self defense. 00:49:46 Speaker 3: So that's crazy because that was a couple of weeks. I was actually in the room when that happened. I forgot that he said that, but it came back to me just watching it. So that was a couple weeks before he was murdered. 00:49:55 Speaker 2: Yes, and it kind of hits you really hard when you think yes. 00:50:00 Speaker 5: And so it's a complicated when you asked about our own views, and it's it's a tough one because you know, for example, the Catholic Church historically has said the state state authorities have the right. 00:50:13 Speaker 2: To execute people. 00:50:13 Speaker 5: That is a valid punishment. And I would note even in the Bible, when you know the good thief and the bad thief are on the sides of Jesus, the good thief, what he says is that we have been justly condemned. He you know, he doesn't Jesus doesn't come in and say, actually, like you know all executions are bad. He actually does. He just says, because you recognize your guilt and repent, you will be with me in paradise. And historically, certainly in the Catholic Church, that was the view that authorities can justly impose the death penalty for punishment, and that that is different from abortion or murder or any of these other things. They've started to go, I'll be Frank Francis, and Leo has done as well. They've gone in a much more lib direction on this, of saying we should abolish the death penalty. And I think this is abandoning a historic teaching of the Church, and it bothers me that they've done this. I think they're kind of buying into libed hard reasons for doing it. 00:51:06 Speaker 2: Especially Steve, what's your take on death penalty. 00:51:09 Speaker 10: Well, if you look at the Hebrew word that is used by Moses there in the pentitook. It means an unjustified, premeditated taking of human life. Is what the thou shalt not murder means. It doesn't mean, as Charlie rightly points out, as distinction, thou shall not kill. And so there are extreme circumstances that justify it. There were in the levitical law, you had to have multiple witnesses and things of that nature before we had things like forensics thousands of years ago that we have today. So, if anything, I think it ought to be expanded to crimes. I think rape ought to be a capital crime. I think severe sexual traumas inflicted upon children as well. 00:51:48 Speaker 2: Ought to be capital crimes. 00:51:51 Speaker 3: I'm the son of a former prosecutor who put I believe, three men on death row, who's also my dad Catholic. I was a cradle Atholic, became Evangelical in college, but so my dad had to kind of reconcile with that stuff, but he had no moral objection to it. 00:52:07 Speaker 2: Savanna, you got a pov. 00:52:09 Speaker 12: I do Andrew, because it was that clip from Charlie that helped me solidify my own view on the death penalty debate. And I truly do feel like you can't be pro life while refusing to protect life is right the most innocent among them. 00:52:22 Speaker 5: So many of us sort of got a little bit psyoped. I feel where people will go, it'say, oh, you oppose abortion, but you support the deaf exactly. Well, okay, so you equate an unborn innocent human being with a person who's created a. 00:52:35 Speaker 2: Heinous crime, and that's what it is. 00:52:37 Speaker 1: Right. 00:52:37 Speaker 12: Being pro life means that we are protecting the most innocent lives. And so if we are allowing rapists and murderers and people who will routinely go back and commit crimes again and again and again, which we do see in our modern day society, that in itself is not a pro life perspective to take by allowing these people to continue attacking others. 00:52:54 Speaker 5: And the thing that shaped my perspective to I think favoring it is just that what we've seen is in a society that doesn't have the death penalty at all, they pretty quickly start lacking any moral confidence in anything. And so we start not even imprisoning murderers for life, we start not imprisoning them for that long. We start in some cases not imprisoning them at all. It's like a total there's a society that doesn't think any crimes exist that can merit death. It seems like as a society that doesn't believe in itself. 00:53:28 Speaker 3: Well in this you see this with Lindsay Clancy, where it's total moral inversion. I've become convinced by the way I said this on Thought Crime last night, that there is there is an op, whether it's foreign or domestic, to take these true crime trends that are fraying the social fabric and then pour gasoline on them, amplify them, because what. 00:53:47 Speaker 2: Does it make us do? 00:53:48 Speaker 3: The rest of us that are looking at this, like, hey, she admitted to murdering her three kids. It drives us crazy. It's like, are we taking crazy pills here? What's happening to our culture? And then next thing, you know, everybody's doubting each other. Society is falling apart, right, and so if I'm a bad actor, I want to pour fuel on this fire. So I think they understand to Blake's point that once a society loses its moral compass, all hell breaks loose. Cats and dogs living together the gen X reference there for Steve det Okay, all right, yeah, actually living yeah, ghost bus, So thank you for that. Yeah, oh awesome. 00:54:27 Speaker 15: So yeah, the input that I had, and this is kind of goes to the mode of the death penalty, which primarily is lethal injection, and you got a lot of the anti death penalty. They're saying, oh, it's not humane, it's not effective, and I was in the medical field for thirty years and talked daily with aniseesiologists, and they were like, you know, if they want someone to co do the death penalty lethal injection humanly and effectively, just hired an antists albums because we do this every you know, every day, many times a day, putting people to sleep. You know, we can give them the right cocktail to take them out. 00:55:03 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:55:04 Speaker 3: Well, and it was interesting you heard from Andrea Burkhart earlier if you were watching our one, where she basically says, like Utah, if they can't get the drugs that are for lethal injection. 00:55:13 Speaker 5: They've tried to choke them off. They've tried to choke them off. 00:55:16 Speaker 2: There's the thing the left us. 00:55:17 Speaker 3: Yeah, so they try and make it so you can't get the death penalty drugs the cocktail. So that's why you states like Utah have firing squad as a backup. 00:55:25 Speaker 5: If you want an interesting fact, I know, at least in some places that have assisted suicide, the assistant suicide cocktail is basically just lethal injection drugs like very similar overlap. 00:55:38 Speaker 3: Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. 00:55:43 Speaker 2: You've probably been hearing me talk about y Refi for some time. 00:55:46 Speaker 3: Now. 00:55:46 Speaker 2: We are all in with these guys. 00:55:49 Speaker 3: If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter, why then refi dot com. And remember y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 00:56:37 Speaker 5: Elizabeth is our next question, and I think she's she's she's expressing some paranoia that people have out there. 00:56:42 Speaker 2: All right, Elizabeth, yourself, un meet yourself? 00:56:45 Speaker 9: Yes, Hi, guys, how are you today? 00:56:47 Speaker 2: Great and great, all right, So my question is I thought. 00:56:50 Speaker 9: Article and it kind of blew my mind. It was about this company called Median Strategies and they were doing all of these polls for Wisconsin and the Los Angeles mayorial race and they were like, oh, we lied, we made up everything. We just put this take information about then the twenty points ahead out there. So like, how are we Because I consider myself relatively politically savvy, so how are because this was all over X was all over the news, these polls, how are we discerning because now we're getting these polls that like Tom Cotton's behind having the problems in Iowa, this is close, that is close. Ken Paxson is Ken Paxton won't hit by the election last time by ten points. So how are we discerning which polls are right and whethern't the information from and what's like valid to be worried about. 00:57:41 Speaker 5: Yeah, I just want to refresh people on what happened here because it is a pretty disturbing story. So yeah, Median Strategies, as you said, there's more information about it. The website that was putting out these fake polls which showed I believe it showed the DSA Canada up on Karen. 00:57:55 Speaker 2: Bass or yeah, Nathian Rahman up on Karen Bass. Yeah. 00:57:59 Speaker 5: And then it was all a showing Francesca Hong just dominating all the opponents see the race she ultimately lost, And it was all run by this twenty one year old guy named Rahil Prakash, who, as they put out a statement saying it was a short term experiment to a social experiment to examine how fake polling could enter and spread through the information ecosystem without independent verification. This guy, he told The Guardian yesterday, I wanted to see if fake poles could really penetrate the ecosystem that easily, and as it turned out, they could. And a lot of us are thinking is should this be treated as fraudulent behavior? 00:58:40 Speaker 3: So I totally agree, and I think you could imagine this impact on the betting markets too. People could lose millions or win millions based on fake poles. Also, could it be suppression polls? Could you use this to suppress the vote? And you know, I called some of my friends over in Texas the internal polling that they have just to let everybody know they have Ken Paxton up but up in Texas. Now, I don't know what are you hearing in Iowa. By the way, Steve, we got some dog fights there. 00:59:05 Speaker 10: Well, it's important to have shows like Get You Guys, where you can get access to the proprietary polling that is done by people who do this for a living and have to show results so they can get jobs. 00:59:16 Speaker 2: Cycle to cycle. Because what's happening publicly. 00:59:19 Speaker 10: I mean you mentioned the betting markets and how much they're manipulated by polling. I mean the betting markets in the Iowa primary had Randy Feenstrat eighty six percent. I even called, we can't bet on politics in Iowa. So I called some people I know out of state. Sorry, I should have called you guys, And I said, listen, I've seen Zach Lane's proprietary polling. I think this thing is way closer to fifty to fifty than eighty six percent. You'd get pretty good money on our odds, on your money right now. And then, of course Zach ended up winning by seventeen hundred votes. So I do think there's massive ops here. You know, Emerson, I keep track of all this stuff. You know, I'm a nerd, and so Emerson's really been one of the best public posters of the Trump era, and yet they have been way off as well in these primary polls with these openly socialist candidates, way over sampling how much l Saud was going to win by way over sampling that how that Hong was going to win it all, and by double digits, And so there's clearly a glitch in the matrix, even with an Emerson who's been a pretty reliable public polster here. And I think ultimately, look, I would urge our audiences to look at gas prices. 01:00:22 Speaker 2: That's the best poll there is, right. 01:00:24 Speaker 10: The party in power never wins when prices are really high, and has a great chance to win when the and retain power when prices are really low. So I would trust stuff like that more than I would trust polling. But the biggest problem with the polling guys is a lot of times we decide our overton windows of what we can even discuss by what the polls say. It's a little bit like if you bet on a sports on a game and the game didn't happen, but all the ESPN analysts said you were going to lose, so this sports book was like, well you lose. You're like, well, the game didn't happen yet, right, We bet on opinions and not on elections, and so the amount that this stuff impacts the actual arguments we even get to see at all is profound, and I do think it's time for some kind of fraudulent accountability here for sure. 01:01:05 Speaker 12: Well yeah, now, well, what I was gonna say to Andrew, and I kind of have a different take on this when I saw this, And I'm glad that you know, our caller is bringing this up and she's asking about this, because I thought the same thing too. I think that it's really sinister that these poles were put out specifically to make socialists look like they were going to win their polls. And I think that this was a really interesting push to see if we could get the average person to think that socialism was exactly a way more normalized and accepted thing. And obviously we are seeing DSA start to gain popularity across America. So I kind of took an alternate angle with it, and it's like, Okay, not only do we know if our polls are real or not, but now we are also seeing fraudulent polling being utilized to push socialism as the norm. 01:01:47 Speaker 5: Now, yeah, well, so there's a lot of pieces that go into this as for what you can do. And then this will probably emphasize the importance of having a long term track record of just being a polster, like whether emer since polls are accurate or enough or not, they are at least probably not outright faking the poll because they will be around this cycle, they will be around next cycle. 01:02:09 Speaker 2: They have to care about their credibility. 01:02:11 Speaker 5: But you probably should worry about a brand new startup company that's just putting out poles and if you've never. 01:02:17 Speaker 2: Heard of them. 01:02:18 Speaker 5: And I know people like to dunk on Nate Silver sometimes, but actually one of the reasons he's not a bad guy to follow is he does care about long term track record of polster. You can use him to check which guys have been around a long time, which guys have a better reputation. He cares about, you know, who's accurate this election, next election. It's not bad to necessarily look to that as a way to avoid getting bamboozled. But definitely there are push poles, we'll call them, or rigged poles. Lots of organizations commission poles to make socialism look more popular than it is, to make abortion look more popular than. 01:02:51 Speaker 3: The Curre's your pov on why specifically has so many over sampled DSA, Why specifically are they getting a better shake? 01:03:00 Speaker 10: Well, I think there's maybe a spiritual answer here that I think Savannahs kind of alluding to, I something sinister if we're going to just put it in the material world, you know, if I had to guess a lot of polsters, I mean, people aren't picking up phones to answer polsters anymore or hanging up as soon as they see one. And a lot of the results you gov was kind of the first mainstream polster go pretty much exclusively online, and I think that a lot of now, a lot of this is being done online, and I think you're probably going to get an over sample, particularly in a primary where the electorate is low turnout on both sides, and so just one outlier sample can throw off an entire estimate of what you think is going to occur, And especially if you're doing it online, where I think you see more rabid and open socialism among the left online than you even do in real life, that would be the best case scenario. Everything else gets more increasingly sinister from there. 01:03:51 Speaker 2: I think you're right on that I think. 01:03:53 Speaker 3: You know, we had Mark Halprin on this week and he was talking about this gal that won in Florida over Alexander Vinman and he outspent her sixteen million to five hundred thousand or something, and he had this great line he said, movements will always beat money. And when you have this rising movement of DSA, they're going to be more app to get their voice out. They're going to be more motivated to talk to people. They're going to be more excited to share their beliefs and proselytize about it. So I think I think that probably has something to do with it and why it's getting the waiting's going funky on this Okay, guys, I got to tell you some news here. I believe the embargo is lifted. We want to play this video. We are going to honor Charlie Kirk making an announcement right now. Honor Charlie with a deliberate act of remembrance on September tenth at UVU play cut nineteen. 01:04:47 Speaker 1: I want to honor God and all that I do. I want to be a great husband, a great father. I want to serve this country. 01:04:55 Speaker 14: We honor Charlie. 01:04:57 Speaker 15: Now it is up to us for Christ, for country. 01:05:01 Speaker 3: Charlie Kirk is in heaven because his Savior sacrificed himself for Charlie Kirk. 01:05:06 Speaker 1: Grace is not earned, It is given by a God who loves you and wants to spend he turned you with you. 01:05:11 Speaker 2: I want to be remembered for courage, for my faith. The most important thing is my. 01:05:15 Speaker 1: Faith in my life. 01:05:20 Speaker 3: So Turning Point USA will hold the Freedom Built to Last Memorial on September tenth, twenty twenty six, at UCCU Center on the campus of Utah Valley University, marking one year since we lost Charlie. The gathering will honor Charlie is a faith filled husband, father, and defender of free speech, with a memorial that serves, as I said, as a deliberate act of remembrance and a call for students and supporters to continue his life's work. And by the way, this event is going to punctuate an entire week of commemoration. SIMULTANEOUSLYPSA TPUSA Faith is leading a nationwide initiative inviting Christians of every denomination and tradition to honor Charlie's mission to make Kevin crowded by inviting a friend or family member to church beginning on September September thirteenth and throughout the month of September. 01:06:10 Speaker 2: I'll always be doing that, by the way. 01:06:13 Speaker 3: Yeah, and you can RSVP at Charliekirk Legacy dot com Charliekirklegacy dot com. 01:06:20 Speaker 2: So we've got Glenn beck is going to. 01:06:22 Speaker 3: Be there, Frank Turrek, Andrew Seiher who is our chief field officer at TPUSA, and Caleb Chilcutt, who is the chapter president of our Turning Point chapter there when Charlie was assassinated. Now he's our Utah representative for the College Department there. So Caleb's amazing. So a great list of speakers that are going to honor Charlie in what I think is going to be a really beautiful event. And like I said, a deliberate act of remembering Charlie and his amazing life and his amazing contribution. And again save a seat for Charlie. Is this whole initiative to remind you of the importance people to church with you. Just it's a simple act. But hey, you want to come on Sunday, We're going. We'll save a seat for you, and it's you know, Charlie seat continues and will continue to be filled by a whole new generation of faith filled believers. So we want to invite you to be a part of that. Can you throw the RSVP graphic up one more time? Guys, So, Charlie Kirk Legacy dot com, please RSVP if you want to be a part of that amazing event Charlie Kirk Legacy dot com. And the event is called Freedom Built to Last, honoring Charlie Kirk. So one year after really proud of the team that's put this together. It's been a lot of work and there's gonna be a lot of other things going on that week. We've got a lot in store at this show as well. But we miss him every day and we want to remember him, right. We want to honor this year mark the right way. So Charliekirk Legacy dot com. Who's up next? 01:07:55 Speaker 5: Like, I think we have Josh as our next question. Josh unmute yourself and what's your question? 01:08:02 Speaker 16: Yeah, I was just commenting more on the pro life and pro death penalty statement earlier where I think it was r C. Sproll Or d James Kennedy one said that you can be pro life protecting the innocent lives of babies, and pro death penalty for taking the life of those that are guilty of condemned of murder. 01:08:20 Speaker 2: So I totally agree. 01:08:23 Speaker 3: I think it's I think it's a false equivalency to tie those two together. I completely agree. 01:08:30 Speaker 2: And you think it was R. C. Sproll or D. James Kennedy, Yes, I one of those two or both of them. 01:08:36 Speaker 16: Yeah, and I know that neither Well, there are arguments they don't contradict being a born again Christian pro life and pro death penalty, so neither one of them contradicts any one of them. 01:08:46 Speaker 5: So yeah, I mean, I you can have one view or the other on and I think there's arguments before and against it, whether practically or morally. But if you concede too hard to that, it's unacceptable. I certainly from the I would say, like Saint Augustine he says executions are a valid tool. 01:09:04 Speaker 2: Of the act of the state. 01:09:06 Speaker 5: Senator Saint Thomas Aquinas same thing, Like long history of Christian thinkers being able to distinguish what the state does, what it does to protect people, enforce the law, preserve, uh, you know, protect you know the citizenry and what an individual does. Because we're not supposed we're supposed to forgive our enemies. We're supposed to forgive those who persecute us. We're not supposed to seek revenge. 01:09:29 Speaker 2: And that is all true. That is in fact, why we have a state. 01:09:32 Speaker 5: Why the state holds the sword because yes, exactly, yeah, and it should be it should be acted justly. You you haven't duty to act justly, but it is not an act of revenge for the state to punish a criminal. 01:09:49 Speaker 2: Next up, we have Don don Welcome to the show. Please ummute yourself. 01:09:52 Speaker 17: Hi, guys, thanks, thanks, thanks for taking my call. 01:09:56 Speaker 2: Of course, what's your question? 01:10:00 Speaker 17: My question is a couple of weeks ago, Trump signed some eos is about birthright citizenship, and I was just wondering how long it'll take before the that that gets decided. I know it's going to be a long process, but just wondering we have any idea how. 01:10:21 Speaker 2: Long it's good? 01:10:22 Speaker 3: Well it yeah, So to bring everybody up to speed, he did sign some eos on the birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court struck down the original EO based on Fourteenth Amendment reasons, which they got completely wrong, it's supposed to be more narrowly tailored and a response based on the Supreme Court's ruling. So we'll see what's it's already being challenged, So this thing could get blocked at the district court level, then it'll be appealed to the circuit court level, and then potentially even up to the Supreme Court level. So if that was decided in June of this year, right the Supreme Court June or July, and that was signed basically right at the beginning, I believe, February, right in the beginning of February. 01:11:02 Speaker 2: So you know, however that was, and it could be. 01:11:04 Speaker 5: Different parts of it, because there's several pieces to the EO, and you know, we're optimistic about it's trying to define what birth tourism tours. So if you're on a boat sailing through our waters, no you don't get birth right. It's trying to pretty liberally define who a foreign government ambassador is, to include anyone who's employed at an embassy, for example, not just the ambassador to themselves. So it's just trying to set a pretty broad standard. Some of these it might be they'll get challenged only when there's a specific case. The original EO was so broad that it immediately out challenge. But we might only see some of these get pressured when there's specifically, maybe a employee at an embassy has a kid and then tries to claim their anchor baby as a citizen. They'll need to litigate that case. So some of this could get there next year, some of it might be two three more years out. And that of course assumes the EO remains in effect. 01:11:55 Speaker 3: Yeah, in the Supreme Court if it gets struck down at the circuit court level and they appeal it to court and say, hey, we already ruled on it, we're going to send it back down to the circuit Steve, you have any thoughts on that. 01:12:05 Speaker 2: You're a nerd on the legal ease. 01:12:07 Speaker 10: Well, I mean to me the key phrase, and I know you guys educated your audience on this, but the original attack against that amendment is that it would end up doing exactly what it ended up doing. And Jacob Power, the Michigan senator who crafted helped craft that amendment, he said in his own testimony during the confirmation battle that no, I mean the key phrase. Here's a subject of the jurisdiction thereof right, And so it was written to stop Southern states from saying, well, hey, these blacks are not Americans, therefore they don't actually deserve constitutional rights. And so the argument was, well, no, they were brought here under the auspices of the United States government, and so therefore they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof That's actually the key phrase in that entire lingo there. And you'll notice the court really didn't deal with it all that much and instead said, basically, anybody in the world, at any potential point now is a potential American. That's essentially what the court set. 01:12:57 Speaker 3: Don't don't mind the fact that we didn't automatically make Native American citizens either, because they were considered subject to the jurisdiction of tribal powers. 01:13:05 Speaker 2: But that's fine. 01:13:06 Speaker 3: Just ignore all the logic. It's fine. We have another question here getting through him, is it Jason? 01:13:12 Speaker 2: Is that who's next? Yes? Looks like that's all. Please im mute yourself. Welcome. 01:13:18 Speaker 18: Oh, how are you guys doing today? 01:13:19 Speaker 2: Doing a great? 01:13:21 Speaker 18: I think it's awesome that Steve Das is on here too, the first time I actually chat in that. 01:13:26 Speaker 10: I listen to you every day, to Steve Oh, thank you, brother, appreciate it. 01:13:30 Speaker 2: Thank you. 01:13:31 Speaker 11: You bet. 01:13:31 Speaker 17: We're live. 01:13:32 Speaker 18: We're live, We're live. 01:13:35 Speaker 2: I got a minutes to go. So what's your question, Jason, what's your question? 01:13:38 Speaker 18: My question, My question for you guys is my son is he's expressed interest in a Club America chapter. So he reached out, he sent something into Turning Point. He got an email back and he this is overwhelming to him. I looked at the forum a little bit and it looks like there's a little bit more info in there that we need to get other before moving forward. So I'm hoping that there's a local representative that you guys can get us in contact with here in Wisconsin. We're in southern Wisconsin, just north of just north of Madison by about thirty minutes. 01:14:16 Speaker 2: North. 01:14:18 Speaker 3: So yes, Jason, just as answer your question. We mean, by the way, just a couple of weeks ago, we had a massive new hiring, especially on the Club America side, because there's been such an explosion of chapters. I mean, we had more new staff in our office up here, and I had the honor to talk to them than we did it our first chapter leadership summit. So now we have more staff than we even had students at our first chapter leadership, so this is crazy. 01:14:42 Speaker 2: These are all new hires. 01:14:43 Speaker 3: So we have these people going out all over the country, and I guarantee you we have a rep that can contact you guys and get you in touch. I'll work with our team to send an email back to you and make sure you have their contact so we will be in touch, Jason. And that's a beautiful thing that you have a young fifteen year old that wants to get involved and start a chapter. 01:15:02 Speaker 2: We absolutely encourage that. 01:15:04 Speaker 3: And by the way, we've seen almost two hundred percent chapter growth on the on the Club America side, which is phenomenal. Two hundred percent. I mean, it's basically bigger than we could have ever dreamed of. And it takes a little while. The process is pretty it's pretty exhaustive, it really is, because you got to get all these pieces in place and teachers and administrators and all this stuff. Steve Dace, you were the man. Thank you for joining us today, and thank you Savannah for joining us today. 01:15:33 Speaker 2: And it is flown by. There's never enough time when we have our friends with us. I know it was fun. It was fun. 01:15:37 Speaker 12: Steve, you were great you're one of my favorite people on next so oh well, thank you. 01:15:42 Speaker 10: I really admire your work as well, Savannah, so I appreciate that. 01:15:45 Speaker 2: Thanks and follow it. 01:15:45 Speaker 3: By the way, at TPUSA front Lines, they're doing amazing work. You guys have probably seen the viral clips from the Lindsay Clancy stuff. 01:15:51 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, you had meetings here so you didn't get to go. I know, I have fomo. 01:15:55 Speaker 12: I wanted to see the Crazy Women outside of the trial. 01:15:58 Speaker 3: She was some good questions for it until until next week. God bless you all and see you then. 01:16:08 Speaker 2: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.