Jensen Huang: Victim or Villain? + AMA 286

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 going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will 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 a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 2: Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. 00:00:49 Speaker 3: Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 1: Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show. a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. 00:01:17 Speaker 2: All right. Welcome, everybody. 00:01:18 Speaker 4: It is Friday, November 13th. We are live from Phoenix, Arizona at the YRefi Studios. 00:01:24 Speaker 2: How are we doing, Blake? 00:01:25 Speaker 5: Oh, we're doing good. 00:01:26 Speaker 2: Fantastic. Fantastic. 00:01:28 Speaker 4: It's always a good day if Blake Neff is doing well. 00:01:32 Speaker 2: Doing well. 00:01:32 Speaker 5: Yeah, we got to just be acceptable, you know. 00:01:34 Speaker 4: So there are a ton of new details. As you guys could tell yesterday, I'm very fascinated by this Jensen Wang story. I think there are plausibly four different storylines that could be workable, that could explain bits and pieces of what's actually going on, right? He could just be a former nerd turned tech mogul. $ 100 billion net worth cheater who went outside of his marriage multiple times. Or he could be a shill for the Chinese party. He could just be greedy. Could be combination of the three. It could be also that Anthropic or OpenAI, which have closed models, wanted to take advantage of his infidelity and use this to hurt NVIDIA. because Jensen Wong was an advocate for open AI systems, but there's so much more coming out today. Now, this is an interesting story from CNN. David Sachs has made much of it. CNN says, U.S. Intel, this by the way, 139, U.S. Intel isn't sure if businesswoman spied on NVIDIA for China doesn't mean she wasn't a risk, sources say. So what does this piece actually tell us from CNN? And I want to caution everybody looking at this, because while I do think some of the reporting is accurate, Natasha Bertrand, who is the one that David Sachs quote tweeted here, was also the reporter when she was working for Politico that did the Hunter Biden laptop could be Russian disinfo story. Okay, so she connects, she's very tied in with the intel community, the IC, she's got lots of contacts over there. But this is what the story said. Now, I should say, It was also co-authored by a couple of others, Elena Treen, Zachary Cohen, Jennifer Hansler, Katie Bo Lillis. 00:03:33 Speaker 2: So there's multiple. 00:03:34 Speaker 4: Journalists on here, which may lend some credibility or not, depending on how you feel about CNN. But this is what it basically says, is that the attorney general says no conclusions reached on if this Chinese woman that Jensen Huang was having an affair with was a Chinese spy. 00:03:53 Speaker 2: No conclusions reached. 00:03:54 Speaker 4: The CIA says No, not yet convinced. DNI says not entirely accurate and over torqued, quote unquote. Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says no. Today, at least, I don't know. This was immediately after this individual's brief. So who is arguing that she is a spy? Anonymous officials tell CNN, quote, it strains credulity to believe that she was not acting as an agent of the Chinese government simply by virtue of the fact that she is a successful Chinese businesswoman working with one of America's most powerful companies. So this is the proof that it strains credulity. Even President Trump is sort of saying, well, I don't know, you know, it may or may not be a spy. Now, there are other reasons that make sense. And I'll have Blake detail these in just a second, that makes sense why Jensen would be fired anyways, right? Because some of this stuff is just too messy. But the other storyline that's very interesting here is why, if Megaspeed has been on the U.S. Department of Commerce's radar, the CIA's radar, State Department's radar, since 2024, why was this deal allowed to proceed? Now, everybody is now talking about Howard Lutnick. So this pretty juicy piece of tape came out this morning, okay? Scott Besson went on CNBC to talk about this, and you could read between the lines what is not stated. You could see that Scott Besson, who is not afraid of getting into fights with people, by the way. The guy can be a rabble rouser, but I mean, I'm a big fan. 00:05:37 Speaker 2: SOT7. 00:05:38 Speaker 3: There have been reports that. 00:05:40 Speaker 6: that there was some tension between you and Secretary Lutnick. 00:05:44 Speaker 2: About why. 00:05:47 Speaker 3: Megaspeed was not placed on the entity list. 00:05:51 Speaker 7: Yes. 00:05:51 Speaker 8: Well, I can tell you there was coordination. Treasury, War, USTR, and State, they were in favor of putting Megaspeed on the entity list for months. But Commerce has the pen. Commerce BIS has the pen. And you will have to ask them about their internal processes. 00:06:11 Speaker 4: Okay, that's very interesting. So now put some of these other headlines together. So you can see that Scott Besant is pretty frustrated. He's been on this Megaspeed thing because regardless of whether or not she was a spy, it's clear that Megaspeed was a cutout that was using either companies in Southeast Asia to set up compute that was routing that to China, circumventing export laws. Maybe they were getting it to companies inside China. These nvidia chips so check this out 143 this is from axio scoop letnick stalled trump's nvidia china chip curbs after oval talks okay that's interesting but then look at this one this is from the new york times 142 u.s cleared nvidia chips to chinese firms with empty offices and troubling ties so obviously the u.s government does not want china to have the best chips We want China to not be six months behind America in the AI race. We want them to be six years behind. 16 years. So why are we playing fast and loose with the chips? And this clip surfaced as well. And it kind of gives you some more intel and layers to this Jensen Wang, Howard Lutnick relationship inside the White House. 00:07:33 Speaker 2: Play SOT8. 00:07:33 Speaker 9: Howard is the person I talk to most in the administration. And He's on top of the technology. He's learning about the industry quickly. And I announced a historic partnership today, and he was the first to know about it. And so I think the nature of commerce has really changed. And I believe that your generation, this administration, was the first to confront it head on. And the reason for that is because of artificial intelligence. 00:08:03 Speaker 4: So he says very clearly, Howard is the person I talk to in the administration the most. He's on top of the technology and learning the industry really fast. So now you have the lines more clearly drawn. You've got Howard Lutnick, who seems to be very pro getting these chips into China. He's slow walking. This look into mega speed. There's reports that chips are getting delivered to buildings where no offices were and empty buildings. What is going on here? So much to unpack. Is she a spy? Is she not a spy? Well, we certainly know at least that he had an affair with her. He's admitted to that, that she was running a company that was under incredible scrutiny from the U.S. government, that all other aspects of the Trump administration seemed to want to really look into it, put the screws to this company to make sure they weren't circumventing export laws on these chips. And Howard Letnick, Jensen Wong's best friend inside the admin, was slow walking it. There's only 30 seconds here, Blake, but there's a lot to unpack there. 00:09:08 Speaker 5: Yeah, no, we'll have to definitely dissect this a bit more because we should explain to them, like, this sounds like Silicon Valley inside baseball, but this is actually, this could be a story more important than the midterm result, actually. 00:09:21 Speaker 2: Yes. 00:09:21 Speaker 5: And I think the midterm result is overshadowing it to some extent. I mean, I think the affair story first started to break before the vote, so everyone was slow playing it. This is a big deal. I'll explain why after the break. 00:09:31 Speaker 2: Huge deal. Huge deal. 00:09:35 Speaker 4: If you are using Microsoft Outlook, apparently you are now able to send emails again. 00:09:41 Speaker 2: It's coming back online. I don't know why anybody's using that product. 00:09:45 Speaker 4: But if you are, you probably use Outlook, don't you? 00:09:48 Speaker 7: No. 00:09:48 Speaker 10: No? 00:09:49 Speaker 4: Well, you got the PC there. Anyways, apparently it's coming back online. And there was a great line from Trump Labor Department Inspector General Anthony DeEsposito yesterday. 00:10:00 Speaker 2: Just roasted them. 00:10:01 Speaker 4: He says, Microsoft can process 6,000 H-1B applications, but processing your inbox is apparently a tougher assignment. 00:10:08 Speaker 2: Zing. Got him. 00:10:09 Speaker 4: All right, Blake, let's take one step back and explain NVIDIA, because I'm sure there's a lot of people that are just not quite sure why it's so important. 00:10:16 Speaker 2: No, exactly. 00:10:17 Speaker 5: In fact, as we emphasized before the break, this might in the long run be considered a bigger deal than the midterm results. 00:10:24 Speaker 2: You're just saying a lot. 00:10:25 Speaker 5: Because we should remind you, NVIDIA, going into this scandal, was right up there with Apple as the biggest company in the world. This story has cost them almost $ 2 trillion in market cap. 00:10:36 Speaker 7: Dang. 00:10:37 Speaker 5: Go look up, that's like the GDP of Texas or something in there. And so hugely valuable company. Let's remind you, NVIDIA powers the AI revolution. They make the most advanced chips in the world, or design them rather. And Jensen Huang's at the heart of that. And this is also an interesting story because since he's been driven out, the battle lines are drawing a little differently. This is not a normal story that maps onto Democrats believe one thing, Republicans believe another thing. There's aspects where there's China hawks and then there's pro-AI people, anti-AI people. There's Silicon Valley people who are really worried about the blob. So people are already pushing this idea. Huang is basically a victim of maybe 2020 era peak woke stuff that they appointed. They have members of their board who are basically diversity appointments. They appointed a bunch of women and a black guy. circa 2020 when all of that was rising, and maybe those people voted to push Wang out. And you were reading off that list from David Sachs. So David Sachs was, I believe, head of the president's AI task force early in. 00:11:44 Speaker 2: He was the AI crypto czar. Yes, exactly. 00:11:46 Speaker 5: Early in the administration, was a guy who helped Trump win in 2024, and he's clearly been pushing back on this and saying the espionage story is collapsing, and a lot of people want to fixate it on it either being a spy story... did Jensen Huang help China or making it an affair story? Is this just a matter of sexual ethics? And what's worth knowing is it's such a dramatic thing. It's actually bigger even than that. There's a guy on X who pointed out Dmitry Alperovitch, and he says that whether Jensen Huang slept with a Chinese asset is actually a tertiary issue in his words. I wouldn't go that far, but it's not the only thing that matters. It's that What we have is we have the CEO of one of the most powerful companies in the world. He is in a secret sexual relationship with a very large customer of his company who, no matter what, whether she's a spy or not, she is absolutely using a shell company to get billions of dollars of the most advanced chips in the world and export them either to China indirectly or to countries, there are entire countries like Malaysia, They're just building massive data centers so that they can supply the computational power to Chinese companies. It'd be like if we just started to build all of our data centers in Belize or something, which we might be doing after that Democrat win. And so this is a woman, even if she's not a spy, she's helping get around U.S. export controls. She's getting around Chinese government controls. So one of the most powerful CEOs in the world basically. 00:13:22 Speaker 5: Is helping evade regulations of the United States and China, and he lied about it, and he lied about it to his board, and they may have had to... He may have literally had... This guy points out, he may have had his general counsel interfere in an investigation by the U.S. government. Because he was hiding an affair, he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Chinese, if this were to be discovered, even if they weren't the ones honeypotting him. 00:13:46 Speaker 2: Even if he didn't know. Even if he didn't know she was a spy... But it does strain credulity. 00:13:51 Speaker 11: Exactly. 00:13:51 Speaker 5: And so I think a lot of CEO figures, David Sachs, Elon Musk, they've stepped up for Jensen Wang. I think a lot of them probably know him and are friends with him. They're also, they're all CEOs. I think they're very sensitive to what can look like an op taking out a CEO. And you took out the big man at the heart of one of America's most innovative companies. On the flip side, we should not ignore that We can't have our CEOs vulnerable to blackmail from China. We can't have our CEOs getting around our most important technical export bans with foreigners. 00:14:28 Speaker 2: Well, and here's the thing. 00:14:30 Speaker 5: However you read this, you guys should email us to give us your read on it. 00:14:33 Speaker 4: Here's one thing I would say. Two things that I've thought of that have kind of changed the way I think about this as the story has unfolded is that China should be further behind America than six months. And the fact that we keep, you know, messing around with these chips, sending them over. And by the way, Howard Letnick, I think genuinely, I'm not coming to any conclusions here, but does have a lot to answer for here. 00:14:59 Speaker 2: He does need to answer for. 00:15:00 Speaker 4: Why he was either incompetent or he had a different opinion than apparently the rest of the government. And we weren't being very, very careful with these chips. And we were allowing companies like Megaspeed to circumvent our export controls. 00:15:15 Speaker 2: So that's one thing. 00:15:16 Speaker 4: And then two, Jensen has a backlog of domestic orders for compute. There are so many companies that are trying to get in line to buy these chips here that he doesn't really need the Chinese market currently. Maybe you could make the argument that you want to get them addicted to our tech stack. 00:15:35 Speaker 2: Okay, I'm open to that. 00:15:36 Speaker 4: Maybe you could make the argument that you want to open that market for future. But still, they should be six years behind us on AI, not six months. 00:15:43 Speaker 2: All right. 00:15:44 Speaker 4: So there's the points that this this guy makes are valid. He seems to understand corporate governance very well. And there's a lot of reasons that Jensen probably that. 00:15:54 Speaker 2: Are justifiable without the spy saga. 00:15:57 Speaker 5: I lean towards what John Carney told us yesterday, that what we have already seems pretty indicative of really severe misconduct. And it's terrible because he clearly is an incredibly important, talented guy he built. one of the largest companies in the world. 00:16:13 Speaker 2: It's a lot. 00:16:14 Speaker 5: Everyone's directly reporting to him. This could badly mess up NVIDIA. At the same time, I also feel we can't have a guy who's leading NVIDIA who's lying to his board, who's lying to the U.S. government, who's helping evade export controls. He may have committed crimes. We may investigate this and discover real, serious crimes committed by Jensen Wang. 00:16:33 Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's just a lot. 00:16:35 Speaker 4: Of clips that I've been watching of him where he's very. 00:16:40 Speaker 4: Very aggressive, which you would expect from a CEO, but easy to set off. Some describe him as arrogant. Again, you probably need to be pretty arrogant to be a CEO of a $ 4 trillion company. But you pair that with everything else, and it's starting to look less and less good for him. 00:16:59 Speaker 5: And you know what I'm worried about? It looks like the new CEO is like a bean counter. He's from the bean counting division. And I will say any big tech company... You don't want them getting led by the money guy. Boeing started to get led by the money guys. Totally messed up Boeing. 00:17:15 Speaker 4: And there is all this circular financing going on where NVIDIA owns debt and equity in the companies that are purchasing their stocks to finance the purchases. 00:17:24 Speaker 5: A highly technical company should be led by a highly technical person, in my opinion. You couldn't replace Elon Musk at SpaceX with just a random MBA. 00:17:33 Speaker 2: It would be a disaster. 00:17:34 Speaker 5: And I feel like we shouldn't do that at NVIDIA either. She's an interim. 00:17:39 Speaker 2: Okay. Or he's an intern. 00:17:41 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think they should find the best engineer at NVIDIA and give this man godlike powers, which he may have with AI soon. 00:17:49 Speaker 4: An important message from Noble Gold Investments. November 3rd, control of Congress is on the line. And whatever happens, your savings are going to feel it. If Democrats take power, we could be looking at years of gridlock, followed by the same policies that fueled inflation before. More spending, bigger deficits, and a weaker dollar. We lived through this already. In June 2022, inflation was out of control and unchecked. Now, the national debt is over $ 40 trillion and Washington isn't slowing down. What has gold done since 2022? 00:18:18 Speaker 2: Doubled. Up over 100%. That's right. 00:18:22 Speaker 4: You can't control what happens on election day. You can control how prepared you are. That's why so many Americans are turning to physical gold and silver. Visit noblegoldinvestments.com slash kirk. That's NobleGoldInvestments.com slash Kirk and download your free wealth protection kit. NobleGoldInvestments.com slash Kirk is your wealth protected. If not, now is the time to act. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Mike Davis, Article 3 Project. How you doing, my friend? Good to see you. 00:18:53 Speaker 3: Thank you for having me back on, guys. 00:18:55 Speaker 2: Oh, great to see you. So, Mike. 00:18:57 Speaker 4: And thank you for making the time. I know you're extremely busy because I talked to you this morning. There is I can only imagine this race against the clock has everybody in communities like yours, the legal minds of our nation on the conservative side, really, really hunkering in and digging in to get as many of these judges confirmed as possible. Give us the lay of the land, the stakes, what we're trying to accomplish in the next, like, seven weeks. 00:19:23 Speaker 12: Yeah, I put out a FoxNews.com opinion piece on this. There are 23 pending federal judicial nominees. 00:19:30 Speaker 3: That includes four. 00:19:32 Speaker 12: Circuit courts, the federal courts of appeals, these are crucial appointments. That's the last stop for more than 99% of federal appeals because the Supreme Court only takes about 100 cases a year. So these courts of appeals around the country are critically important. And so there are four of those. And then we have 19 district court slots all over the country. We need to get these. My former boss, Chuck Grassley, the outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, has these judicial nominees lined up. We just need Senate Republicans to end their French work weeks and actually stay in session and get these judges confirmed because these are lifetime appointed judges. 00:20:17 Speaker 3: If we do not. 00:20:17 Speaker 12: Fill these slots, before Christmas, that means the Democrats are going to block these nominees, these slots for the next two years, and we could lose these crucial judicial slots to Democrats. Do you want President AOC throwing these or President Trump? 00:20:34 Speaker 2: Exactly. 00:20:35 Speaker 4: Well, so let's talk about this French work week. I think that's, you know, I have a ton of qualms with Leader Thune. I called for him to be replaced, I think, probably in August, maybe even earlier than that. Obviously, I share the base's frustration here. Okay, he's going to be the minority leader because nobody else wanted. 00:20:53 Speaker 2: To step up. They did this secret vote. 00:20:55 Speaker 5: Nobody else wanted. I don't know how much we want to. 00:20:59 Speaker 4: So we're stuck with this, all right? But to your point, what the Republicans are going to approve is by far and away better than what anything the Democrats would allow to happen in the next two years, all right? 00:21:11 Speaker 2: So what is with... these French work weeks. 00:21:14 Speaker 3: Why? 00:21:15 Speaker 4: I mean, you've got Senator Scott saying we need 200 hours of floor time to get this done. Democrats are going to do everything they can to obstruct this, but they're going home this weekend. 00:21:24 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:21:26 Speaker 12: I always said when I was working on the judicial nominations for Grassley 10 years ago or whatever the heck it was before they chased me out of there, I always said all you have to do is merely threaten to make these senators work past 2 p.m. on Thursday, and it's amazing how much you can get done. I mean, this is the most elite nursing home in the world. These people work two and a half days a week, and then they go take— You know, they're four and a half day weekends. 00:21:52 Speaker 3: It's unbelievable. They need to confirm these judges. 00:21:56 Speaker 12: There are a whole bunch of executive branch nominees who are working their way through the various Senate committees. 00:22:02 Speaker 3: They'll get out onto the Senate floor. 00:22:04 Speaker 12: There's going to be a big, it's called en bloc, but there's going to be a big vote. sometime in December to get all of those executive branch nominees confirmed. 00:22:12 Speaker 3: But that's the key. The key is that time is valuable. 00:22:17 Speaker 12: We have a limited time left before Democrats take over the Senate. There is a very good shot Democrats will keep the Senate for at least. 00:22:25 Speaker 3: The next six years. 00:22:26 Speaker 12: This is our final opportunity to get these judicial processes nominees confirmed. And that means the senators are going to have to, they're going to have to work longer than their French work weeks. The law resistance cannot resist long weekends, as Grassley used to say. 00:22:43 Speaker 3: We need to force these votes and do everything it takes. And we, at the Article 3 Project, we have a phone. 00:22:50 Speaker 12: To action for your viewers, your listeners, so they can light up Both of their home state senators, if you go to article3projects. org and hit the action page, we make it very easy to do pass-through phone calls and emails and social media posts to both of your home state senators telling them to confirm all these pending judicial nominees. 00:23:09 Speaker 4: That's a great action item. Article3project. com, right? 00:23:13 Speaker 3: Dot org. 00:23:14 Speaker 2: Dot org. Article3project. org. 00:23:17 Speaker 4: Hit the action button. Get to work on this. You've got to light them up. You've got to make them feel the pain. 00:23:21 Speaker 5: So, Mike, how fake is this? I know, for example, Rick Scott was emphasizing the hundreds of hours they actually need to get these people confirmed. That's why they need to be there. But is this kind of fake? It strikes me that, okay, guys, we're going to be out of power for probably at least two cycles. Democrats, I mean, they're a whole hog on, like, we're going to abolish the filibuster, trample everything. Can't they just basically say, you know, we're rewriting the rules. We're going to vote on every single one of President Trump's nominees, up or down, right now, giant package deal. And you can have it done in an afternoon. 00:23:56 Speaker 3: They don't have the, well, I don't want to curse on your show. I get in trouble when I do that. 00:24:00 Speaker 12: They don't have the courage to do that, unfortunately, among Senate Republicans. Remember, these are the same Senate Republicans who could not pass the Save America Act with voter ID, proof of citizenship with the support of 80%. including a super majority of Democrats and a super majority of Black people who Democrats pretend are too dumb to get an ID like everyone else, right? When in reality, they want to get their illegal aliens to illegally vote. I mean, it's, Republicans need to show some backbone here. This is why, in big part, why they lost the Senate and lost it so badly is because they didn't deliver for their voters. They didn't deliver the Save America Act. This is their final chance to, to get these 23 judicial nominees done. 00:24:47 Speaker 3: I would say recesses for kids. If you want recess, senators. 00:24:51 Speaker 12: You need to do your homework, and that includes these 23 judicial nominees. 00:24:55 Speaker 4: So, Mike, let me ask you about this, because you brought up recess. That was my next question for you. 00:25:01 Speaker 2: How about this? 00:25:01 Speaker 4: If they don't like working, how about we do recess appointments? Is that an option on the board? 00:25:06 Speaker 2: Could that happen? 00:25:08 Speaker 3: Well, here's the problem with the recess appointments. 00:25:11 Speaker 12: I think how it works under the Constitution is you'd have to have the House vote to shut down Congress, right, and go into recess. The problem is then the recess appointment would only be until the end of this Congress. 00:25:23 Speaker 3: And so the recess appointment would be until January. 00:25:27 Speaker 4: We need full confirmations from these guys. Okay, so I want to– there's this story out of– one of these judges out of Texas was– basically hastily added to the list when they realized Talrico was going to be elected here, and he hasn't gone through the normal vetting process. 00:25:43 Speaker 2: Do you know the backstory here? 00:25:44 Speaker 4: And are there any other names of some of these judges that you think are real rock stars that we need to keep an eye on? 00:25:51 Speaker 12: Yeah, there's Elliot Geiser, who's the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC. at the Justice Department. This guy is a brilliant attorney. He's been a clerk on the Supreme Court. He's been a, he's essentially, he is the general counsel to the executive branches as the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. He's a brilliant nominee. He was the Ohio Solicitor General. He has been nominated for a Texas District Court slot. Look, I would just say this to Senator Cornyn, who's leaving, I guess that someone like Elliot Geiser is not your first pick, but the other option is that the Democrats block this vacancy, and then they fill it with the Democrat the next time the Democrats win the White House. 00:26:37 Speaker 4: Explain that part, Mike. What are the powers that these senators have? This blue slip process or whatever, what power do state senators have to either block or or rush through these different nominees? 00:26:51 Speaker 12: Well, I hate the blue slips. I tried to get rid of the blue slips when I was there. I broke every piece of China in the Senate when I was there. But the most precious China and the Senate apparently are these blue slips. And that's where the home state senators get to hand select the U.S. attorney who would prosecute them, the U.S. district court judge who would oversee their corruption trial, and the U.S. marshal who would escort them to prison. And I'll just tell you, Look, I got rid of blue slipper. I had Grassley get rid of blue slips, advised Grassley to get rid of blue slips for circuit court nominees. They're just not going away. Here's how they enforce them. If you just say, OK, John Cornyn, we're going to ignore you. We're just going to run you over on the blue slip. John Cornyn's on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And so he just votes no and the nominee fails. And so you have to play bold. It comes down to this. Does Senator Cornyn, does he want his legacy to be that he left a judicial vacancy in Texas for a Democrat to fill with a left-wing radical? 00:27:50 Speaker 2: I mean, based on the past being prologue, I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, candidly. I mean, these guys are very bitter. 00:27:56 Speaker 5: Have you seen, like, a bunch of his staff are working with Tallarico or might work for Tallarico as a senator? 00:28:02 Speaker 11: Yeah. 00:28:02 Speaker 5: It's outrageous what's going on. 00:28:05 Speaker 4: With an R next to his name in Cornyn already. So it wouldn't surprise me. Is there somebody that, like inside baseball, that Cornyn is saying, hey, I'll vote for this guy but not that guy, that we could live with? 00:28:15 Speaker 13: Yeah. 00:28:16 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, they need to work out a deal. 00:28:19 Speaker 12: Cornyn, look, I get that he wasn't happy he got primaried by Paxton. 00:28:22 Speaker 3: And, you know, I get it. 00:28:24 Speaker 12: But I think this is bigger with a judicial vacancy, a lifetime appointed judicial vacancy. 00:28:30 Speaker 3: I like John Cornyn. I worked with him. He's a good guy. 00:28:32 Speaker 12: I think he's going to come around and come to the right place on this because he knows these judicial slots are so important and we can't lose them to Democrats. 00:28:40 Speaker 4: From your lips to God's ears. I hope you're right about that. It'd be a better way to go out than the last taste that is currently in most of our mouths. 00:28:51 Speaker 2: According to a. 00:28:51 Speaker 4: Memo from the Chief of Staff's office, first obtained by Politico, White House staff must now receive a prior approval from the Office of White House Counsel if they are going to meet with a lobbyist. 00:29:05 Speaker 2: This is great. 00:29:07 Speaker 4: So this is from apparently over, I don't know how many days, they politico interviewed dozens of these lobbyists apparently and they basically say this he eschews relationship-based favors he doesn't sway easily on issues he's ideologically driven and fiercely loyal to president trump that makes his elevation to chief of staff difficult for lobbyists seeking to influence the administration in the last two years a dozen gop lobbyists told politico so this is i think this is great that sounds amazing i don't know why they hasn't always been the case. 00:29:41 Speaker 5: Imagine if that was day one. 00:29:43 Speaker 2: Oh, man. 00:29:44 Speaker 4: I mean, listen, so Mike Davis is with us. This Politico article is just fantastic. By the way, I saw it because Katie Miller tweeted it, and I was like, you know, Katie Miller takes a bunch of crap. 00:29:57 Speaker 2: I mean, people hate. 00:29:58 Speaker 4: The miller family in general these these libs nasty uh nasty people and but it's just like find yourself somebody man find yourself somebody that loves you the way that katie miller loves you she appears to be as as they say ride or die yeah she is right i first met katie miller actually when she was working comms in the white house in trump 1.0 and i could tell she was a spark plug that uh mike davis how come it wasn't always this way like i i that when i read this i'm just like good for stephen miller this is huge we got a credibility gap but It always should have been this way. 00:30:30 Speaker 3: Yeah, I love Stephen Miller. 00:30:31 Speaker 12: He's, like they said in that story, he's fiercely loyal to President Trump. He's been with President Trump for many, many, many years, including in the dark years where people abandoned President Trump on the side of the road. He is driven by policy. He's driven by his conservative thoughts. He's America first. He's great on immigration enforcement. 00:30:56 Speaker 3: He's great. on our national sovereignty, which is the. 00:31:00 Speaker 12: Most crucial issue is, is who, who, who comes and goes to America, who we, the people invite to come and who we, who we tell to go and who becomes one of us. Right. And that's our most crucial sovereign power as we, the people, the sovereign citizens of America and Stephen Miller gets that to his core. 00:31:20 Speaker 3: So I'm a, I am a huge fan of Stephen Miller. 00:31:23 Speaker 12: I'm a huge fan of Will Sharp, the white house counsel and, I think he's off to– they're both off to a very strong start. 00:31:29 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, so Stephen Miller just– and I'm not trying to make this anti-anybody, but it was just as soon as Stephen got appointed chief of staff, you just could feel– again, we have this credibility issue. President Trump has had the most amount of credibility with the base I've ever seen in a politician ever. 00:31:49 Speaker 2: But things happened. OK. 00:31:52 Speaker 4: And as soon as Steven gets back in place, you just you could feel people like, oh, well. 00:31:56 Speaker 5: We took a big we took a big loss. And then people are very worried. Oh, it's going to be, you know, meltdown amnesty. Throw all the throw all the deck chairs off the Titanic and then jump in. And instead, we got something that made us excited and we needed something that would. 00:32:09 Speaker 2: Make us excited. 00:32:10 Speaker 4: I have a question on the legal grounds here on something. And it's OK if you don't know, because this is going to get into some pretty deep legal waters. But there's been a lot of people talking about, oh, even President Trump said the raids were too tough. That hurt us in the election because, you know, the the pretty and the good thing. So kind of a lot of people have been talking about, well, why don't we go after the businesses? Why don't we make some examples out of some of these groups that are hiring a bunch of illegals? And why don't we cut off their bank accounts and their financial system, their access so that they will self-deport legally? What do you think the challenges to doing something like this would be? And what are the roadblocks the Democrats are going to throw up? 00:32:50 Speaker 12: Remember, when you provide financial assistance to an illegal alien, that is harboring an illegal alien, which is a federal felony, right? So I think we need to ramp up criminal enforcement against these companies that knowingly hire illegal aliens and these sanctuary cities and states that coddle these illegal aliens. I think we should start charging these Democrat politicians with harboring illegal aliens. 00:33:18 Speaker 4: Well, so you think it's fully within the law for President Trump to sign an executive order about the banking system saying if you are knowingly banking and providing bank accounts, financial assistance to an illegal alien, that has to stop, and here's an enforcement mechanism. 00:33:36 Speaker 2: So that's already law. 00:33:38 Speaker 12: You could not follow a specific statute and cite that specific statute if he's going to debank someone, but sure, of course you can. 00:33:46 Speaker 3: You could do it through your Treasury Department. 00:33:48 Speaker 2: Fantastic. 00:33:49 Speaker 4: Well, and now you say Treasury. I mean, I got a lot of faith in Scott Besson, too. You mentioned Will Scharf. This memo that he sent out, basically it was a shot across the bow. He said, if you are coming in to harass us with this lawfare and a fishing expedition, you could be actually embrace embarking on criminal activity yourself. Explain that letter. I know you read it closely because I talked to you about it this morning. What do you gather from that? And what do you what? 00:34:17 Speaker 2: Actions could, Will Sharpe, be intimating there. 00:34:21 Speaker 3: Will Sharpe is exactly right. He's the new White House counsel. 00:34:23 Speaker 12: He's exactly right. Democrats have broad oversight power under Article I of the Constitution, but it has to have a legislative purpose, according to clear Supreme Court precedent, including... case from 2020. You can't just have partisan fishing expeditions. You can't use a congressional investigation to do a criminal investigation or work with federal or state or local prosecutors to build a case, a federal criminal case. You can't do that. That would violate Article 1 of the Constitution. That's beyond... Congress's Article I oversight power. Again, it has to have a legislative purpose, meaning they're doing an investigation to pass legislation, to amend legislation, but it can't just be, we're going to go after our political enemies. And if you do that, if Congress oversteps its Article I power and harasses people for their political views, that can violate federal criminal statutes, including the one we talk about on the show quite a bit, 18 U.S.C., Section 241, which is conspiracy against rights, and 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which is deprivation of rights under color of law. 00:35:35 Speaker 3: If you have government. 00:35:36 Speaker 12: Officials conspiring amongst themselves or with others to violate someone's constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to speak, to associate, to have political views, then you could be criminally charged under our federal criminal statutes. 00:35:53 Speaker 3: And we've already seen... the animus from the Democrats. You saw like Alyssa Slotkin for, go ahead. No. 00:36:00 Speaker 7: Yeah. 00:36:00 Speaker 2: Garcia saying lawyer up. I'm petty. 00:36:03 Speaker 4: You know, maybe it's cause I'm a gay man, but I'm petty. I mean, they don't, they don't even know. They can't reference the illegality. They just want to go make people's lives miserable and try and tie them up in lawfare. I guess I'm asking, are you suggesting that the DOJ could actually prosecute criminally prosecute some of these Democrats and, for these fishing expeditions. You could see something like that actually happening. 00:36:28 Speaker 3: Yes. Again, Congress has broad. 00:36:30 Speaker 12: oversight power under Article 1, but it has to have a legislative purpose. And if you are, for example, I was just saying about Alyssa Slotkin, the Democrat senator from Michigan, she said that she wants to prosecute Trump officials to deter, and that was her word, deter young Trump supporters out of politics. That is a blatant constitutional violation. If she does that, she can get prosecuted. 00:36:53 Speaker 2: I totally agree. 00:36:54 Speaker 4: Mike Davis, Article 3 project, go on his website, hit the action button, And start hitting your senators up. We need to get these judicial nominees over the finish line. I want to tell you about a new movie from Angel called Drummer Boy. And even better, I'm going to tell you how you can get two complimentary tickets to see it in theaters. Drummer Boy hits theaters November 6th. And if you enjoyed a movie like The Greatest Showman, you're going to want to put this one on your radar. 00:37:21 Speaker 2: I'm telling you, it's a. 00:37:22 Speaker 4: Big, uplifting musical with an emotional story incredible performances, and original music from King and Country. This is the kind of movie that really deserves a theater experience. I'm telling you, you're going to want to see this in the theater. The music, the energy, the emotion, all of it. And here's the deal. Become a premium member of the Angel Guild today, and you'll get two complimentary tickets to see Drummer Boy. But the value doesn't stop there. Your premium membership also gives you access to Angel's growing library of movies and shows, including Sound of Freedom, The Last Rodeo, Young Washington, Solo Mio, and plenty more. So join the premium Angel Guild by visiting angel.com slash LO, claim your two tickets, and make plans to see Drummer Boy in theaters November 6th. Again, it's a movie you are going to want to experience on the big screen. It's our Ask Us Anything Hour. You can be a part of this great hour and so much more at our members.charliekirk.com community, members.charliekirk.com. 00:38:21 Speaker 2: Check it out. 00:38:22 Speaker 4: Become a paying subscribing member. And we will see you guys at AmFest, by the way, where we have our private podcast studio where we'll be doing interviews with all the great guests at the convention. 00:38:35 Speaker 2: It's going to be an awesome, awesome time. 00:38:36 Speaker 4: Last year was really special for us, so please check it out. Members.CharlieKirk.com. If you're a member, you get to come check it out. Be private in there. We do Q & As. You can ask questions. 00:38:46 Speaker 2: Very, very cool. 00:38:47 Speaker 4: So be looking forward to that if you are planning on joining us at AmFest, which is going to be awesome. Our first question for today is Jean-Claude. Jean-Claude, unmute yourself and welcome to the show. 00:38:59 Speaker 12: Good morning. 00:38:59 Speaker 2: Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah, so my question is– I. 00:39:05 Speaker 7: Don't live in the Phoenix area at all. I'm from Washington State, but I have a friend who lives in Phoenix. That's where I went to school. He voted third party this year, not for Biggs, even though he's right wing, mainly on AI. I'm not sure totally what Biggs' position is. From what he said, it sounded like it was pretty open. And this kind of opened it up to a broader question of just what do we do on these issues where I feel like Trump's messaging has just been awful on AI, the economy. I mean AI is like a really big one for people, and it just feels like he's just like, oh, yeah, we should just call it superintelligence and let it do whatever it wants. 00:39:43 Speaker 4: What was your friend's particular– what's his position on AI that he was so concerned about it? 00:39:50 Speaker 7: Um, he's, well, his main thing with bigs was he was, I don't know if it's true or not. He said that the water they run through the AI data centers can't be recycled. 00:39:59 Speaker 2: I don't know if that's true. 00:40:00 Speaker 7: I haven't looked into it that much. 00:40:01 Speaker 5: It's a tough one. I mean, I'll be frank. I think your friend, uh, I think he, he was won over by arguments that in my opinion are not very strong. The water thing in particular, if you don't like AI, it's valid to not like AI because, But the water used for AI data centers versus a golf course, for example, they're not even comparable. Or an ammonia plant, those use a ton of water. Agriculture uses a huge amount of water. 00:40:29 Speaker 4: Do you know that 80% of California's water is for ag? So everybody who's worried about water, and it's okay to be worried about water, conserving water, but remember, water's to live on. We should not be afraid to use our water, first of all. But yeah, Biggs said he wanted data centers, basically. So I'm assuming that's what it was. Which I would. 00:40:52 Speaker 5: Say, we talk a lot about that TSMC plant that's going to build super advanced microchips here in Arizona. We want to build those chips in large part so they can go into data centers, into building out AI, as well as building technically advanced stuff. Data centers relate to that. So those have a symbiosis with each other. 00:41:10 Speaker 4: So here's what's interesting about data centers. Yeah, Blake's point on the water, I don't think it is a very strong argument, but there's a lot of people that are concerned about it. 00:41:17 Speaker 2: Okay. 00:41:18 Speaker 4: But what's interesting is they were upside down by 41 points in this midterm. But then if you said that the revenue that they generate And the power that they generate would be used to offset your property taxes. So you pay less in property taxes and it would be offset. It would be used to offset your utility bills. 00:41:38 Speaker 2: Then guess what? 00:41:39 Speaker 4: It pulled it 15% positive. So part of this is just understanding that you got to have local control. It has to be in a location that the local community likes. There was this story, by the way, of this, I think it was in Maryland. There was a, dilapidated old mall 24 years it hasn't been used and they were going to use that empty lot that's just sitting there for a data center and she went in and got 25,000 signatures And it was it was turns out it was part of Chinese propaganda that had been money that had been funneled in. 00:42:12 Speaker 5: She said she got money from a group that we have every reason to believe is a Chinese propaganda arm. I don't know why we haven't like banned this group, frankly. 00:42:21 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:42:21 Speaker 5: Let's get the name of it because it's funded by that Chinese billionaire or that American billionaire who's in China promotes Chinese interests like. That's an argument we've been making, is a lot of the anti-data center stuff is clearly, like, it is literally suborned by the Chinese Communist Party. Because you might agree with them, you might dislike AI, but China does badly want to win the AI race, and they do want to undercut our own AI efforts. 00:42:47 Speaker 4: Once we have this clip loaded, it's so important. Let's see if we've got it. Yeah, loaded is number 10. 00:42:55 Speaker 2: All right, here we go. 00:42:55 Speaker 4: Play this clip, because this will show you a lot of what's going on behind the scenes. 00:42:59 Speaker 2: Sot 10. 00:43:00 Speaker 14: A member from the Party for Socialism and Liberation reached out to me to ask if I wanted to create a reel for them to put on their social media. And I just, I was like, why not? We already have higher rates for different asthma conditions and bronchitis and other things that are caused by environmental factors and pollution. So why would you want to exacerbate that situation? We posted the reel like early September and And then within like a week or so, I want to say we got to 20,000 signatures and we were able to get the county to put a moratorium in place after attending a qualified data center task force meeting in like mass and having a rally at that meeting. So it just kind of has taken off like wildfire since then. 00:43:41 Speaker 5: You know, and in a later, either that interview or another one, they asked her like, what reward do you want for stopping this valuable development? And she says like, I would love it if people gave me money to fix my roof. And this is a challenging argument. A lot of people are very wary of data centers and development generally, but we do need to fight for America as a country that builds things, creates things, is this dynamo of energy. If you had today's NIMBYs around, they would have never... They would have never built the pipelines. They would have never built the roads. They would have never built the interstate highway system. 00:44:18 Speaker 2: NIMBY is not in my backyard. Our airports. 00:44:20 Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, not in my backyard. We've got to fight to be a country that is dynamic, that builds things. 00:44:25 Speaker 2: But here's the thing. 00:44:26 Speaker 4: I think, listen, we have to also confront the political reality of these, and that is that they're unpopular currently. So you have to sell the message that we're going to use dilapidated old malls. We're going to build on ground that is essentially not that valuable, not that beloved. You've got to make them, I think, more beautiful rather than just a big box. I think you need to tell the community how this is going to benefit them. And then if you can get it over the finish line, good on you. But I don't think we should just be– my problem is that they build these things out in beautiful rural communities because the land is cheaper there. That's not the way to do this. You're tearing up beautiful space for what? And then– Just to be very clear, people like Elon Musk says that in the future, 99% of compute is going to be space-based. Whether he can accomplish that or not, I wouldn't bet against Elon Musk. So maybe that will sort of resolve some of this issue. But I definitely think that you have to be pro-growth. Remember that the left is a party of malaise, fundamentally. They remove the incentives for people to produce, to take risks, to be rewarded for their risks. 00:45:32 Speaker 2: And it is a huge, huge problem. 00:45:34 Speaker 4: That the Democrats, you're going to have a lot of buyer's remorse with some of these Democrats, especially in these states like Arizona that got the trifecta, where the state legislatures are now Democrat as well, and you have a Democrat governor. You're going to get buyer's remorse because these people do not know how to run anything. People flee blue states for red states because they're better run, there's more economic opportunity, more freedom. And so, yes, I understand your friend gave in to some of this messaging, I think if you do it the right way, there is a way forward. But yeah, President Trump could message better on this. 00:46:04 Speaker 5: Democrats probably make better classical music, but Republicans make better cities. 00:46:07 Speaker 2: That's a Spencer Pratt post. 00:46:09 Speaker 5: Yep, Spencer Pratt. 00:46:10 Speaker 2: Libs make great coffee shops. 00:46:12 Speaker 5: One last thing, because 20 seconds here, you were saying, what should we do on things where Trump's message, he's struggling with it? Well, that's what we're here for. We do try to, we offer, we workshop how to message on things to try to improve it. And if you want a great example, think about, The rhetoric on early voting, where we got so much better between 22 and 24. I think we can do that on building in America, too. 00:46:34 Speaker 2: That was a great question, by the way. That was awesome. 00:46:36 Speaker 3: I really liked that. 00:46:36 Speaker 4: Because voting third party because you're upset about data centers is a really wild thing to do. It's a really wild thing to do. But you also have to acknowledge that it's happening or it happened. And I'm telling you, the data is still coming in from this election. But the number of defections in some states was crazy high. You know, and there's all this, and rightly so. I'm just going to say rightly so. When you have a loss that big, everybody needs to look in the mirror, including the work we do at Turning Point Action. But I will tell you, some of the data that's coming in is really impressive. So when you have a state like Texas, which went crazy blue, crazy blue. Red Texas goes crazy blue. We still got, you're seeing D plus 12, D plus 15, D plus 20 swings. 00:47:25 Speaker 2: I mean, that's crazy. 00:47:26 Speaker 4: But you have like Eli Crane in Arizona who won re-election. He had a D7 district. It went D6 because of our ballot chasing. Same thing with Feeley. Feeley's district went, I think, D6. 5. It was an R1. So when you go D6. 5, he's not going to win. But, I mean, what we did worked in a lot of different places. 00:47:46 Speaker 2: It was just too big of a swing. 00:47:48 Speaker 4: And one of the reasons it was such a big swing– was because so many defections, which is something. 00:47:53 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's one of those things, because we're going to have to... I mean, a lot of people have always disliked Turning Point, disliked Charlie, so of course, after a bad election, they're going to come at us, and you have to just point these things out. It's like, guys, if Arizona, one of the most purple states in the 24 coalition, we really should have lost here by 15, 20 points, basically. 00:48:16 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think what's crazy is that we said we could probably chase three to five points, meaning that we could make a difference. And if you're pulling down four points in a race, you might be able to win that just through our ballot chase. But we the initial data looks like we and some of these races, we chase six to seven points. So all is not lost. We have to rebuild credibility nationally. This was a national wave that swept over everybody. And I think part of it is credibility. Part of it is this idea of corruption, Epstein, pay for play, that stuff, and the economy. 00:48:49 Speaker 2: It's the economy. 00:48:50 Speaker 4: But some of these issues, like data centers and AI and flock cameras, are really, really big to a lot of liberty-minded, small libertarians. And we've got to get back to messaging to them. Elizabeth, you're next. 00:49:01 Speaker 3: Hi, can you hear me? 00:49:02 Speaker 2: Yes, I can. Yeah. What's your question? 00:49:06 Speaker 15: So my question is– I was wondering if you guys knew much about the campaign the Democrats used in order to get social media people to get their friends to talk about this affordability crisis. 00:49:21 Speaker 2: Yes. You're talking about the Van Jones clip? 00:49:24 Speaker 16: Yes. 00:49:25 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:49:26 Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and play that just so our audience has it again. That would be SOT 11. 00:49:31 Speaker 16: How did we win the narrative on affordability? Were they just these nice little Democrats out there running for office and going to. 00:49:38 Speaker 13: No. 00:49:38 Speaker 15: No. 00:49:40 Speaker 16: The Republicans never figured out what we were doing. There's something called the American Accountability Network. Tens of thousands of online humans, not bots, coordinated to make the affordability message a winning message online. 32.5 million people hit on Instagram every day. 88.8 million hit on Twitter every single day. And 185 million Facebook followers. 00:50:09 Speaker 2: Hits every single day. They were saying you need to elect Democrats to deal with this. 00:50:13 Speaker 16: Driving the kitchen table affordability message and tying that to Democrats on a positive and Republicans on a negative. They couldn't get any traction on these cultural war issues anymore because we figured out how to get around all that. 00:50:27 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:50:27 Speaker 4: So that was a clip that's been making the rounds a lot. And I think importantly, because It basically says, hey, we're a bunch of propagandists. We have no plan to make life more affordable, but we're going to hit this issue that we see as polling well and generating a lot of return on investment. 00:50:43 Speaker 5: I'll push... So I would just say, I think, really, he's just demonstrating good politics, which is Democrats, they are really exploiting the value of social media, that everyone is... They're getting their news not through centralized nodes, not through the television, not through the newspaper... They're getting it through stuff that is popping up on their Instagram feed, on their TikTok feed, and they're going to trust people they regard as those like themselves. And so Democrats say, we might as well inject our talking points into that. And yeah, you can say they don't have a plan, and I don't think they have a good plan. You don't think they have a plan. I think they imagine they have a plan, and they're thinking, let's get ordinary people out there repeating it. And there's a dumber version of that, which is, we were talking about to Ryan Gerduski, what seems to seriously hurt us is what I think John Doyle calls them Instagram Reels Americans, which is in that same feed, they're not just seeing affordability stuff. They're seeing Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein ate John Benet Ramsey and Trump is a pedophile. And they're getting that stuff too, all through the social media feed. And this is one of the reasons who controls big tech matters a lot because the left would love to have it where Your feed is endless propaganda of left wing attitudes and nothing can push against that because that'll be misinformation or hate speech or what have you. 00:52:02 Speaker 4: This is why when you're reading the tea leaves and you see, you know, the head of Palantir now saying, Adam, I'm a Democrat now. And you see Peter Thiel leaving the country for Argentina. Sometimes you can read the tea leaves of where these. tech guys think that the future is going and right now the signs are not positive for us and so that we are in a position where we very much could alienate the tech you know guys and really lose uh some of the freedoms that we've enjoyed over the last couple years so we have to be careful of that um here's what's interesting though glenn beck did a bit of a deep dive in this and he said that this whole operation was run by heather booth a veteran dnc operative who's trained over 25,000 community activists. And it worked with a smorgasbord, he says, of leftist groups, MoveOn, SEIU, the Teachers Union, the House Democrat Campaign Committee, and many more. So, yeah, that's her. So this is what is really interesting about this. So we just were talking about Turning Point. Turning Point gets all this attention nationally. So tons of articles written about us, so much intrigue and all this stuff. It's because there's really not the ecosystem of nonprofits on the right that there are on the left. The left has, I'm telling you, dozens of nonprofits that are the size of Turning Point, if not bigger. 00:53:20 Speaker 2: Dozens. 00:53:22 Speaker 4: Well-funded, a whole network, the Arabella network, they get tons of money that's pumped through those, and they can turn them on like on a switch. So it is a structural disadvantage that we have. Now, thankfully, their ideas are awful, all of these things, but they control the media, they control this nonprofit network that is massive, and They're getting very much more savvy on social media. So we have to counter that and we have to be united enough to do that. Problem is, we're not typically united enough to do that. But that that is what it's looking like. 00:53:51 Speaker 7: Right. 00:53:52 Speaker 4: So they have a left wing apparatus that's going to message on stuff. Here's another interesting because we're hitting a break. I might as well make this extra point. Blake made this point earlier. Axios had a graph that showed that in the primaries they were hitting ice hard, immigration hard, Democrats tough. That was great for them in the primaries. Who could be more anti-ICE? Thankfully, we have all those clips. Then when it came to the general, they stopped talking about ICE because it was a loser for Democrats. So what did they hit? They hit affordability because everybody still ticked off about the price increases that happened under the Democrat president. 00:54:25 Speaker 2: This time they could blame. 00:54:26 Speaker 11: Iran, though. 00:54:27 Speaker 2: So it worked. It's all lies. 00:54:30 Speaker 4: They're going to make your life more expensive. That's what Democrats do. Unfortunately, people believed it. The Medicare annual enrollment period is ending soon. Most plans change every year and many go away entirely. You only have until December 7th to make sure you're on the right one for 2027. Even if you're happy with your current plan, it's critical to review 2027 options every year. Millions of people end up stuck on a plan that leaves them overpaying for care or worse, not able to get the care they need. I highly recommend you call our trusted Medicare partner chapter. And by the way, if you're a young person listening to this or a son or a daughter of somebody that is aging into this bracket tell them to go check out chapter the only advisor that looks at every plan nationwide to make sure you have the best plan for your specific situation their support is free they can review options in under 20 minutes if you're already on the right plan for your needs they'll tell you that if not they'll help you switch by doing this they've saved people an average of $ 1, 100 a year in health care costs call chapter as soon as possible because these guys get busy Dial pound 250 and say Charlie Kirk or go to chapter.com slash Kirk. 00:55:41 Speaker 2: One more time. 00:55:42 Speaker 4: Dial pound 250 and say Charlie Kirk or go to chapter.com slash Kirk. 00:55:49 Speaker 2: Next up is Amelia. Amelia, unmute yourself. Welcome to the show. 00:55:54 Speaker 17: Hey, can you guys hear me? 00:55:55 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:55:57 Speaker 7: Awesome. 00:55:58 Speaker 17: Well, thank you so much for having me on the show. I've been watching for Charlie Kirk, you know, a long time. 00:56:03 Speaker 2: Wonderful. 00:56:04 Speaker 17: This is my first time calling in, so I'm a little nervous. But I think the question I had originally was, what is the strategy for uniting the divided right as individuals on the ground daily? 00:56:16 Speaker 4: You mean since you're just for normal folks out there, what's your strategy? for having conversations that could unite your friends, for example? 00:56:27 Speaker 2: Is that what you mean? Correct. Blake, do you want to take it first? 00:56:32 Speaker 5: I mean, it's a tough question because it's like, if we could just unite the right, well, I mean, divisions on the right were a big source of what just happened to us. So it's a tough question. And there's a lot of people who, there are a lot of people who sow division because it does get a lot of engagement. It gets a lot of clicks, gets a lot of tweets, gets a lot of money, ultimately, a lot of views. It's it's sort of I saw someone remarked the other day that the old problem used to be the dynamic people noticed was there was a little bit of an incentive mismatch because the right wing media could get higher ratings when a Democrat was in power because you can egg on the outrage machine. And the left saw the same thing that Washington Post, New York Times subscriptions and CNN viewership blew up during Trump and then crashed during Biden because the outrage fuels things. And someone said, the way some people figured this out on the right is, why don't we just start screaming that the Trump administration betrayed us as soon as they're in power, and then everyone can be outraged all the time. And how do you overcome that? It is tough. 00:57:31 Speaker 4: Well, so, yeah, I mean, here's the thing. There are legitimate wedge issues that emerged. The Iran war being one of them, Epstein being another one of them. And hopefully, you know, some of that just comes down to policy decisions at the top. 00:57:46 Speaker 2: Are you making policy decisions.... 00:57:48 Speaker 4: That unite the base or do they exacerbate these wedge issues? Now, you know, that was what made Charlie such an invaluable piece of sort of the outside apparatus within the Trump administration because he could sort of say, hey, this issue is going to be a big issue. 00:58:04 Speaker 2: I'm hearing it from our kids. I'm hearing it from our listeners on this show. 00:58:08 Speaker 4: And that feedback loop is critically important so that the admin is making good decisions that don't exacerbate those issues. 00:58:15 Speaker 5: I mean, a good way to build unity in the next two years is just don't have Help the administration avoid making, let's say it as it is, self-inflicted blunders that are very different from what the people who turned out in 2024 felt they were voting for. 00:58:31 Speaker 2: Yeah, and here's the thing. 00:58:31 Speaker 4: If you want to keep the right-wing coalition together, there's a couple things that really were, I think, broadcast to the world had become bigger problems than a lot of people wanted to admit that they were. One is this notion that there's corruption at the highest levels. So that's why a lot of people... I mean, Steven Crowder, Jeremy Carl, a lot of people on the right right now are looking at this NVIDIA thing because, you know, we want to know, was there corruption at commerce? I'm not saying there was. I just think that that really needs to be looked at. OK, we need to be honest about that. And if there was, then, you know, there needs to be changes. Was there pay for play stuff? This is why I think Stephen Miller is such a critical, critical new piece of the last two years of the Trump administration being elevated to chief of staff because K Street can't buy him off. That's a really big deal. OK, so if you want to unite the coalition, it's corruption. There can't be any sniff of it. We have to be above reproach. Two, the deportation regime has to continue on. We have to continue being very strict on that. And if we can keep it off the front page, that's even better. So I think Stephen Miller is also going to be really good on that. You have to focus on kitchen table issues. The economy, the economy, the economy. 00:59:48 Speaker 2: Good for us. 00:59:50 Speaker 4: Republicans are way better on the economy. Way better for investment. Way better for productivity. And you're starting to see a lot of those economic indicators The table has been set in the first two years. You're going to see that come up. And you've got to stay out of foreign wars. If you have to do something— You've got to get out of this foreign war. Yes, we've got to get out of this Iranian situation, and you cannot use the military willy-nilly. Unless provoked, unless attacked, I mean, that's where I'm at right now. 01:00:14 Speaker 5: America is a divided country, and— I just don't think we have the national unity, the national will for any military adventures right now. 01:00:22 Speaker 2: Unless we are attacked. 01:00:23 Speaker 5: You've got to strengthen the country. It would be like us going to war in 1859 just before the Civil War. It just would have shattered the country apart. So hopefully that answers your question. 01:00:32 Speaker 17: I guess it does answer my question, but I did also have a follow-up. I know you guys have obviously been dealing with a lot of divisiveness in general. And I guess just to put things to bed, I wanted to ask you, Andrew, what exactly did Keith Rose tell you And if we could kind of get through that question, because I feel like that would make people that are still unsure of what happened very clear and unite people truly. 01:00:59 Speaker 2: OK, well, I appreciate the question. That's interesting. 01:01:04 Speaker 4: So this was covered many, many months ago in I think it was a semaphore article. Yeah, basically, I was told that that people were worried there was other threats on people after Charlie was assassinated. And so the two names that were brought up were Candace and Tucker. I communicated to both of them. Turned out to be nothing. So I'm grateful that it was nothing. And I tried to communicate to people to make sure that they were safe because we didn't know what was happening at that point. So that was what I was worried about. 01:01:33 Speaker 2: I didn't know who. I didn't know where. Nobody did. 01:01:35 Speaker 4: And it turned out to just be a rumor mill thing online. So thankfully, so everybody was ultimately safe. 01:01:43 Speaker 2: Which is what we wanted. Next up, who's next up? 01:01:47 Speaker 5: Let's do Mick. 01:01:48 Speaker 3: Mick. All righty. Good morning over there, fellas. 01:01:51 Speaker 5: Howdy, howdy. 01:01:52 Speaker 6: So my question for you guys is regarding JD Vance. I think he kind of has a tough path forward. I know you referenced the Instagram Reels Americans, of which I live with a few, so I can see it firsthand how they think about this administration. 01:02:06 Speaker 3: And so I think he has kind of a tough path forward. 01:02:08 Speaker 6: He can't alienate himself from the administration so much that he pisses off Trump and doesn't get an endorsement. but he also can't alienate himself from the base anymore than he already has. So what do you think his path forward was is with that? 01:02:21 Speaker 2: And, uh, what would you suggest? 01:02:25 Speaker 5: I just think to the presidency is what he's getting at. 01:02:27 Speaker 2: Okay. 01:02:28 Speaker 5: And I think, I think it's, I think it's going to be very tough, uh, because as you know, the war is really unpopular. I think by far the best way to make his path easier is to make the war not a live issue anymore. And so, I think we've got to end it. We talked to Will Chamberlain, a guy who defended the war at the outset and repeatedly in the months since, and he just said, you can't insist on this in the face of massive popular discontent over it. And I think we just have to make the war go away. And by 2028, it will not be a huge issue if we're not still bombing Iran. If gas prices are back to $ 3 a gallon instead of $ 4. 50 or $ 5 or more, depending on your state, If you can make it recede, it's just not going to be this dominant issue anymore. 01:03:15 Speaker 2: That's the thing. 01:03:16 Speaker 4: I mean, look at the border issue, right? So the border is this massive issue, 2024. Trump shuts it down. Now people don't even think about it. Our attention spans in this country are pretty short, and that can be good and bad. The bad part is you forget what this president has. 01:03:31 Speaker 2: Delivered at the border. 01:03:32 Speaker 4: The good part is that we can do the same thing with Iran, okay? So if you make that recede from the front page and you deal with that, Put a bow on it as best you can. 01:03:43 Speaker 2: Now, you're talking about J.D. 's struggles, right? So J.D. 01:03:47 Speaker 4: 's going to have a couple different struggles. One is that you've got this kind of like far-right Groiper contingent that doesn't like him. And then you've got the neocon contingent that doesn't like him, right? So he's in a feud with Mark Thiessen and that kind of crowd. They don't trust him because he's probably, I think, safe to say, a foreign policy realist, pragmatist, which I think is a great thing, right? And I think that J.D. Vance is going to have to– The tightrope that he has to walk is to say, hey, listen, I heard you on the Iran stuff. I shared similar concerns. My job is to back the president and sell his vision. You elected him to be the chief executive of this country. But, yeah, I had concerns. And then you've got to see this. 151, if you just look at the polling when it came to the MOU, this is one of the most important graphs I've seen. Down, down, down, popularity, popularity, popularity. This is net approval on the economy, by the way. Important to see that. When the MOU was the headline in the news, look at the popularity surge back up because people thought, hey, we're going to get done with this Iran thing and have it behind us. Gas prices are going to come back down. So peace is popular. I think he's got a great story to tell. The trick is, how do you do it in a way that doesn't tell the neocons I hate Israel because I don't think J.D. 01:05:05 Speaker 2: Vance hates Israel. 01:05:06 Speaker 4: And how do you do it in such a way that tells this far-right, very loud and noisy contingent online that, hey, I'm also not beholden to them? And I think that's a center-cut issue that's 60-70% positive, pieces positive, and popular. 01:05:19 Speaker 5: It's going to be tough, and you're going to have to, to some extent, bully a few people, because there are people in both of those camps who are, for lack of a better term, extremists. And they will just try to trash anyone who's outside of it. I think a lot of people are delusional about how popular their position is. I don't think I don't think the old paradigm of being super tight with Israel is going to hold up. And I certainly don't think the paradigm where they say, like, let's be anti-Semitic now, that's not going to hold up. 01:05:45 Speaker 2: No, exactly. And I think actually J.D. 01:05:47 Speaker 4: Embodies that sort of, like I say, center-cut mass really well. 01:05:51 Speaker 5: But you've got to bully them. Here's the thing. 01:05:53 Speaker 4: There is an ongoing war right now in the conservative movement. We talked about the last caller talking about unity with the neocons. And I think we have to, the non-neocon contingent side of the party, which is what I would be, has to win that debate. We have to because neocons will destroy the party. It will destroy any chance of winning national office in the future if they win. They're very loud and they're very aggressive. And there's a lot of smart people in there. But it's not wise because Blake made the point it's not wise because our country is simply too divided right now to wage much of any kind of conflict anywhere. Now, Venezuela, that was great in and out. it was on the front page for a morning, Maduro gets arrested, the country's doing much better, okay? Also, it was Western Hemisphere. But when you're talking about Middle East conflicts, there's just not the appetite in the body politic for it anymore. We want to focus on kitchen table issues, domestic policy, economic policy, and if we message, message, message, message, message like that, I think things can go very, very well for us in future elections, especially for J.D. 01:06:57 Speaker 2: Vance. 01:06:58 Speaker 4: And by the way, his portfolio, dealing with fraud, I think it's Another center cut issue. So I feel I feel bullish on that. But we've got to win that debate within the neocon contingent. 01:07:09 Speaker 2: All right. 01:07:10 Speaker 4: Daisy says we need to get through four questions here. Elizabeth, you are up next. What's your question? 01:07:15 Speaker 2: Unmute yourself. 01:07:16 Speaker 7: Yeah. 01:07:17 Speaker 11: Hi, guys. Thank you so much for taking the call. 01:07:19 Speaker 18: I guess I'm Gen X and I'm just a bit confused about this whole accelerationist movement that seemed to happen on Tuesday because I'm a bit apoplectic over this whole thing. I had to knock on doors for John McCain and suck it up and do it because I knew the other side was crazy. And I did what I had to do to try to hold the line and keep this country going forward. We had some better candidates that could have maybe potentially voted out John Thune. Democrats burned down the Palisades in California. They're completely incompetent. And still, they all voted for Democrats. Minnesota had over $ 9 billion in documented fraud that they were complicit with, and still Democrats voted for Democrats. 01:08:00 Speaker 11: They're upset about the Epstein files. 01:08:02 Speaker 18: Stacey Placik, a Democrat from the Bahamas or the Virgin Islands, was texting with Jeffrey Epstein himself during a congressional hearing. GOP tried to vote her out of Congress. Democrats did not do anything to get her out. They protected her. 01:08:21 Speaker 11: How are we losing the messaging? 01:08:23 Speaker 18: Even with the H-1Bs, they stopped Microsoft from getting H-1Bs. They're finding all of these fake H-1B visa fraud bills. They were doing things on that front. I'm sorry you're upset about the Iran war. 01:08:36 Speaker 2: So was I. 01:08:37 Speaker 11: I don't want a communist country over it. 01:08:39 Speaker 18: And then they voted for Democrat county legislators, Democrat congressional for state positions. 01:08:46 Speaker 11: They don't vote on Iran. 01:08:48 Speaker 18: Why do you want your county and your state to be run by communist maniacs because you're upset about the Iran war? 01:08:55 Speaker 11: Someone explain this to me because I think these kids are nuts. 01:08:58 Speaker 5: Well, what it is is politics is nationalized more and more. Every election of my lifetime, I think, has become more and more of a national election. I feel the first time this really stood out was 2010, Obama. There were a ton of democrats you might remember this back then a lot of democrats across the south quite conservative attached to this old democrat apparatus in the south and in 2010 the backlash to obama obamacare they all get wiped out and at that point it's like every single midterm and like everyone down to the county dog catcher got wiped out among democrats in the south and since then how people vote they just they increasingly vote single ticket they vote all republican or all democrat and it's all about national issues A lot of that's just a reflection that they're less engaged in local politics. People don't, their local newspapers are gone. There's not as much local news. They don't go to local government. They mostly just consume national politics. 01:09:57 Speaker 4: That being said, we saw a little bit of this in Michigan and Minnesota where you did have Democrats defecting a little bit because there was some local issues there. But yeah, to Blake's point, everything was just a national, it was a This was a referendum against national issues. 01:10:12 Speaker 5: We need to win on national issues just so we can have the chance to fix local issues, but it's a real struggle. We have to get into, let's do Ben next. Ben, unmute yourself, and what's your question? 01:10:23 Speaker 11: Hi, good day. Can you hear me okay? 01:10:25 Speaker 2: Yes. 01:10:26 Speaker 10: Awesome. 01:10:27 Speaker 19: Okay, so this is about this program called Calci. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. 01:10:31 Speaker 5: Yep, yep, the prediction market. 01:10:34 Speaker 19: And so, can you explain to me what Calci is? Is it like, is it a Gambling system? 01:10:40 Speaker 5: Basically, what Kalshi is, is it's a prediction market. And so the idea is you can bet on events that will happen in the future. And so some advocates are like, this is a way to have transparency. This is a way that you can accurately forecast future events. But for a lot of people, it is gambling. And you're sort of bidding against other people. 01:10:57 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:10:57 Speaker 2: So that's the way it works. 01:10:58 Speaker 4: And listen, just sort of in a transparent moment, we've been approached by all these different groups, all the prediction markets. 01:11:06 Speaker 2: And it's something that we have not done. 01:11:08 Speaker 4: Because, you know, and same with the sports gambling. I think we dabbled in it when Charlie was here and then we kind of made a decision like probably probably not the right look for young people because of the addiction issues and things like that. But there are a lot of problems with this, with these markets. Now, I think you could engage with them in a really good way. The problem is, you know, we talk about this with. But lawfare like is this trial going to happen X or Y month? And you could actually there's people that could gain these from the inside and make money off them and actually affect things in a really bad way. 01:11:40 Speaker 5: So I think what we actually need to do is there's definitely been signs of some corruption that people have trafficked in knowing what is happening behind the scenes. And I saw in your in your written version, you're wondering, can people manipulate elections? Yeah, they can. A very boring way that can kind of be a waste of money. Sometimes people just want to make their election look closer or look more far apart than it is. And so if a market doesn't have a lot of movement in it, like if it's the Mississippi Senate race, you could throw a few hundred K and then people say like, wow, that race is close. Oh, we should put some money into it. It's not necessarily the most efficient thing in the world, but there are some signs people do that. 01:12:19 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:12:19 Speaker 2: Big whales come in and just, like, change perception of different races. 01:12:22 Speaker 5: Yeah, so people look to those markets as gods. I mean, I look to them a ton on election night, but you don't want to invest too much into them. 01:12:30 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:12:30 Speaker 5: But they are a good way to read. 01:12:31 Speaker 2: The tea leaves. 01:12:33 Speaker 19: Am I kind of thinking a little bit too far, thinking that Kalshi could play some type of role into affecting on how some of these elections came out? 01:12:43 Speaker 3: Oh. 01:12:44 Speaker 5: I don't know that super directly. I would say the scariest way you can have things happen is where someone who has the power to influence events has an incentive to throw things or do things they would not normally do because it's an unlikely outcome on a market. If you want an extreme case, a guy is running a Republican campaign... in a really red district, but he can bet entirely on the Democrat winning and then sabotage his candidate, which I mean, the most extreme case, you could just be like, I'm going to go on TV and say the N word and then they'll lose. 01:13:17 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:13:17 Speaker 2: So here's the deal. 01:13:18 Speaker 4: I think it could impact like closer races, but I think nationally we were dealing with a wave situation. 01:13:23 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:13:23 Speaker 2: So we got to get to the next question, Mary. 01:13:26 Speaker 14: Yeah. 01:13:26 Speaker 2: God bless you. Mary, you're up next. Unmute yourself. Welcome to the show. 01:13:30 Speaker 10: How would you interact with family or relatives during the holidays that either wish you death or don't like you because of your political views, moral values? 01:13:40 Speaker 5: There's a big range there. Wish you death. Do they really say that? 01:13:45 Speaker 10: I have a few that would rather see me dead. 01:13:50 Speaker 5: I don't know that I'd want to spend the holidays if they. 01:13:53 Speaker 4: If that's not tongue-in-cheek, if you have any reason to believe that they're seriously violently ideating about you, then I don't think you should put yourself in the position that you're in. 01:14:04 Speaker 5: And you should explain why. You should say, when you said that, that's not acceptable. 01:14:10 Speaker 4: You can't say that to people that are in your family. If it's normal political, even heated political disagreements, I think you have to always remember that family is incredibly important. And do your part on your side of the table to be reasonable and loving and patient with them. And, you know, but there is a difference between forgiving your family and forgetting what they've done or said to you. Your side of the table, if you're a Christian, is to forgive, you know, especially if they say sorry, things like that. 01:14:44 Speaker 5: Charlie had family members, very different from politics, and he always engaged in them lovingly. 01:14:48 Speaker 11: Yeah, lovingly. 01:14:49 Speaker 4: But if it is to this point where it's like violent rhetoric or ideation, or if you have any reason to believe even 5% chance that they mean it, You should not put yourself in a position where you're unsafe. 01:15:01 Speaker 2: Mary, I just want to say family is sacred. 01:15:03 Speaker 4: And, you know, so I think it's important that we understand that you give increased patience and understanding and energy and effort into reconciling those relationships, if at all possible. But at the point where it becomes scary like that, then you absolutely should make sure that you're safe and make sure that, you know, they're not actually– able to hurt you by putting yourself in that position. But, but if it's run of the mill stuff, I do believe that you try your best, work really hard. 01:15:35 Speaker 5: One of, one of the more sinister things that the left has done is they do like to aggressively inject politics into life and make that an arbiter of all your relationships. And you see this in polls that people who are on the left are more likely to say they ended a friendship over politics. They have cut off a family member over politics and, they whip them up. I mean, it's like a cult, frankly, that cults, one of the things they'll do is they will cut off all of your other relationships and say, like, those are all not acceptable because they're not on board. The left will do that, and we do want to push back against that because that is not a good way for our society to go. 01:16:12 Speaker 4: Yeah, and then the other thing is, again, if it's just run-of-the-mill stuff, like, maybe you agree to disagree and you, you know, because it is family, again, you say, hey, let's just not talk about politics. Let's talk about basketball. Let's talk about baseball. Let's talk about The weather. Let's talk about what you're doing in your spare time. And you don't have to constantly pick the scab there. And maybe that will come back around and be an opportunity for you to engage them later. 01:16:36 Speaker 2: Last question. David. David, welcome to the show. 01:16:41 Speaker 13: My question is, and I heard a lot of it talked about throughout the show, is why would you vote for more taxes, late-term abortion, and bringing back illegals into our country? 01:16:55 Speaker 4: Well, because they hate rich people and they are under a false impression that if you taxed all the rich people in America, you could pay for the government and give everybody free everything. 01:17:05 Speaker 2: Which is not the truth at all. 01:17:08 Speaker 4: If you taxed all the rich people 100% of their wealth, you basically fund the government for like 21. 01:17:14 Speaker 5: Days or something. A real crisis in America is there is a growing, you could call it the resentment ideology, we've called it third world ideology, and a big part of that for example, is taking a zero-sum attitude towards wealth. There's a very funny story where some diplomat or whoever met Muammar Gaddafi, and Gaddafi had to... He imagined that Bill Gates got all of his money in the 90s by... He must have stolen it from a bunch of people. And this is actually a very common attitude throughout most of the world in poorer countries, that the only way you can get... That wealth is like... There's a fixed amount of wealth, and the only way anyone gets a lot of it is just by taking it from other people. And a great The thing that made the West so prosperous is the realization that you can create wealth by creating something valuable that people want, by putting labor into things and making something better out of it. And that's what Elon Musk did. Elon Musk is not a trillionaire because he robbed people. He's a trillionaire because he developed the world's best electric car and the world's best rockets. And, oh, and he also has the world's best social media platform on the side. 01:18:19 Speaker 4: PayPal and all this stuff. 01:18:21 Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean. 01:18:22 Speaker 4: That's a huge part of it. Late-term abortions, people just love abortion. Unfortunately, it's a terrible, sad thing. I think people, it's like the ejection button. Even some Christians, they'll say that they're pro-life, but they don't want to legislate against it because they're worried about their 15-year-old daughter accidentally getting knocked up. 01:18:40 Speaker 5: David French, who loves to pose as this great conscience of American conservatism, he said what? James Tallarico was the most Christian candidate in this election when James Tallarico loves abortion. It's a very sinister thing. And we should be frank. Approval of abortion went up significantly after the Dobbs decision. There were a lot of, you could call them sunshine patriots, summertime patriots, who it was easy to say you were anti-abortion, you were pro-life. when it wasn't a live issue, when you didn't think, oh, I might be subject to that law, my daughter might be subject to that law. And now we have to gird ourselves with this left thing. They're going to want to make nationwide abortion the law again. 01:19:18 Speaker 2: We're going to have to push. 01:19:20 Speaker 5: Back on that. This is a tough moral battle to win. But as Andrew said, most people in America do like abortion. 01:19:27 Speaker 4: Yeah, it's unfortunate because it's diabolical. And I do think there's, I don't say this lightly, but I do think there is God's judgment on our country. 01:19:35 Speaker 2: And your last part of your question was about illegals. 01:19:38 Speaker 4: And I often think about the fact that there's basically been, let's just, we'll use round numbers, but it's almost one to one. How many abortions we've had since Roe v. Wade in this country versus how many foreigners we've imported. 01:19:49 Speaker 2: It's almost one to one. 01:19:51 Speaker 4: And it's almost, you know, it's hard not to look at that and be like, God, are you intentionally like letting us, you know, enjoy the fruits of our decision here? 01:20:03 Speaker 2: The ill fruits, the ill-gotten fruits. So that's the sad thing. 01:20:07 Speaker 4: I will tell you with illegals and immigration, that is a winning issue for us, whereas abortion is a tougher sell nationally. Immigration, people don't want unfettered, unlimited immigration. The vast majority of Americans don't. So I don't know why they would vote for it. I think it was a referendum on Trump. It's a lot of miseducation and media propaganda. So there's multiple things going on there. We've got to address each one. David, thank you for calling in. 01:20:38 Speaker 5: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.