Prince Andrew Arrested + Child Social Media Ban?

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 aturning point youould 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. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. 00:01:09 Speaker 2: All right, Welcome to The Charlie Kirk Show. February nineteenth, twenty twenty six, Blake. I woke up this morning and I was like, whoo, Prince Andrew's been arrested. This is gonna be great. We're gonna get him on all the Pediphias stuff. It's a bad day for Andrews, hopefully only one Andrew. Let's you know, a trendsly trend. A trends is a trend. A tread is a trend. Well, okay, let's hope it's a good day for this Andrew and a bad day for Prince Andrew. So I thought that we were finally I thought we were gonna finally blow the doors open on this whole Epstein thing. I mean literally is the first thing I looked at on my phone. My eyes are blurry. I'm just waking up. And unfortunately it has nothing to do with anything you know of sex, trafficking of minors or any of the innuendo or the salacious stuff. It looks like Prince Andrew was arrested for forwarding documents. This, according to the BBC in twenty ten, related to his work as I guess, let's see here. Yeah, it's a British trade envoy, but they have a specific title for him. Us UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. So it looks like in twenty ten he sent over documents to afford them over to Jeffrey Epstein, documents that he obtained in his official duties as a trade envoy that included some investment opportunities in gold in uranium. And that's what they got him on. It's misconduct in a public office. Now. 00:02:42 Speaker 3: It's very It feels a lot like al the famous al Capone thing where he was involved in murders and bootlegging and every manner of crime, extortion, racketeering. And they got him because he didn't pay income tax on his illegal gains. And there's a lot of gations against Prince Andrew of various levels of sealaciousness. 00:03:03 Speaker 2: And he has been arrested. 00:03:04 Speaker 3: For forwarding the email that is that is linked in the New York Times. 00:03:09 Speaker 2: Right, miss Condo. This is this is literally the text. 00:03:11 Speaker 3: Of the email guys linked in New York Times. It is just a forward of an email he received from his assistant, a Meet Patel. Sir, Please find attached the visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shenzen in relation to your recent visit to Southeast Asia, thank you. 00:03:28 Speaker 2: I mean, so he forwards those over to Jeffrey Epstein. Apparently they included, like I said, golden uranium investment opportunities, essentially insider trading, which on the one hand, does sort of I think shed a little light on how Epstein would make his money. Yes, he had inside sources. It's essentially insider trading at this point if you get advanced intel on official head of state visits or heads of state, but official government agencies in this case visiting foreign country getting intel on possible investments. Okay, so that's what it is. King Charles So, the brother of Prince Andrew, has released a statement. He says, I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew mount Baton Windsor, which is a very interesting title. And there is a backstory to why he's not called Prince Andrew or his role saying that striptest titles, but he calls him Andrew Montbatten Windsor. A suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full fare and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly, the law must take its course as this process continues. It would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all. Charles are all right? So this was then followed by all of these headlines throw up five twenty five from the Daily Mail, which is known to be a bit what's the right word for the Daily Mail? 00:05:02 Speaker 3: The Daily Mail is the best publication in the English language, Okay, but they are somewhat they rush to judgment. They are headliner, sensationalist in the best way. They've covered ilhan Omar the incest story, or cheating on her husband. 00:05:18 Speaker 2: They get photos of everything. So here's the way it works, a little inside baseball for you watching at home. Because I've dealt with these scoundrels, a lot of talk about me. No, that's next segment. They basically put these headlines into multiple they feed it out into the Internet and they have ABCD testing and sometimes they use AI to create the biggest clickbait. They want to know what you're going to click on. So that's what Daily Mail does. That's their whole thing. You will get a headline that has nothing to do with the body of the article. But they learned through actual cause and effect watching what you will click on, what gets the most clickbait. That is the whole game over Daily Mails, what headline can get you to click on it? So what are they going to use AI? So they go, Trump faces furious Epstein backlash after Andrew detained. We have zero rest all right, So this is so. Now you've got Thomas Massey, You've got You've got Marjorie Taylor Green and a lot of others out on social media saying, well, they got Prince Andrew, why haven't you done anything? Pam Bondi and Donald Trump? And so that is the case. But here's the here's the crux. The assumption is the same assumption I made this morning that they were gonna get that Andrew got arrested on pedophilia, on sex trafficking minor something like this. That's not at all the case. He got arrested on a process charge for forwarding a document to Jeffery Epstein's twenty ten related to his official guvernment kind. 00:06:45 Speaker 3: Of maybe alleged insider trading sixteen years ago. Correct, Well, so technically official misconduct is what it is, which is a British offense. But I'm gonna you know, it's gonna annoy a lot of people. But I've got to push back on this, like as I like to I like to read Michael Tracy on X because he gives a lot of pushback and he points out I think it's worth remembering, first of all, this is Britain. 00:07:07 Speaker 2: Britain's the sort of. 00:07:07 Speaker 3: Country where you get arrested for saying things people don't like on social media about migrants. It is a country that has a quite nineteen eighty four sque willingness to gin up charges for political reasons. And so, yes, like Prince Andrew looks very bad because he was a big associate of Jeffrey Epstein and that's gross and he probably did it because he wanted to sleep with young women. But at the same time, the main allegations against him came from Virginia Guffrey, which, as our guests the other week said, yeah, j Beecher, she's a serial fabulous. 00:07:39 Speaker 2: She lied about a lot of people. She's Virginia Guphrey. For our audience's Sake is alleged to have been the one that created this, this aura, this narrative about the narrative Male List to the extent underage women were recruited. 00:07:52 Speaker 3: She played a central role in that and encouraged them to lie to get like there's a lot of negative stuff there. So she's the source of a lot of these allegations. His alleged relationship with her is the basis for this. And yet in the UK where they met, like she actually was of legal age according to British laws. Yeah, and that is what drove this. And so they are bringing this case because of big allegations, but I think it's worth remembering what the origin of this is. And then we go back to what the President himself said last summer. A lot of people are going to be getting tarred and hit for things that are running ahead of what the facts are or where there's nothing proven. And we're kind of seeing this year where they're just they're howling, where are the arrests, were. 00:08:36 Speaker 2: Arrests before they come up? And for Prince Andrews that he was a dirty you know, dirty old man, dirty old man, and you know he showed some really poor judgment. What's funny. Also, though, is this clip from twenty fifteen of President Trump has surfaced now, which I think is just fantastic. Once again, Trump just has this this knack of coming out unscathed. Five four, you raised the question of Jeffrey I've stein in your remarks event and the q A. I think you've got a problem. 00:09:04 Speaker 4: I don't know, but that island was really a cesspool. There's no question about it. Just ask Prince Andrew. He'll tell you about it. 00:09:13 Speaker 2: Just ask for its Andrew. That's twenty fifteen. Every day Americans make choices that shape our country's future, right down to which cell phone provider we support. Here's what most people don't realize. Patriot Mobile isn't just a wireless provider. They're an activist organization funded by selling top tier cell phone service. They've been on the front lines defending our freedoms long before it was cool to do so, standing in the gap when others wouldn't. The best part is they deliver prioritized premium service on all three major US networks, giving you the same or even better coverage, backed by one US based customer support, get unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and more and when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll help grow a movement that fuels the Christian conservative cause. Every bill you pay helps advance the values of family, faith and freedom. Switching is easier than ever Activate in minutes, keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Take a stand today. 00:10:11 Speaker 1: Call nine seven two Patriot today, or go to Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie. Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie. Or call nine seven to two Patriot and make the switch today. 00:10:26 Speaker 2: This is what's interesting about the Prince Andrew thing. So the news hits, everybody jumps on Trump because you know there has been no arrest over here. But what's interesting and different I would say about the Prince Andrew situation is two thoughts I want you to keep in your head. At the same time, we have to be sophisticated consumers of information. First thought, none of this would happen if Pambondi had not released these documents in the first place. So there's one The only reason this is happening is because the UK officials have access to documents that were released by the US Department of Justice. So that's the thing you need to think of first. Secondly, we had Mike Davis on and the earlier this week, and he assured us that there are ongoing investigations into co conspirators. Less Wexner was labeled as a co conspiracy conspiractor in these documents, and who knows who else is being investigated. My money is on Reied Hoffman. Reid Hoffman has lied repeatedly about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein. He has funded some of the most nefarious, sinister attempts of lawfare to get Trump over and over and over again. Reed Hoffman is a marked man, in my opinion, by the Department of Justice. And thirdly, think of this. Prince Andrew is no longer Prince Andrew. He's no longer his Royal Highness. We call him that out of sort of a vestige of the the royal past. But in twenty twenty two, in January, Queen Elizabeth the Second stripped him of the use of his style his Royal Highness hr age in any official capacity. All of his military titles and royal patronages were returned to the Queen, effectively removed from him. This included honorary military appointments such as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, other UK titles like Honorary Air Commodore of the Royal Air Force, various overseas honorary Colonel in Chief, roles, royal patronages, his charity affiliations. And then in twenty twenty five, so just last year, his brother King Charles removed the title Prince, and that included Duke of York, Earl of Iverness and Baron Kelly Hiley Killiele. So all of these have been removed from him, and that was in October seventeenth, and then again, like on I said, on October thirtieth, they officially removed the titular dignity of Prince and that is why he will now forever be known as Andrew mount Boughton, Windsor. So. They have been on this Prince Andrew train for a long time. But it's the first arrest of a British royal, basically in living memory or in recent. 00:13:14 Speaker 3: I think I saw some more where they said it was the first ever, and all I can remember is that they once beheaded a case. 00:13:19 Speaker 2: I was going to say, I saw that that talking point as well and yeah, it's like okay, but at least in modern history this time, I think it would be. 00:13:27 Speaker 3: I think it would be a very big It would be very unfortunate if one of the world's oldest monarchies and one of its last really big monarchies were to fall over something like this, which very much really it might. 00:13:42 Speaker 2: There's a there is. 00:13:44 Speaker 3: A republican movement in the UK to abolish it and just retire the Royal Family. I think it's definitely a movement in other countries. 00:13:52 Speaker 1: You know. 00:13:52 Speaker 3: A very funny thing is one of the biggest supports of the British Royal. 00:13:57 Speaker 2: Family is not who you think. It's the Canadian left. 00:14:00 Speaker 3: Left wingers in Canada like the British Royal Family because they hate America and so they see having a Royal family as something that makes Canada not America. Yeah, so, like Justin Poole, like when King Charles visited Data's first visit after becoming King, Justin Trudeau went all out for it. 00:14:17 Speaker 2: He was a big fan of it. 00:14:18 Speaker 3: But it is a distinguished group. I think it's easy for us to dump it. I mean, we're America, We're a republic. We don't have kings we shouldn't have kings, but as conservatives we do respect and honor traditions, old things. We realize they have value that's not always obvious. And I think there is a real value in the fact that there has been a king or Queen of England in London for over a thousand years. That they are the descendants of those people who were there during the Blitz, who were there when Napoleon might have invaded, who were there when the Armada was sailing for England, same line of people. 00:14:55 Speaker 2: Well, and listen, I'm a big fan of the British royals. I think Western civilization need dads institutions that stand up and that help guide the West back to a sense of its tradition, of its identity. But listen, there are things happening in the background at the DOJ that we just need to keep our eyes on, and we need to sort of say, listen, the wheels of justice turned slowly sometimes, but they are happening, okay. And again I would mention the name Reid Hoffman. You've seen this just this morning, that Bill Gates has dropped out of a speaking engagement due to increased scrutiny over the Epstein files. Kathy Rumler has stepped down at Goldman Sachs because of her connections to Jeffrey Epstein. It was worth mentioning that she was Obama's longest serving White House council So the DOJ's release of these documents obviously spurned on by Rocanna and Thomas Massey, who have attempted to weaponize the release of these documents for their own political ends. Remains unclear what their ultimate intentions are here, But the whole point is is that there is a very large faction of people that want to use these documents to get Trump all right, and time and time again. As we saw in that twenty fifteen document or the video, Trump comes out looking pretty darned good. He looks amazing. 00:16:20 Speaker 3: Yes, but it's you know, I think we should again be careful and to run. It's like, yes, Bill Gates stepped aay from things, and Bill Gates should feel embarrassed. 00:16:27 Speaker 2: He was very clearly. 00:16:28 Speaker 3: Close with an individual who, regardless of whatever crimes he committed, was a gross figure. It was just it's ugly that he was so close with them, and we should feel that same way with Reid and a bunch of others that they felt no shame about endlessly associating with a guy who basically clearly. 00:16:44 Speaker 2: His life evolved with teenagers. 00:16:46 Speaker 3: And many of them lied about this, but it's not Frankly, it's not illegal to lie about who you're friends with. It's legal to lie under oath to law enforcement. But we don't know if he did. So we should remember that for a lot of people, this has become a political cause out of proportion to what is actually proven, what is actually improvable. And yeah, more might be coming, but we should remember that there is a lot of We've been through a few rounds of law fair in our time, folks. 00:17:14 Speaker 2: Let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body in what companies we support. Here, Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built by people who believe in hard work, freedom and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it every day right here on the show. From Morning Reaper and Brutal awakening to seventeen seventy six dark roasts in their two a medium roast. They've got something for everyone. They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess, Just add water, stir and you're ready to roll. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie and used code Charlie for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie, and for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription. Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out. 00:18:21 Speaker 1: That's Blackoutcoffee dot Com slash Charlie. Check it out promo code Charlie. 00:18:27 Speaker 2: Alan Bacari Foundation for Freedom Online. You've known him on this show for a number of years. He's come back and used to be with Breitbart covering all their digital stuff. Now he's with Foundation for Freedom Online and Mike Ben's over the good people there. So alum, we want to bring you in, Welcome back. We want to bring you in because there is this they're calling it a Bellweather case in Los Angeles Superior Court, and it involves a young woman, and I guess you know, a lot of families are out there, A lot of families are linking hands outside of the courthouse, and they are alleging that social media is destroying their lives, getting them addicted, that it's engineered to be addictive, and that it's causing suicidal ideation, it's causing depression, and they say that it has been intentionally designed this way. Alan breakdown the court case here, what's being alleged, what are the defenses? Give us the thirty thousand foot view. 00:19:22 Speaker 5: Well, look, obviously social media is addictive in a way, and there being complaints about addictive media for a long time before social media. There were similar complaints about TV and how that was ruining people's health. But I must say this framing that social media could be a health hazard is quite dangerous. And you know, asking asking social media to be less addictive is asking them to make their product less effective. They're an information product, and the big winner at the end of the day if that happens is going to be legacy media. So you always have to look at the who stands to benefit from this framing of social media as a health hazard. It's other information services, especially the media companies that have been displaced by social media. Now, social media addictiveness is a real problem, and there are major concerns, genuine concerns about the effect on children. But when you have to pay attention to who's latching onto this cause, it's often progressive governments like the UK that are committed to online censorship, not because they care about children. The UK government, you know, has embroiled in a scandal right now because one of their top appointees, Peter Mandelson, the former US ambassador, was connected to Jeffrey Epstein. But what they see in this agenda, in this narrative about addictiveness and the harm that social media can cause to children, a potential trojan horse for what they actually want, which is political censorship, which is punishing social media companies that don't ban who they don't like, that don't ban their political opponent's. And then if you look around the world, governments are latching onto any excuse they can find. You know, the EU is launching a probe to x over, you know, allegations about Grock being used to generate deep fakes. The UK has done the same thing. They even try to team up with Australia and Canada to ban X over that issue. And why they're going after X because that's what all the political opponents are that's where their narratives are being challenged. So when we think about the addictiveness issue, we have to think not just about the issue itself, but who's championing the cause and what the second order effects are going to be of designating social media or public health has it it will make it much easier to regulate and much easier to regulate those algorithms that the establishment are really quite afraid of, because those algorithms are how citizen journalists can challenge mainstream media narratives. 00:21:49 Speaker 2: Well, Ali, you're definitely right. 00:21:51 Speaker 3: It's very clear the British government, the German government, the French government, they want excuses to ban X, to find X and presume other social media outlets that they are out of their control. But I think it's also clearly the case that a lot of these apps are designed to be addictive in a way that clearly is damaging. 00:22:12 Speaker 2: Young children's health. 00:22:13 Speaker 3: I think the rise of Facebook, Instagram, other social media is clearly correlated with young, especially teenage women's mental well being going off a cliff. We can see that with the rise of the smartphone, and it strikes me that there must be some things that could be legally relevant here that don't put you in danger of widespread censorship. I think one of the most obvious is just doom scrolling, the infinite scroll that a lot of these apps use that clearly seems to be linked to addictive behavior. And I don't see how banning that would immediately imperil speech. And I just go back to you're almost certainly familiar with this the famous Sean Parker comment all the way back in twenty seventeen, where he basically just got on a stage and said, we engineered the app to give you a little dope, I mean hit every once in a while, because if someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever, and it would get you in a feedback loop and and you would be hooked on it. 00:23:09 Speaker 2: Apparently we had that we do. 00:23:11 Speaker 5: Yeah, let's difficult. 00:23:13 Speaker 2: Yeah, let's let's go ahead and play that Sean Parker clip. 00:23:16 Speaker 6: You know, if the if the thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them to really understand it. That thought process was all about, how do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible, and that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever, and that's going to get you to contribute more content, and that's going to get you, you know, more likes and comments. And it's a it's a valid it's a social validation. 00:23:53 Speaker 7: Feedback loop that that it's like a I mean, it's exactly the kind of thing that a that a hacker myself would come up with, because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. And I just I think that we, you know, we the inventors, creators, you know, and it's me, it's Mark, it's the you know, Kevin, sisterm and Instagram, it's all of these people understood this consciously and we did it anyway. 00:24:26 Speaker 2: That's super I mean, that's very chilling actually to watch that they they intentionally engineered their platforms. To your point, they have a financial incentive to do so alan to make their products as addictive as possible to get you to spend as much time on those apps as possible. But this, this is hurting kids. So I guess the question I have twofold question, what are the broader implications if this lawsuit is successful? They're calling it a bell weather. I can only imagine this is gonna if it's successful, it's gonna result in billions of financial losses for these platforms. But secondly, let's let's you can see the point that we would like to see some guardrails on these apps. What would be a positive outcome? 00:25:06 Speaker 5: Well, I would always want to look at who's in charge of the regulations and who's in charge of the guard rails rather than what they necessarily are. I think conservatives really have to get involved and take charge of the child's safety agenda, much like Adam Candee did when he was campaigning for age of verification laws. Is now that in the Trump administration NTIA Because the problem is when you let progressives take on the child's safety agenda, they're just going to use it as a smoke screen for political censorship. We've seen this totally so many times before, and it's a genuinely difficult issue because you know, social media apps are addictive, and they're particularly addictive for kids when you know their brains are still developing. But you look at what foreign governments are doing, like the UK, France, Spain, many other countries, they're simultaneously trying to ban social media for kids, just a blanket ban, while also trying to lower the voting age to sixty. So what they want really and you see the you see the end goal here. They want a voting demographic that's a power to vote, but also doesn't have access to the social media platforms where mainstream pro government narratives might be challenged, where they might encounter information that the government and their allied NGOs and civil society organizations and mainstream media roomists don't want to see. So that that is the real danger. So when we're trying to protect kids from addictive social media, we also have to think about how can we make sure they still have access to that, to that independent media ecosystem that exists on social media and that governments around the world are working so hard and just completely shut down because say, the same technology that makes social media addictive, that causes engagement, is the same technology that allows citizen journalists to go viral. That is the technology that governments around the world are so afraid of, the same technology that allows as a random person to make a post, get millions of views and you know, share information that the media doesn't want to be shared, that NGOs don't want to see shared, that governments don't want to see shared. So that's that's the balance you have to strike, and it's a very difficult balance to strike, and we have to be constantly aware of these organizations that have a have an agenda that they're not telling you about when they talk about addictiveness and the left things. You know, you know, Drag Drag, Queen Story Hour is appropriate for children. You know, they think gay pride parades are appropriate for children. They think gender reassignment surgery is appropriate for children. So we should not take any concerns coming from left wing progressives about the dangers of social media to children and child welfare seriously. They don't really care about that issue. They care about political control. They care about control of the Internet and social media platforms, and that is the danger here. 00:27:58 Speaker 2: It's hugely tough. 00:27:59 Speaker 3: I will say, if you look at what they auto feed to children on YouTube, if you make a new child's account, you definitely start worrying about more, possibly some need for regulation. 00:28:09 Speaker 2: But thank you allum. Mike Lindell and My Pillow employees want to thank you for your great support this past year, and they're looking to make twenty twenty six the best year yet. As a thank you to our listeners, My Pillow is exclusively offering free shipping on your entire order and at wholesale pricing. That means they're bringing back the mega sale exclusively for our listeners. For example, the classic my Pillows are regularly forty nine ninety eight and now are marked down to only fourteen ninety eight. Turn any mattress into the best mattress ever with the Maid in the USA My Pillow my Mattress topper and save up to one hundred dollars. Get a set of my Pillow Giza Dream Sheets for as low as twenty nine ninety eight or the six pack towel set for only thirty four ninety eight. Order now and your entire order ship's absolutely lute ly free. 00:29:00 Speaker 1: Go to my pillow dot com today and use promo code Kirk Don't wait. Be sure to order now call eight hundred and eighty seven five zero four two five or use promo code ki RK. That is my pillow dot com promo code kirk. 00:29:13 Speaker 2: We wanted to get to the latest on Iran. President Trump is saying that he is going to make up his mind a final decision about a strike on Iran within the next ten days, but we are told that he is yet to make his final decision. JD. Vance is simultaneously warning Iran, saying this is deadly serious and they better come to the table. So this is ongoing conversations that are happening in Iran. Meanwhile, President Trump is saying that he has yet to make up his mind. This all echoes very clearly what we saw in the twelve day war, where Trump said I'm going to make up my mind the next two weeks. 00:29:50 Speaker 3: I feel when I saw that headline all the side within the next ten days, my immediate thought was he has already decided, frankly, because that's what he did last time. And there's this element you're gonna decide within the next ten days. Well, okay, you reach day ten and you kind of know if he's decided by then, if he hasn't struck it, and then you kind of regress back from there. It's it's such a strange thing to announce. It feels like a very Trumpian tactic. It's saber rattling. It's sort of saying, listen, if past his prologue, you know what I chose to do that time, I did strike, and you know I'm serious about this strike. 00:30:25 Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and play. President Trump. He spoke about iron just this morning, five thirty. 00:30:30 Speaker 4: Eight our countries. Nobody could have signed. You would have had that threat. Nobody could have had. You couldn't had peace in the Middle East. So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we're gonna make a deal. You're gonna be finding out over the next probably ten days, or. 00:30:47 Speaker 3: It could be even you know, as you say, they remember what happened last time. When they hear ten days, Iran should be hearing. The planes are literally taking off right now, and you have twelve hours, yeah, to decide continues five point thirty. 00:31:01 Speaker 4: Nine hours, the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we're doing. And if they join us, that'll be great. If they don't join us, that'll be great too. But it'll be a very different path. They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal or if that doesn't happen, I maybe can understand if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but bad things will happen, all right. 00:31:30 Speaker 2: So again, this is very Trump. If they don't join us, that'll be good too. So here's here's things we know. Let's separate fact from fiction here. We know that there has been a very serious and significant build up in recent days of military assets in the region, and this would include air and naval assets in the Middle East. But insider sources in the White House have told multiple outlets that Trump is privately argued both for and against military action, and he's pulling advisors and allies on what the best course of action is. Now here's the insider scoop is that there are significant voices within the White House that are against military action. They're against foreign intervention. They stand firmly on the America first side, saying we don't want to invade Iran. We do not want a kinetic military strike in Iran. There are other voices that are very very much chomping at the bit to do so. They see this as the one opportunity with the uprising, the organic uprising of protesters in the streets, to take out the mullus, as Sean Hannity would say, a mullus. So you've got competing factions within the White House. You've got the Hawks, and you've got the you got the Doves. 00:32:44 Speaker 3: It's like I said yesterday, I think what could be tilting them is we have had several of these escalations over the past year. Mostly President Trump has pushed toward peace. But where they have done things, they did the strike on Iran, it was limited, it was successful. They did the raid in Benazuela, it was limited, it was very successful. And we had these reports that President Trump was asking for military operations that were like limited in scope, limited in duration, that had a very clear cut thing. And so I I think we agree Charlie did not want worth Iran. We are very skeptical of that. But what we have seen a pattern from the President is, in comparison to prior administrations, he is very resistant to scope creep. He's very resistant to open ended missions. And so I think I think the President would be wise enough to say we don't want a bunch of troops occupying Iran. We don't want troops opting into. 00:33:41 Speaker 2: Going to telegraph his moves. Though he won't he won't. What we can tell you is we can reased on the assets that have been moved into the region. It does not look like a ground force is part of the equation right now. It would be. 00:33:52 Speaker 3: What we are getting is we're getting the resources for a much larger air campaign than we've seen before that you have there's any all these F twenty two fighters, So that's a bunch of fighters who could shoot down every jet that goes into the sky that they could send out after sending enough bombers that you could actually you're not just striking nuclear plants. You're hitting every military base, You're hitting every city. And I presume if that happens, the intent would be you bomb them until the government agrees to leave power. Now can that be done? If they are adamant about refusing to do so? How long would it go on? That is where it becomes a stickier question. How many how much resources are we willing to invest in toppling a government on the far side of the world, And politically, if we do it. Even if it's successful, will they make the case that this is a good use of America's time, that it's justified. And I feel, even in comparison to last summer, that might be the biggest challenge for the administration. If we were to go to war with Iran tonight, I think most Americans would be asking what had prompted it? 00:34:55 Speaker 2: Yeah, so's we'll sum it up here. It is a political mess for the administration to go into the Middle East. It is much trickier from a polling standpoint, from a grassroots support standpoint, than actions in Venezuela. I understand the opportunity that has been presented by this popular uprising against the Mullahs in Iran, and I understand the just the carnage that the regime has exacted upon the population of Iran. However, this is the Middle East. Regime change is always messier than you anticipate, and you at some point you have to ask the question why why now? Is it just because Lindsay Graham, Lady Graham, is you know, working his magic, his charms in the ear of the president or what is the deeper incentive? Now? The deeper incentive President Truble say is to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. Well, then if that is your incentive, then what's going on with the B two strikes that happened last summer? Where those effective or where those not effective? 00:36:00 Speaker 3: Let's and it's you have to remember for some people they see this as maybe their last opportunity to get a regime change in Iran. You always have to be wary of that. Charlie had a lot of thoughts on this. We talked about it a lot. This is one of his tweets five fifty eight. This is back in twenty nineteen. He said, lots of rumblings we might be preparing a ground war with Iran. This would be a massive mistake. Sanctions, preventing funding, canceling Iran deal are all strategic good moves, but another ground war with US troops is not the answer and the endless senseless wars. I think that ground troops line is the key one, and I think that would be a bright line for the President that I think he'll be wise enough not to. 00:36:40 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's I think that I think most of us feel assured of that. The question is how this is the largest build up since two thousand and three, and so, I mean, the voters of all the polling says we're desperate for domestic reform and domestic focus. I hope we can do that. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlikirk dot com