The Attack of Judge Sparkle + Debating the Iran Deal

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. 00:00:11 Speaker 2: My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. 00:00:14 Speaker 1: 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. 00:00:24 Speaker 3: College is a scam, everybody. 00:00:26 Speaker 2: You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married. 00:00:28 Speaker 1: As young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point, you would say college chapter. 00:00:33 Speaker 3: Go start aturning point youould say high school chapter. 00:00:35 Speaker 1: Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 3: 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 4: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 00:01:17 Speaker 4: All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is what is today. It's the twenty third June twenty third, twenty twenty six. We're here in Phoenix, Arizona at the y Refive Studies. How we doing, Blake, We're doing lovely, great, great, he despite a lot of annoying things, which we're going to dive into. Yeah, well, I mean at which bucket? Which bucket of annoying? 00:01:36 Speaker 5: Oh man, which where do you want me to start? I snap, I could start with the left loving criminals. 00:01:42 Speaker 4: Well, there was a great press conference to just Aaron. We're gonna get some clips to that at some point in this hour where RFK and some of the other members of the administration, they are staying on the fraud beat and they've got billions accounted for and over four hunitre and fifty five four unit and fifty five exactly potential indictments. Maybe they are indictments at We'll get you all cut up caught up on that in just a second. But we want to talk about elections. There's a lot of talk about how America does its elections. Kamala Harris is coming out against the Electoral College, Jamil Hill, saying it's rooted in slavery. These are lies, they are stupid, that's okay, But it's also Democrat judges and they're blocking common sense reforms to make our elections more secure. Now, our elections are basically a joke the way they are currently run. It's based on the honor system in a country with millions and millions of immigrants, both illegal and illegal. That is a dumb thing to do. Now, this most recent example comes from and I'm not making this name up, District Judge Sparkle suk Nonne. Yes, Judge Sparkle, just how the founders envisioned it. District Judge Sparkle suk Nonne, in approach of former President Joe Biden, said, officials across numerous government agencies haphazardly quote combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable end quote, in order to comply with President Trump's March executive order attempting to overhaul federal elections. So once again we have a district judge appointed by a Democrat. In this case, Joe. 00:03:25 Speaker 5: Biden flocking a foreigner. 00:03:29 Speaker 4: Judge Sparkle from Trinidad, a country known to be the most wonderful representative of democracy in the world. So it's a again, a Biden appointee. She didn't fully strike down the order, but she issued a seventy five page ruling that blocked and set aside Trump and the Trump administration's overhauled the SAVE system, which is a systemic alien verification for entitlement. 00:03:54 Speaker 5: Well, yeah, so what it is. First of all, a part of what's at the root of this is you need to be a citizen to vote. And yet, bafflingly enough, we don't have a central database in the US that just says here is everyone who's a citizen of the United States, which you could go check it, b you think we should, And so the Trump administration has been trying to build this so SAVE that system originally existed to check if you're eligible for in various federal benefits, because if you're foot, were and born and all that, you shouldn't. And they're trying to repurpose this so that they can detect likely ineligible people. Don't they don't just flag you and ping it and say you have to take this person off the voter rules. They'd ping it and say this person might not be a citizen because they're registering, is not eligible for these programs. And they've run millions of people through these and I think they found about twenty twenty one thousand potential non citizens through this. And some people are saying, well, I'm a citizen and they caught me with this. And so this judge is saying, it's intruding on your property, on your privacy rights, on your privacy rights for the federal government to use your federal information, your Social Security number, your eligibility for federal programs. It's illegal for the federal government to use that to check if you can be a voter. And it gets at the root of this insanity here we have this foreign judge Sparkle come in and say no on suk Nonan, say it violates the law, probably the Constitution, for the federal government to use your information that you use to interact with the government to see if you can vote for who runs the government and makes the government's laws. And the deeper truth here, which we all love to highlight is ultimately they will always find this excuse because the Democrats, they can't articulate a justified reason to check whether someone's a citizen. They want it to run on the honor system, and they want it to run on the honor system to enable dishonorable. 00:05:41 Speaker 4: Behavior because they have no honor. Actually, so let's just like lay out the facts of what this March executive order that President Trump signed does. So it creates state citizenship lists, directs the Department of Homeland Security USCIS and the Social Security Administration to compile and send each state a list of confirmed US citizens. All right. Then it has restrictions on mail in and absentee ballot restrictions, so it instructs the Postal Service the USPS to create a mail in and absentee participation list of verified eligible voters. Okay, that's it. Now, you might say, well, Andrew, the constitution dictates the states run their elections and how in the manner of which, well, yes, that's true, but the federal government gets to dictate how the federal elections are run. So it's they are pushing back on this based on notions of federalism and separation of federal and state authority. But that's garbage. Actually, Now, on some level, you need the states to administer a federal election because we have a federal system. But the state's answer to the federal government, all right, it's the supremacy clause. So I completely disagree with this, And to Blake's point, they will always find a legal rationale to block it if they want to block it, not because the law instructs them too, but because they are fundamentally against this. Now, consider the irony of a foreigner telling Americans how to do their election. Out of that that we can't enforce citizenship tests. 00:07:17 Speaker 5: We had another foreign judge who's ruling was upheld yesterday that Trump administration can't block snap benefits from being spent on junk food. Well, that was a I believe a Korean board judge led on that one. 00:07:28 Speaker 4: And that makes approximately zero. Said, of course, of course, we elected are representatives and they have made a decision about how do you snap benefits, and they should be given that authority. That's the way the system works with the representative government. 00:07:42 Speaker 5: And the deeper thing here is if they're not going to allow a federal government to check this, they're essentially saying states should have the exclusive authority to decide if someone's a citizen. And one of the problems here is not just that Democrat run states don't want to check this, but they're willing to do more sinister behavior. A lot of these states they want to create a system, for examsample, where your driver's license can be a presumptive proof of citizenship, and yet Blue states will just give a full driver's license to an illegal immigrant. We're getting very close to the point where I think a sufficiently gutsy person could just go out and say, I am a citizen, and here's all the proof, and I got this from this California state government, and they basically just make themselves a citizen without ever actually being naturalized. 00:08:25 Speaker 4: And here's where this ties into a current debate that's ongoing now that Kamala Harris, of all people, sparked by saying it's time to get rid of the electoral college. Now we'll play the clip and we'll continue on explaining why this is a really terrible idea, But here it is in her own words, thirty nine. 00:08:44 Speaker 6: I think that there is some real shaking up that we have to do of the rules and the structure, and. 00:08:52 Speaker 2: Does that get rid of the electoral college. 00:08:55 Speaker 6: I think we should that should be a discussion that we should have. I don't think we should eliminate that as a point of discussion for potential action. 00:09:08 Speaker 4: She was like, such a mysteric I don't think we should eliminate that as like, wait, is the clip wrong? And then she goes as a point of discussion after her brain cooked for a few more. 00:09:18 Speaker 5: She's a very articulate woman. That's why she was the completely natural and organic choice for the party to run in twenty twenty four. 00:09:24 Speaker 4: So to Blake's point, You've got states like California that are basically going, hey, just trust us, bro, these are all citizens, and they want to get rid of the electoral college, which actually limits the ability of that state to impact a national election because if they all get equal votes and illegal aliens can vote just the same as a citizen, well guess what California could swing the entire nation. Thankfully, the electoral college has it somewhat limited. All right, So we have outlined a foreign judge has blocked a common sense reform to running federal elects. That's an EO that President Trump signed in March, and it creates a database of known citizens. You would think a country a first world country would know it's who its citizens are. But this foreign born judge, Judge Sparkle, has said no, no, no, no, can't do that. And so here we are now. Also running simultaneously is this debate that is happening on the left about abolishing the electoral college. So what is that debate and where did it come from? Well, Jamille Hill thinks it came from slavery, which is insane. Clip. 00:10:35 Speaker 7: Anybody who studied any small bit of history knows the electoral college is rooted in slavery. That was the entire reason that it was invented, essentially, and we should have gotten from up under it a long time ago. And not just because you have two women quite capable who lose the election. 00:10:53 Speaker 5: Well two women quite capable. I would say Hillary Clinton was at least formidable, like I could have seen her becoming a politician, even if she probably didn't marry Bill. Kamala not quite capable, not not formidable. 00:11:06 Speaker 4: Comma. I could explain Kamala Harris's rise really simple. They thought she was the female Obama because she's mixed race and kind of you know, from California. 00:11:15 Speaker 5: Kamala Harris, that was it. Kamala Harris was Canada by committee where they go, what would the ideal presidential candidate be? Like, she's like the AI candidate we want, Yeah, AI generated. I couldn't talk big blue state, the right demographic boxes. You know, we can make anyone a good candidate with enough money and effort and advisors. 00:11:34 Speaker 4: Oops. 00:11:35 Speaker 5: Oops, that didn't work. 00:11:36 Speaker 4: It didn't work. But so this is garbage though from Jamil Hill. Okay, there is a vague connection in the sense that the Electoral College, the allotment of electoral votes per state, is based on congressional representation, and I guess she's going back to the three fits compromise to do that. That's that's not at all what it was. This was a protection mechanism that spread power out across the country. Remember the constitution spreads power out over time, over geography, and over different institutions within the government. Okay, now the states are protected, like the power of Iowa is protected against California because Iowa is its own state. So it's a compact amongst the states. Go ahead. 00:12:19 Speaker 5: In fact, it specifically protects us from what the left has been doing in recent history because the left has, first of all, they've imported a gigantic number of foreigners to prop up their populations, and they've made their states increasingly intolerable to any ordinary middle class person, which is why they leave with New York. 00:12:39 Speaker 4: Which is why the census is reflecting that and will continue to that. People are from New. 00:12:44 Speaker 5: York and California. They have high populations, but extremely heavily foreign populations. Native born people keep moving out, and they just keep propping up their population with endless importation of more foreigners, more foreigners, more foreigners, and so we're getting a situation where their ratio of people who can vote vote to overall population is all ascu. They have a higher number of illegal immigrants, a higher number of non citizen legal immigrants there, and they just have these states they're intolerable. So they're basically one party states. So we're getting these states. California is going to have this is a seventy to thirty result in every election because they've made it intolerable to anyone in the middle. New York is going to have these seventy thirty elections, Yeah, sixty five thirty five elections. And then what's basically saving the country is the broader base. All these other states where we're able to just have fifty five to forty five results all across the board, more spread out across the country, and we're able to check. They would love to get a raw popular vote, where they say, we can run our sketchy election system. We can extend the vote to sixteen year olds or fourteen year olds or ten year olds. It doesn't matter because none of our elections are. 00:13:49 Speaker 4: Competitive and ballid harvest everything. 00:13:53 Speaker 5: Have every homeless person who is not even aware of what's going on, vote, Have every drug addict vote. Have every person who's in a nursing home and with Alzheimer's and actually not aware of what's going on, have them vote. Hoover it all up, and it actually decides every national election. That's what they want, and that's what they'll get if they kill the electoral college. 00:14:11 Speaker 4: Exactly well, and so they want California, New York to determine in Chicago to determine the national popular vote and choose the president. The electoral college is a safeguard against the excesses of the left in those blue states. And it's just interesting, right, So the Supreme Court just ruled this is breaking news in a six to three decision Scotis rules that dhs can strip Green card holders and lawful permanent residents of their legal status if they leave the country and travel abroad while they are facing criminal charges, even if they are just pending and not convicted yet. Liberals dissent. So here's a great example of a good ruling, of obvious, common sense ruling from a majority conservative Supreme Court. Contrasts that with Judge Sparkle. So, not only do they want to give non citizens the right to vote, they want to do it on the honor system. Trust me, bro, they don't want us to be able to verify their citizenship, then they want to pack the Supreme Court. This is what Kamala Harris is calling for. She's calling for a no bad Ideas meeting. Okay, let's just play this clip and remind you that she said this too. 00:15:19 Speaker 6: Top forty say, look, this is a moment where there are no bad ideas, no bad idea brainstorm is what I'd like to call it. And in that no bad ideas brainstorm, we talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the electoral College. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. Let's talk about statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. These are the things I think that we've got to do. We've got to neutralize these red states from cheating, including blue states, expanding their maps. 00:15:58 Speaker 8: And all of this. 00:15:59 Speaker 6: I think is, look, we gotta fight fire with fire. These folks are playing and win. We gotta play the win. 00:16:07 Speaker 5: First of all, I think that's Kamala accent mark three, mark four. Maybe it seems a little different. Second, I mean the crazy thing. I'm just checking the polling because I would have thought they always say the person who lost they're the favorite for the next time around. It takes a while to get it, and I thought they'll move on from Kamala. I'm checking the poles. Kamala's having kind of an Indian summer of polling. She was diving, she was below Newsome, she's rallying. She's the number one person in the poll stack. 00:16:30 Speaker 4: Well, she's done her whole career. She puts her finger to the air and says, which way is the wind blowing. I'm gonna go that way. But that's this is what we're talking about. They want to reduce all the checks and bounces, gets their cheating, and then they have the gall to say that it's red stage cheating. This is a bad ideas brainstorm, and that's the whole point. Something that's on everyone's mind right now is the housing market. Whether you're looking to buy your first home, purchase your dream home, wondering if your current mortgage is still the best fit for you, or you're considering using your equity to pay off other high interest debt with double digit rates, the wait and see approach may actually be costing you money. That's where Andrew and Todd with Union Home Mortgage come in. These guys aren't just lenders, they're strategists. The market ships every single day, and there are more opportunities than ever to make your mortgage work for you instead of against you. Right now, Andrew and Todd are offering a completely free mortgage review, no pressure, no obligation. You can do it and review it and say hey, not right now, or they can help you just a professional review of your current situation to see whether you may be able to lower your payment, improve cash flow, consolidate debt, or better leverage your home equity. Don't leave your biggest investment to chance. Go to Andrewantodd dot com. That's Andrewintodd dot com. Or call triple eight Triple eight eleven seventy two. That's Triple eight triple eight eleven seventy two. Get your plan in motion. Go to Andrewantodd dot com today, without further ado, Senator Mike Lee, welcome back to the show, sir. It's great to have you. 00:18:02 Speaker 8: Thanks so much, Andrew. Good to be with you. 00:18:04 Speaker 4: It's great to be with you. So we started the whole show. We talked about Judge Sparkle, you know, the district judge. She's getting in the way of Trump's March executive order trying to ensure that only citizens are voting, creating this list, as she says, it violates federalism. I guess statutes and privacy laws. Okay, whatever. Now you've got this Save Act that we have, the Save America Act that we have been pushing so hard, and it's been the whole build up this show about why it is the critical piece of legislation for this country. So let's just start their, Senator, because this debate has been going on so long. I want people to remember how we got here, Why is this so important, and why have you been like a dog with a bone. 00:18:49 Speaker 6: Right. 00:18:49 Speaker 9: We need to save America Act for a few independent reasons. First, because of the National Voter Registration Act nineteen ninety three, known as the Motor Voter Law, and the way it was interpreted in a couple decades after its enactment, it's now far too easy for non citizens to register to vote and subsequently to vote in federal elections, even though federal law prohibits it, because the Supreme Court wrongly but conclusively interpreted that statute is prohibiting the states from doing any citizenship verification when somebody registers to vote at a DMV, which is how most. 00:19:22 Speaker 8: People register to vote these days. So we need it for that reason. 00:19:25 Speaker 9: We also accelerated the need for it with more and more states issuing drivers' licenses to non citizens and in many cases even to known illegal aliens, with the border being opened for four years under President Biden, with the fact that we've got now thirty million plus non citizens in the United States, and we've got threats to our election security all over the place. As you've noted Judge Sparkle yesterday in that order. Notice what she did. She didn't just say, let's make sure that non citizens aren't being removed. She said, no, this whole database that's maintained in the Department of Homelands Security, known as the Same Database, which could be used by the states to help clean out their voter registration files to cross check to see if they're citizens. 00:20:09 Speaker 8: She ordered the whole thing shut down. 00:20:11 Speaker 9: Rather than just trying to make sure that there were safeguards in place to protect citizens from being removed. 00:20:17 Speaker 8: No, there's an all out assault. 00:20:19 Speaker 9: Meanwhile, the election system in place in California, as evidenced in the last couple of weeks by the LA Mayor's election, California still has it certified its final outcome. 00:20:30 Speaker 8: There. 00:20:31 Speaker 9: There's very few people who I know who look at that and say that bodes well for election security in America. 00:20:38 Speaker 8: We've got to get this done. 00:20:39 Speaker 9: Meanwhile, I really appreciate President Trump's ongoing efforts to keep attention focused on the Save America Act because it would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. It would require proof of citizenship to register and photo ID to vote in federal elections. These are common sense requirements that every other modern society has, and in fact societies. 00:21:00 Speaker 8: That we would regard as less modern. 00:21:02 Speaker 9: My friend and colleague, Bernie Sanders, the Cenator from Ohio, just got back from Columbia. In Colombia, they had their elections over the weekend. In Colombia, they have election security measures in place. 00:21:13 Speaker 8: That really put ours to shame. 00:21:17 Speaker 9: They make sure everybody's got a voter ID, that they've got conclusive proof of citizenship. They've really got clean elections. And the great thing is they knew within an hour of the polls closing who had won the election. And they were also able to certify with a high degree of confidence that non citizens were not voting. 00:21:36 Speaker 4: So I love all of that. I think it's so important to just get back to the basics and the one oh one here. Why we're pushing this so hard, and a big reason why is Joe Biden was president and just let in millions of these people and we're just supposed to trust me, bro honor system. Everything's going to be fine. There's no voter fright. Well, if there's no voter fra, why do you guys care? Why are you trying to block this all? 00:21:58 Speaker 7: Right? 00:21:58 Speaker 4: Now, here's the next piece in this saga. So there's a piece here. It looks like punch Bowl. You know, there's going to be a President's going to be at this meeting, steering meeting in the Senate tomorrow, meeting with GOP senators, and he's going to be pushing this issue. You and he are aligned on this issue. What can we expect to happen tomorrow? 00:22:19 Speaker 8: Ultimately that's up to my colleagues. 00:22:21 Speaker 9: But what I hope comes out of it in the case I continue to make is that we need to do this. We need to do everything we possibly can to try to get this pass. You know, as part of our late night vote rama about two weeks ago, we put the Save America Act onto that bill as an amendment. It got fifty Republican votes. We had fifty one before Senator Tilla's changed his vote. But regardless, even with fifty, that means that JD. Vance, as Vice President of the United States, could supply a tie breaking vote in a simple majority passage scenario. But meanwhile, we're stuck with Democrats refusing to give us the vote for cloture. That takes sixty votes to get the cloture simple majority passage, but sixty votes to force debate to a close, and that leaves us with two options. If we want to pursue this, which I think we should, the first option would be to nuke the filibuster, which involves changing the Senate precedent so that we could immediately pass it by a simple majority. It does not appear that we've got support for that, even though I would support that option. But the other one would be to keep the Save America Act on the floor, keep debating it, and promise to stay on it until it passes, taking away Democrats weekends and long scheduled recesses until enough of them are willing to negotiate. That's how filibusters used to be broken in the past, separate and apart from the cloture process, which used to be rare, and it's also how the Civil Rights Act got passed. We can do it again, especially whereas here we've got a bill that's a lot more popular with the American people than it is among Democrats in Congress, the. 00:23:56 Speaker 8: Only group of people for whom this is controversial. 00:23:59 Speaker 4: Yeah, well, listen, I mean, I love both these options, and there's we're told that it can't pass the reconciliation process because it's not budget related. That I mean, that's very in the weeds. For the average voter out there. But okay, let's assume it can't pass the birdbath. Okay. The question then becomes this issue with Thune. I'm seeing in punchbll you quote tweeted it, he's saying, I hope that people on that issue speak up. Thune told us read the filibusters say back, because I'm not saying anything that isn't a view that would wouldn't be shared or articulated by a lot of my colleagues. It's always helpful if others speak up, and it's not just me. I think what a lot of Americans want. And I actually do believe that Thune, if he had the votes, he would he would do what he had to do because he knows the pressures on him, he knows the pressures on the president. But I think what the American people want, Senator is we want to know who's who? Who are the other senators that are fighting us on this? And I is there going to be an opportunity? You know, President Trump has threatened to name ames. Are we going to find out in any of these different processes they are about to play out that they put their name on this? Because I think that's important. The voters want to know who's blocking this. 00:25:10 Speaker 9: Yeah, I would imagine that those who speak out one way or another of this tomorrow in that meeting with President Trump and Senate Republicans will self identify. That's often how it ends up working. But look, regardless of who speaks in which direction, I do think it's important to recognize a couple of things. First of all, as you point out, it's not an easy situation. I grasp the fact that we don't have sixty votes. I fully get that. I also get that in many circumstances, that signals that it's. 00:25:40 Speaker 8: Not something that we're likely to get past. 00:25:42 Speaker 9: This is a rather unique opportunity where number one, our elections search security requires us to take aggressive action. Number Two, we've got a build that is really popular among Americans, Like three out of four American voters Democrats and Republicans combined support measures like this one, and they want that done. Number Three, it gets more popular over time, more popular as it's debated, especially because the Democrats' arguments against it don't land that. 00:26:11 Speaker 8: I have yet to hear a. 00:26:11 Speaker 4: Legitimate against them so empty, and so I'm not I'm not purporting to claim that this would be easy. 00:26:20 Speaker 9: I'm not purporting even to claim that I know exactly how this would turn out. What I am saying is, in this rare moment, I think it would benefit of all of us, particularly Senate Republicans, to stand up for the American people and to use some unconventional tactics to try to get this passed. Sometimes this is what you have to do in order to continue the fight on something, rather than just taking a knee and saying, well, we don't have sixty votes now, so let's not even try. 00:26:51 Speaker 8: It's a very. 00:26:51 Speaker 9: Different thing for people to say I'm filibustering it, as in I would vote against culture. It's very different for them to do just that than it is to say, Okay, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'm willing to go back to the Senate floor day after day and continue making arguments against the bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans along political lines across this great country support this. Those are very different things, and I think we could all benefit from that robust debate, which also has some potential for resulting in passage, just as it did in the case of the Civil Rights Act, where at the end of that long process. It took weeks, but they started realizing this wasn't going to go away. You had a Senate majority leader in Senator Mike Mansfield at the time, who said, we're going to keep debating this till it passes. 00:27:41 Speaker 8: And it worked. They were thirty votes shy. 00:27:43 Speaker 9: Of cloture andrew when they took that up when it came over from the House and. 00:27:48 Speaker 8: They closed that gap. It took weeks, but they did close it. 00:27:51 Speaker 9: I'm not saying I know exactly how this would turn out, but it could turn out that way, and we really should try well. 00:27:57 Speaker 4: And I think everybody has your back, Senator I don't know anybody. I haven't talked to anybody who's like in real America who's like Senator Lee is out, you know, out over a skis here. No, we all want what you want, and you are you are our voice right now. So thank you for continuing to beat this drum. And I just want to you know, we played a clip of Kamala Harris talking about No Bad Ideas Brainstorm in the previous segment, and they are talking about abolishing the Electoral College. They're talking about adding Puerto Rico in DC estates. They're talking about packing the Supreme Court. So I don't know what Senate Republicans are waiting for here, because if they get power, they're going to absolutely destroy so many of the safeguards that have protected Americans like you and I. They're going to get rid of them. 00:28:44 Speaker 9: We know that because they've told us where they're going to go. They will moot the filibuster, they will blow up the Supreme Court by packing it. 00:28:52 Speaker 8: They will add. 00:28:54 Speaker 9: States that they know believe will be consistently democratic, and they'll make a bunch of other changes. Because what they want to do they want to form an institutional party, one that can be in power without interruption for decades. 00:29:09 Speaker 8: We can't let that happen. Asking to Save America Act is part of that. 00:29:12 Speaker 4: Absolutely, it's a huge, huge piece of that. Thank you for fighting for it. Thank you for being our voice, Senator Mike Lee, Great State of Utah, thank you. Alliance Defending Freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it. Americans have carried that legacy for two hundred and fifty years, and now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere, from classrooms to counselor's offices and even online onboard. Babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide. Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June thirtieth will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Caneppa, a counselor facing nearly ninety thousand dollars in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith. Rosalie Marcus, a young woman whose former boyfriend co Worcester to take male order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby. And Dan and Jennifer Mead, parents whose thirteen year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school. Every dollar you give today will be doubled by a one million dollar matching grant only while funds last. So go to JOINADYF dot com slash Charlie. That's join a DF for Alliance Defending Freedom. Join ADF dot com slash Charlie, or text Charlie to eight three eight four eight. That's Charlie to eight three eight four eight. Please give your best gift now to defend the next two hundred and fifty years of freedom. That's JOINADYF dot com, slash Charlie or text Charlie to eight three eight four eight Blake tell us about the New York Times and father. So we're a day late on this, but we wanted to get hit it. We wanted to hit it because Sunday, of course, was Father's Day. America's fathers there as we as we Actually we talked with Alex. 00:30:57 Speaker 5: Bearnson while you were out. Fatherhood under attack. It's undermined, it's not appreciated. And the New York Times decided they should show appreciation for Father's Day, so they published a comic guest essay by Zach Elams to my daughter. My gender was never complicated, and it is a comic by a trans parent, so actually it seems the child's mother. I've been living as a trans man since I was eighteen years old. I guess I don't know if they're the biological mother or not. When my wife and I had Elliott, I had to learn how to be a trans dad. I'm not sure who the real dad is versus the fake dad, but how do you grow a mustache if you were a lady. I wasn't out to everyone as trans, but with Elliott, I had to learn how to talk about it. And it goes on for this whole comic about being a dad, but not a dad, it's a mom. And that's the New York Times big piece for Father's Day. 00:31:54 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, you can't make it up that the New York Times would choose a tranny to be the representative on Father's Day. Literally, that that's what it's come to. And meanwhile, you had Alex Bearson on about his new book on fatherhood, and you know, I actually think I don't know if you guys talked about this, but Alex has told me that Charlie helped inspire the fact that he was writing that. But it's crazy, so I'm looking at his his So the New York Times Opinion has had four recent pieces about fatherhood. This is this is not a joke. By the way, They've had four pieces about fatherhood and masculinity with six authors, three women, a trans man, and two childless men. Really on fatherhood. So this is straight from Alex Bearnson. Let me tell you that again, because this is not a joke. Four recent pieces about fatherhood with six authors because some of them had two authors, three women, a trans man, and two childless men. Not one father, the New York Times can one father to opine on fatherhood in masculinity. And there you go all the problems in the liberal elite establishment. Why they have such contempt for masculinity, why they hated UFC two fifty at the White House, why they can't stand warrior culture, why they were trying to transition the freaking military and the LGBTQI plus and gay poem reading and all of that stuff. This is why. Because ultimately they have contempt for strength, for strong men. This is why they call us toxic. This is why they call us, This is why they paint us as villains in the culture. This is why popular media went from seeing stand up dads that were strong and stable and wise, transitioning that to comic dads like Homer Simpson. This is it. It's a long purge of that which makes the country actually strong. And that's what we're rejecting. And this New York Times, I mean, they just walked right into it. I just genuinely cannot believe that they couldn't find one actual father to write about fatherhood. 00:34:06 Speaker 5: I can believe it. I think that's well. 00:34:10 Speaker 4: They didn't mean to do this, But first of all, they probably, well, so you need to find someone who's a dad, So we can't find anyone at the New York Times. 00:34:17 Speaker 5: No, I joke. It's a big, big organization. But like, what it really is is the New York Times. It's when I talk about The New York Times to people, it's not that the New York Times publishes lies. We'll talk about the media and they publish untrue things or whatever. The New York Times is much more subtle. The New York Times. Their power derives from being the organization that if your establishment in America, especially if you're kind of the left establishment, you decide what everyone is talking about. You decide what people are thinking about. And The New York Times does this. They run their articles on being a trans dad, they run their articles on polyamory. One of the most sinister things The New York Times does is they're running this endless, low key pressure campaign to un under mine conventional functional marriages and families. And I think it's the most sinist thing they've done, and they've done it for years at this point, they've been They were writing about why polyamory is the future of relationships a decade ago, and that's messed up a lot of people who read this and they get a worm in their brain and think that this is normal. They've done it with the trans thing as well well. 00:35:21 Speaker 4: I think this is why what Charlie was doing was so important. It's why what we do at Turning Point is so important, because there is a whole part of the country that has been left out of this conversation, completely sidelined by elite institutions like The New York Times. And that's why we have to keep pushing back at it. And that's why you have to keep being audacious and bold confronting it. Because they hate strong men. They hate strong men because ultimately they know that that is what's going to defeat them. This is why young men swung so powerfully in Trump's direction in twenty twenty four. They know that they can't win men. Who do they have for men? They got James tal Rico. Yepfu man. They've got Tofu tal Rico. That's their vision of a modern strong, beta male. That's what they want. They want every man in America to be James tal Rico or in Maine, like you know, a former you know, I don't know what he is exactly, but he's got like the they use masculinity as like as as a mask. So you know this guy Platner in Maine, he's got like a mustache, like it looks like a walrus. And that's like all it takes. 00:36:28 Speaker 2: To be Oh. 00:36:28 Speaker 4: Look, he's a strong man, and. 00:36:29 Speaker 5: He's a weirdo. He's got he's got his weird Nazi tattoos, he's got his weird relationship history. He's a bit of a con man, he's a liar. But it's also they're trying to get a guy who can pass as a normal American man, and they inevitably end up with these weird freaks. 00:36:42 Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, and this is what they did with Tim Waltz, Tim Waltz in Minnesota. They had him, you know, I guess, shooting a shotgun, loading it wrong, shooting it wrong, and you know, cosplaying as some like hicclib It didn't work, and it's not gonna work because ultimately, and this is what's really funny about I think the New York Times did this accidentally. I don't think there was like some committee where they were like, we are gonna only do this. What it does is it reveals the bias of the editors that they can't even help themselves, that this is so ingrained deeply within the editorial discretion of the New York Times staff, that they just accidentally did this, and it's obscene and it's comical, but it's true. Hey everyone, I'm genuinely excited to share something that has made a significant difference in my own life. And if you experience brain fog, low energy, frequent illnesses, or wake up feeling stiff and achy, you've got to try strong Sell. This was Charlie's favorite supplement and he took it every single day. He would talk about it on the show and even travel the country with it, which is what I do. So for me, strong Sell helps keep my mind sharp and focused. It provides clean, natural energy without jitters, weird spikes, or afternoon crashes. I genuinely feel like a younger version of myself, like high school version energy. I'm not even kidding. People would ask Charlie what is strong Sell exactly. Strong Cell is a nutritional supplement that leverages a remarkable enzyme called NADH. Think of it as the power source for every living cell in your body, with over thirty trillion cells working for you. Imagine how great you could feel when they're all functioning at their best. Unfortunately, as we age our bodies, NADH levels naturally decline, leading to various ailments and health issues linked to poor cellular health. Unlike many supplements that simply mix ingredients and hope for the best, Strong Cell employs a proprietary delivery system designed to ensure those ingredients effectively get into your bloodstream where they can make a difference. This is crucial as many supplements on the market are just pretty packaging without real benefits. Here's the exciting part, though. You can try strong Cell completely risk free. That's right. Thanks to strong Cell's ninety eight money back guarantee, you can experience this revolutionary product without any hassles. If it's not for you, no problem, they'll refund your money. With approximately two million units sold, it's no wonder that NADH has become a highly sought after remedy. Remember what you put in your body matters, and you truly get what you pay for it. Strong sell doesn't cut corners. They only use the finest ingredients and adhere to the highest manufacturing standards. So if you're tired of feeling tired battling brain FuG We're simply not feeling like yourself. Check out Strong Sell today. Visit strong sale dot com and use code Charlie for twenty percent off your order. That's strong sll dot com promo code Charlie. Charlie always recommending giving strong cells six day weeks to experience its full benefits. So do yourself a favor. Get strong Cell today and give it the time it needs to work its magic. We have Ben Leo. He's the chief US correspondent at GB News and host of the Late Show Live on GB News, so he has become a bit of a UK expert for us because he is British of course, but Charlie also loved to having him on, so he's a great guest. Ben, welcome back to the show. Good to see my friend. You are in Boston, Am I raight? Yes? 00:40:03 Speaker 3: I'm in Boston. 00:40:04 Speaker 10: Hello boys, good to see you and the viewers and listeners. England are playing Ghana in the World Cup, so I'm doing my patriotic juicy and report on all things football or soccer as you guys call. 00:40:14 Speaker 3: It from Boston. 00:40:14 Speaker 4: Ben, you know that the English team is just gonna end up disappointing you and breaking your hearts again, right, I mean, you see where this is going. 00:40:21 Speaker 10: It's coming home. Sixty years of her coming to an end. I'll tell you now. We played very well in the first match, by the way, you guys are playing awesome as well. 00:40:28 Speaker 3: Two really good wins under your belts. So maybe we'll see you in. 00:40:31 Speaker 4: The I heard that there is a potential. I don't know. You probably know more than this. I heard this in passing, that we could end up playing the Brits, well, the English on July fourth in Philadelphia. I am told that is a realistic. 00:40:46 Speaker 5: It's not anymore. Oh, it's not even we could play in Philadelphia on July fourth. I don't think we can play England with the way things have shaken out. 00:40:52 Speaker 4: That would have just been too beautiful. 00:40:54 Speaker 10: You guys could play Iran, actually, which would be very funny. That'd be an explosive to say that. 00:41:01 Speaker 4: It'd be explosive. It would be they have to come up, they have to stay in Mexico by the way, the rules that we've put they can only come up the day before the match and then they have to go straight back. 00:41:11 Speaker 3: So they were complaining about it. 00:41:12 Speaker 10: They were saying, why can't we just stay in California over and rest and the state departments saying that you guys are going Did you know, by the way, the IRGC, they tried to import two or three IRGC members with the the soccer team, and that's why all the leftist media was saying, oh my god, isn't it so abhorran that they're banning Iranian football staff. But the fact of the matter is there were two or three ILGC members. 00:41:35 Speaker 4: Well, of course, I mean, naturally, I can't trust the Iranians. I mean, that's that's that's that's the second half of this hour. We're gonna have a debate about the MoU with somebody who does not support it and I support it. So anyways, Ben, that's that way. We have you on. We have you on to talk about kir Starmer, who has stepped down. Uh, he announced his resignation. He hasn't stepped down yet, I guess because he's he's going to remain on as a caretaker prime minister. What force? What caused this? He got emotional in his press conference announcing it. Tell us all about it? Please? Yeah? 00:42:07 Speaker 3: Do you know what? He got more emotional? 00:42:10 Speaker 10: He showed more humanity and emotion in his woe is Me resignation speech on the steps of Downing Street than he did over the past two years of his premiership. This is a guy who is authoritarian. He's robotic, and its testament to the facts that when he was a young sort of university student, he was the editor of a Marxist magazine at UNI and then he went for some reason mysteriously. He's never explained why to visit a Soviet training camp in Czechoslovakia. So look, he is definitely of a Marxist persuasion. But the problem with kirs Armer is that he is a man with no ideology, really, no agenda, no intent. 00:42:47 Speaker 3: He doesn't really believe in anything. 00:42:48 Speaker 10: His government was basically founded on the concepts of U turns. He did something like twenty four different U turns over the course of two years. For example, amongst the litany of people he's grown under the bus during his premiership farmers. He tried to introduce a inheritance tax on farmer states over a certain limit. Farmers already as they are in the United States, you know, struggling to make ends meet. There was a massive U turn on that they tried to throw pensioners under the bus by taking away some of their pension credit and welfare benefits, all sorts of things. But he's also a man who actually is quite chilling in a way because he cared more about the international order and his human rights mates on the world stage than he did about Great Britain and the British people. 00:43:31 Speaker 3: And he doesn't actually care about the British people. 00:43:33 Speaker 10: But more importantly, he doesn't understand the British people. For example, he wants wagh the Chagor Silence Diego Garcia, where we share the joint uk US military base. He wanted to give away the chag Or Silence because an international court with no jurisdiction, shared by a bunch of Chinese judges, said that we should do so. So he was giving it away to Chinese ally Mauritius. I won't bore you with the details giving it away to Chinese ally Mauritius and charging British tax players about forty billion quid for the process. Let me just remind you this is sovereign British territory. That's one example of how he doesn't care about the country. He doesn't understand the nation, and also the Muslim rate gangs a massive, massive scandal here in the United worse arguably in terms of victims and just the horrors of it than the Epstein scandal. He called anybody who wanted an inquiry in Sir Pakistani Muslim rate gangs far right. He thinks that we we're just some sort of far right racists who want to demonize Pakistani Muslims. Well know, the truth of the matter is there is an overrepresentation of Pakistani Muslim rapist who have been abusing young, working class British white girls for decades and decades. So that's just two examples, and thank god he's gone. The question is now boys is his replacement, which looks like maybe Andy Burnham, who is already having tweets on a from twenty to twenty one, twenty twenty two slagging off President Trump, he'll probably be his replacement, and he is arguably even more left than Kirstarman. 00:44:56 Speaker 4: Andy Burnham. Yeah, and his wife is getting a lot of press as well. She looks like a bit of a She looks. 00:45:02 Speaker 5: Like a Bond villain. She's the director some other position for octopus energy. Ostapus definitely sounds sinister, But Ben so bigger picture, I think this is what your sixth prime minister in seven years, or maybe it's seven and six, whatever it is. Britain's had a lot of instability since the Brexit vote. They keep churning through prime ministers who lose popularity very rapidly or never really possess it at all. Can you speak to what's driving this crisis of the British political system and we keep hoping they can turn it around. Are we getting closer to that? And what in your view needs to be done to create that turn about to get a prime minister who can win a second election. 00:45:41 Speaker 10: Yeah, sadly it's going to be seven prime ministers when Burnham takes control. If he does, he will seven prime ministers in ten years. And how can you expect to get anything done when you're changing prime minister's administrations or ideologies so much. You should be building things with a ten year vision for two terms. You can't get anything done seven in ten years. And the problem is the electorate. Our politicians have forgotten who they serve. They think they are now better than the ordinary people, the plubs, you. 00:46:11 Speaker 3: And I back home. 00:46:12 Speaker 10: They embark on mad policies such as net zero. President Trump talks about it a lot. He says, the problem with the United Kingdom is a immigration. We've got open borders. We've got a bunch of Third world sub saharans flooding the English Channel and roaming the streets of Britain, and most of them, well not most of them, a good proportion of them committing crimes against the British natives. And then also this obsession with what we call net zero, which is we are pledging to eliminate fossil fuels by twenty twenty thirty. So despite having an abundance of oil under the north Sea, liquid oil under our feet, natural gas, we can also frack shale gas in the UK. We've got an abundance of energy, but we choose to deliberately harm ourselves, harm our energy prospects, and then what we do is go and import it from other nations. Our energy bills are some of the world. I pay something like four hundred pounds a month from my energy bill back home. I want to spoke to President Trump in the Open Office a few months ago when I had the pleasure of meeting, and he said, what do you like most about America? 00:47:09 Speaker 3: About DC? 00:47:10 Speaker 10: I said, mister President, your energy bills, I'm paying like, I don't know, twenty bucks a month or something, and he was surprised. So energy is the big one. Immigration is probably the priority, and that's what the Brexit vote was all about. By the way, it's the ten year anniversary of the Brexit vote today. We voted to leave the European Union and the number one issue for that was migration. We wanted to close our borders. And all President, all politicians have done prime ministers after prime ministers is continue flooding our country with illegal and legal migration. 00:47:39 Speaker 4: They've not listened. I argue they've done it on purpose. Yeah, I mean we have the same problem here. I mean we I mean listen. President Trumps did a great job on the border handling. I legal immigration. Certainly we want more deportations, but we still have one point two million green cards issued a year in the United States. So when we talk about this, it has to be a both legal and illegal immigration conversation. So all right, breaking news, just really quick. The DC Court of Appeals has just ruled in President Trump's favor in the Edmin's favor, The appeal court cleared the way for the Trump administration to expand a fast track deportation process that would allow for the expedited removal of migrants who are living far from the border. Now, this has been used for decades, apparently at the border, but then President Trump expanded it to cover the entire United States in the interior. Back in August of twenty twenty five, a judge blocked the US Department of Homeland Securities moved to expand who qualifies for expedited removal, and that has just been overturned. So President Trump can now expand expedited removal for non citizens apprehended anywhere in the US who could not show that they had been in the country for two years. That sounds splendid, That sounds great. I'm into it. 00:48:54 Speaker 5: There's so many of these. We like to flag it because so many people complain about the big headline, which again I would remind you is often just chosen by the New York Times to push a preferred narrative, and that's what everyone talks about because the New York Times is talking about it, but going on constantly. There's Yeah, sometimes the federal judge is saying, can't spend snap this way, can't use your database this way, but sometimes the federal judges you can deport these people faster. These people you've been trying to get rid of for ages, you can finally send them back. Deportations have gone from five hundred to day to one thousand a day to two thousand day. It keeps going up. There's all these little things happening that are white pills because and it's often not the stuff, and it's often done without getting a lot of attention. 00:49:37 Speaker 4: Ben Leo joins us from gb News chief US correspondent. But he is a brit He is a proud brit supporting their soccer team, football team. However you want to say, now, Ben, we have a picture, Yeah, there it is. There it is. We have a picture of the incoming new potentially we think the new Prime minister right there, just with a little hair dye added on one. I can't tell the difference, Ben, but that's maybe you can't. 00:50:04 Speaker 10: He's on Yeah, who is that on the left? It looks like Andy Burnham is. 00:50:11 Speaker 4: The team thinks that Rose o'donald and Andy Burnham share striking resemblance. 00:50:16 Speaker 5: It's his sister from another mister Donald. 00:50:18 Speaker 4: She's she's a resident of the UK. Now, we just figured maybe this is what's. 00:50:22 Speaker 10: Really going on the Cotswolves, which is a really probably the most untouched part of the UK because there's no migrants there. Who would have thought the likes of Ellen DeGeneres are there as well? Tom Cruise is okay, So all you, most of the left, the Americans are flooding the English potswolls, and. 00:50:38 Speaker 3: Isn't it Actually it's a great point. 00:50:40 Speaker 10: Isn't that ironic and hypocritical that they flood to the one part of England which is untouched by by migrants by a societal decay? 00:50:48 Speaker 3: Of course, because it's beautiful. They're not. 00:50:50 Speaker 10: They're not sort of cessy up camp in central London or Birmingham. 00:50:53 Speaker 4: Well, this is exactly right. I mean, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have a nice, quaint estate in Martha's Vineyard, one of the widest places in the country, which I just always have found ironic. Yeah, I mean so, but listen, let's get into this. So I feel like we're on this countdown watch for Nigel and restore or a reform rather and then you get the restored conversation happening. But there was an election last week. It didn't go so great, tell us about that and what the takeaways from that election were. 00:51:23 Speaker 10: Well so it so let me just give you some context about the political scene as a wider picture. First, So the UK Reform UK, which is headed by Nisael Farah's president, Thom's Good's friend from yester year, they are leading all polls by some margin on about thirty to thirty five percent depending on the poll and that's for the last year and. 00:51:40 Speaker 3: A half, so they are leading every pole going. 00:51:42 Speaker 10: However, that was what you call a special election in the UK last week near Manchester, we called it a by election and Andy Burnham, who wasn't an MP a member of Parliament at the time, he was the mayor of Manchester. He ran in that special election to become an MP with the intent of kicking out Keir Starmer, the current bime minister, because he would have triggered a leadership contest contest. Keirstarma, in his indignity, did another U turn and despite saying previously he'd contest the leadership contest, saying I'm not going anywhere, he you turned again like a flip flop and said, okay, I'm just going to resign. 00:52:15 Speaker 3: He packed it in he saw the rising on the wall. 00:52:17 Speaker 10: So in that special election, Burnham was standing for Labor Reform UK, which is Nigel Faraj's party. They also stood so really there was other parties running, but it was Reform UK, Nigel's party against Labour and Labour one. Because it's a very specific area of Manchester. Andy Burnham was the mayor of Manchester. He's loved by all the locals. He's called the so called King of the North. That's his nickname, the North of England. So yes, it wasn't an awful result for Reform. They got fifteen thousand votes compared to Labour's Andy Burnham's twenty five thousand. But it really you would have argued it would have been or should have been a lot closer, but you can't really apply a special election as you would in the US to the wider United States. It was a bad result, I guess for Reform. Nigel Pharay said he was disappointed Labor won it, but Reform are still leading all the nation. 00:53:04 Speaker 4: Mike Poles, well, that's that's good. We do have an image of the youg of Westminster voting intention Reform UK twenty five percent Conservative. See that's interesting. Conservative twenty I mean, I've assume that's Tory, right, is this is this Poul accurate? It says it's from the twenty first, twenty second of June. I don't that? 00:53:26 Speaker 3: Doesn't that right to me? Tories? 00:53:27 Speaker 10: If there was a general election held tomorrow, which is possibly what you vote for Labor, well, I mean the Tories. That's that's a pretty amazing comeback for the Conservatives if that's true. 00:53:35 Speaker 4: If that is true, that doesn't look great. Maybe that's a I don't know, maybe that's just a sort of lumped in all the all the conservative parties in one. All right, So here's here's the question of It's the million dollar question always when it comes to the UK, when do we get an actual election to replace Labor as the ruling party. 00:53:54 Speaker 10: So there's rumors that Andy Burnham, when he becomes Prime Minister in maybe three to four weeks, he could call a snap election. So the political thing be there is well, look, I just absolutely smashed it in Makerfield. We dealt with reform, We blew them out the water. Let's call a snap election and reset the term clock and I'll have a mandate to govern without any criticism. Everybody's saying it's only democratic if you call a snap election, reform UK one to snap election. 00:54:19 Speaker 3: They're ready to go, They're ready to fight for Number ten. However, I don't think there will be. 00:54:25 Speaker 10: I think Andy Burnham probably realizes that Makerfield, the special election we had isn't representative of the wider country, so so I think he'll hang on for the next three years in his premiership in Number ten as Prime Minister. So the election will come in August twenty twenty nine. So really, I hope you feel for us Brits. We have another three odd years or so of lunacy, of open borders, of pandering to migrants, of migrants killing and raping native Brits, of high energy bills, of cost of living spiraling out of control, of being labeled part right based Nazis. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. But do you know what I think sometimes that needs to happen. I think you need a mass awakening in order for people, maybe normies as we call them, who don't really follow the news or follow politics, to really step up and say, hang on a minute, something doesn't feel quite right about the UK anymore. This isn't the great Britain I grew up with, So maybe I think it needs to get worse unfortunately before it gets better. 00:55:22 Speaker 3: So three years. 00:55:24 Speaker 5: Is there anything that could cause this to happen sooner than three years? Because three years a lot can happen in three years. We certainly saw that with Biden on our end. Is there anything that could make it happen faster? 00:55:34 Speaker 10: Only if Andy Burnham calls a snap election or his party turned against him with a vote of no confidence, which is going to be extremely rare. He's just come into the job, so no, it's down to Andy Burnham. If he's got the balls for it, he'll call a snap election. I don't think he will. 00:55:45 Speaker 4: Ben Leo, GB News, English football fan and hooligan, enjoy yourself out there. Stay saved, Ben, we'll talk to you soon. If you could go back in time and buy oil before the world relied on it, would you? Of course you would, anybody would, So why aren't you buying silver right now? The people who recognized oil early didn't just make money, They got ahead of one of the biggest economic shifts in history, and today a similar opportunity is unfolding with silver. Silver is more than a precious metal. It's a critical resource used in solar panels, electric vehicles, defend systems AI infrastructure, in the massive data centers powering that digital world. While demand keeps growing, it's still affordable enough that the average American can start accumulating it right now. That's why investors are turning to silver to protect against inflation and to own one of the world's most important strategic resources. Don't be the person who looks back in ten years and says I saw it coming, I just didn't act. Visit Noble Gold Investments dot com slash kirk and learn how easy it is to own physical silver. That's Noble Goold Investments dot com slash kirk. Own the metal the future depends on. We have a great guest in store for you right now. That's David Hersani. He's the senior writer at The Washington Examiner and co host of You're Wrong with Molly Hemingway, who's one of our all time favorites. David, welcome to the show. 00:57:08 Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. 00:57:10 Speaker 4: Yeah, So, to catch our audience up yesterday, we had Steve Days on. I had tweeted out basically a question you know, for those who are not supportive of them OU, what are the alternatives? You know? And you were one of the people that responded back. I brought it up on air with Steve Dace and he was very complimentary of you. And I'm assuming you're a great guy. If Molly Hemingway's hanging out with you all the time, we haven't had a chance to meet. But you disagreed. You said that was a false choice that I was presenting. It was too binary between either the MoU or boots on the ground or regime change. You have your tweet there, you said, these aren't the choices, not even close. But even if we wanted to disengage from the war, we could leave its status quo ante, which would be better than a deal not only in riching and propping up the regime, but restraining Israel and Gulf States from fighting. So I am supportive of pursuing peace with this MoU, and I'm supportive of Vice President jad Vance. You have a different take, what is it? 00:58:07 Speaker 11: Well, I wouldn't be tweeting like that if I knew it would be shown on a show. To be a little more careful what I say out there. Well, yeah, I think I think that is a false binary choice. There are there are an array of ways that in an array of deals that could be for instance, made other than what we've done, which I think frankly, Listen, maybe Tomorco is in a different direction, but right now, I think it's trending in the direction of being worse than the Obama deal in many ways. And for instance, we could pick up and leave and strike a very narrow deal just on the straight rather than giving them, you know, full access to all their oil money, opening up funding for them, you know, in other ways, and in dealing with Pakistan and the Kataris, it just seems like it's far too much for a nation that won the military part of this war. 00:59:02 Speaker 2: Of course, we all want peace. Do we want to go back? 00:59:05 Speaker 11: You know, I think that's the question we should ask, and Donald Trump launched this war. Once we do that, we don't want to undermine our deterrence. We don't want to undermine mine the future for the nation and our military. I mean, it's clear to me that we could have made a better deal here. I think that's the first way to look at it. 00:59:28 Speaker 5: So you say we clearly could make a better deal, I suppose the natural question is why don't we have that deal right now and what are the immediate obstacles to getting it? Is that that we just need to resume strikes and we would be able to get it. How do you see it playing out? 00:59:43 Speaker 11: I mean, I think that the Iranians are in terrible economic shape, and clearly they were in trouble. I just want to also mention, I mean, oil prices have been going down for the last three weeks. I'm not going to pretend here that there isn't a price to war and that there isn't a domestic political price to war. Clear that there is, and it's clear that there is very little support generally for this war. But Olpech nations were increasing their output, other nations were making it up. There are I think a lot of technologies and ideas in place to try to make the straight up. 01:00:17 Speaker 2: Hormis less important as far as oil goes. 01:00:21 Speaker 11: So rather than having this I don't know how long was this kind of ceasefire. Before the ceasefire going on, It's been going on for months. We could have been hitting revolutionary guard installations, we could have been hitting more of their politicians. I mean, we're at war, and we want to win that war. No one wins at war, but you know what I mean, So we should have been doing that. How does a deal look like I'm not sure, but I guess it looks like not releasing funding to Iran, which is fungible dollars no matter how you track it or don't track it. That lets them continue to arm proxies for instance. I mean, Donald Trump made three demands when this war started, and I don't think maybe one of them is met. We have We're not getting there enrich uranium. We're not doing anything about their ballistic missile program. So why are we there? Would have been better never to go. We're in the worst place now than we were before. 01:01:13 Speaker 4: Well, I don't necessarily disagree with that last statement that you just made. Blake and I I think we share the skepticism of going in to begin with. But I think what my point here is that the main objective was always nuclear. For President Trumpy. You play the clips back from decades, it's nuclear right if you go back far enough. He was embarrassed by the hostage crisis in seventy nine, and he thought that we should smack him around and show him whose boss I get that, but the main real goal was nuclear if you could get regime change, if the regime fell. You know, the Israelis wanted that. They pitched Trump on that. Marco Rubio, apparently in the situation room, said, I think that Intel is bunk. But if you want goals number one and number two, which is, you know, basically beat back their military and get the the nuclear, then you should go in. All right. So and I that's kind of where I net out on this is that President Trump has been consistent. You know, a lot of people in the Trump coalition, the anti intervention anti interventionist crowd, which I tend towards much more so than you know, foreign adventurism, they are wrong that Trump has not been consistent on this issue. He's been very consistent about getting the nuclear. So if you get the nuclear and the straight is back opened, and we have damaged significantly the ballistic missile program, then what else? What other outcomes do we want? And people keep comparing this to the JCPOA. You made that comment yourself. My contention to that is that because President Trump has used force, because the force is a credible threat against the Iranan regime, this deal is fundamentally different. That the leverage that we have on them is fundamentally different than what Obama and Carrie and Hillary Clinton applied in the JCPOA. Because the Iranians read them like a book. They knew that they didn't want to strike. They knew that it was sort of a weak limp wrisk did threat against them, and so they they would tell the inspectors, you know, they would give them three weeks heads up that we're going to come in, and then they'd move things. They would you know, play games with the inspect inspection regime. So to me, this is fundamentally different. And the Iranians are compelled to play ball. 01:03:17 Speaker 11: Why do you think that they're not going to do that to the inspectors now, I just want to quickly say that the uranium, we're not getting it. We're helping them get it, and then we're diluting it, which is a completely reversible process. It doesn't make any sense to me that if we're going to go help them get it, that we can't just take it. Why can't we just take it? 01:03:37 Speaker 4: Is that completely the board? 01:03:39 Speaker 5: I mean, why can't we just take it? I want to push on that a bit. The reason we can't just take it is if we would have to go in and do it, that would mean boots on the ground. And I guess the bigger picture here that I think we have to confront is I don't think there's any popular enthusiasm in the United States for US boots on the ground in Iran. And setting aside the whatever the geopolitical stakes are, I think we all have to confront. We have a domestic political movement and I think it would be suicidal for US to launch a bigger war in Iran at this point. And are you incorporating that into your analysis? Are you are you focusing strictly on the military angle, or do you think there's a political winner here to continue the war in a longer term way. 01:04:23 Speaker 11: Oh, I just want to say, I'm not saying that we should put boots on the ground to get their uranium. I'm saying any in the deal itself, in the framework of the deal, we're helping them. From what I've seen in reporting, and it could be change or could be wrong, is that we're going to help them get this uranium and then help them dilute it. By we, I mean the West in some way. I don't mean that we should drop boots on the ground in any No, No, that's okay. I probably wasn't clear enough. I don't think there's political will for that at all. That's why I don't think this is a good you know, I don't think that binary choice is real a regime change. I think people are jumping the gun like. I don't know that there'll be regime change now. Obviously the regime's going to be strengthened with what's happening. But I think in the long term you've hurt them in a way that maybe there is a chance for regime change. I don't know what the Israelis told and you know, I don't know what the Israelis told the president or not. But in the long term, the Iranian regime was in trouble already. So now it's a weekend. And I also want to give Donald Trump credit for what we did do, and he should make this case to the American people. We did set their nuclear program back at the very least, we did destroy their military in the short term, and. 01:05:34 Speaker 2: We did take out a whole strata of their leadership. 01:05:36 Speaker 11: That's not nothing that it was an incredibly impressive military campaign. What I'm saying is that that we haven't taken that victory. We're not acting like we won. I mean, if we drop someone in who knew nothing about geopolitics into what happened the other you know, in Switzerland with Pakistan and the Kataris and the Iranians making a deal, you wouldn't know. Would you do you even know who won that war? 01:06:02 Speaker 2: I don't know. Is that too tough for me to say? 01:06:04 Speaker 4: I I mean, I feel like I think that's the basic gist of the pushback that I'm getting is that we could have got better terms. President Trump has made the point that when you freeze assets, we have the dollar, right is the dominant currency in the country or in the world. It's being challenged, of course by bricks nations. But if you don't unfreeze assets, then you're essentially stealing money. Eventually, you have to play ball and unfreeze those assets. Now, their negotiations are ongoing about how best to unfreeze those assets, and admittedly there's a disagreement. Currently President Trump saying they're gonna buy us produce with that and feed the Irani people. We're gonna make sure that it's not used in terror for to fund terror proxies. Admittedly, I'm skeptical about the ability to do that, and money's fungible. Money is fungible, but that is one of the ideas that's on the table. But ultimately you have to You can't just steal people's assets, right, they're frozen, they're kept in a different account. So the question is, well, you know I can't better you can. Are you looking for? 01:07:03 Speaker 11: Well, let me just say this the idea, if the Iranians want it to be a rich country, they could be their oil rich. They should be a really successful economic nation. They choose not to be because they're run by, you know, an an Islamic fundamentalist cult basically, so if they wanted to be rich, they could be. They have no real geopolitical reason to be at war with us, to be at war with Israel, to be at war with anyone other than soon Arab's actually even theologically, it makes no real sense. So they could be rich. And what the sanctioned regime has been there for a long time, it could continue. We have a sanctions, We have sanctions on Cuba for a very long time, I don't know, fifty years or more so It's not as we couldn't do that if we wanted to. But if you're saying, hey, it's better to try to pursue Donald Trump saying it's better to pursue peace, Let's see if we can you know, help them or at least allow them to economically thrive and they'll be more peaceful. 01:07:58 Speaker 2: I'd be incredibly skeptic about that. 01:08:01 Speaker 11: So when in the framework we give them Lebanon, we essentially allow them to dictate what's happening in a country that they're you know, where there's a militia that they have that is not the army of that nation, and we allow them to use it as a lever so whenever they feel like they can attack Israel and you know, get more, extract more stuff. 01:08:20 Speaker 4: So here's I want to show you this. I think this is a really fascinating poll here. Okay, So CBS did a poll what the conflict with Iran? What should the US do now? Seventy eight percent said and the conflict now? Only twenty two percent said continue the conflict until Iran gives up more. Then, this other part of the poll was very interesting too. Has the US permanently stopped runs nuclear program? Thirty one percent said yes done, sixty nine percent said no, not done. 01:08:47 Speaker 5: So that's forty seven percent of people say we are not getting rid of their nuclear deal. But they also they still. 01:08:54 Speaker 4: Want us out of there. And so this is my underlying point here, David, is sometimes times, you know, yes, militarily we had all this leverage, we destroyed them, we were absolutely victorious. But politically this has always been kind of a dog. It's always not been that popular, and I can tell you with turning points students, it's extremely unpopular. So the point is, I think some of what's happening here is just a manifestation of a political reality domestically here at home, that we do have a compelling interest in getting peace and peace sooner. If we can achieve the objectives of dealing with the nuclear and getting that straight backed open for energy prices, which does have a political downstream effect, then there is a compelling interest to get this deal done. Do it in good faith. And the other point I would make is because you met you, you brought up the Kataris and the Pakistanis. I mean they've been the mediators because at first we weren't sure who to even connect with, who to communicate with. We're gaining an understanding of who the leadership structure is and what they believe in in Iran, but the command and control has been completely wiped out in some ways. So the point is Trump is going for a regional de right. He believes that countries that do business together are less prone to go to war with each other, and that is part of the incentive structure here. It's a carot and a stick approach. But I always I would say that President has been very consistent. He has maintained that he can just start dropping bombs on their heads again if they renig and they back out on this deal, and that credible use of force remains, they know he means it. 01:10:22 Speaker 11: It's disconcerting how often I find myself in the twenty two percent of these poles these days. I have to say, but of course it's not popular. I agree this is I think this was a political decision. I think it was taking too long and the presidencies the midterms coming, and he made a political decision. I will say, though, I do think that this is already baked into polls for him. 01:10:41 Speaker 2: He's the one who went there. 01:10:43 Speaker 11: And if I forgot what the number was a number of people don't believe it achieved its goals. I don't think that's helpful for him, even if we come back and strike some kind of deal. 01:10:53 Speaker 2: As for the dealing itself, you mentioned. 01:10:55 Speaker 11: A regional deal where people you know, are you know, make economies that rely on each other. 01:11:01 Speaker 6: Yeah. 01:11:02 Speaker 2: I love that idea. 01:11:04 Speaker 11: The problem is that if you have the Pakistani's at the table and you don't have the Israelis, or even the Lebanese or even the Saudis, I think that's a problem. You're not having true representation of the of the conflict itself or what happened or what needs to happen moving forward. So it seems to me like it reaks a little bit of desperation on our part, which we didn't really need to do. I guess when I really just boil it down, my argument is we could have done better on you know, at this deal. I guess every sports fan thinks that when there's a trade or whatever, but I feel like we've given them a lot. 01:11:36 Speaker 4: Well. So here here's what I would I would push back on that with is that jd Vance, the President, the whole team has been very clear that this is a milestone approach. Right, they have to do X, Y and z in good faith has to be verified for any of these sanctions, reliefs, or the assets to get unfrozen. So they have to display good faith actions for any of that happen. And if they roll back on it, if they renig on the deal, then we go back to square one. 01:12:05 Speaker 11: So but I would say, do you think that that's happened, I mean, think about the oil still that. 01:12:10 Speaker 4: We're still in the in what sense? I guess, Well, they. 01:12:13 Speaker 2: Waved the oil oil. 01:12:14 Speaker 11: They wave the oil for you know, allowing them to trade at will, which will go to the chicoms, mostly for sixty days. And there was no, no, nothing really connected to that as far as improving behavior. Even the Obama deal they had them sign the waiver. They only released the waivers once the deal was signed and all the you know, eyes had been dotted and so on. 01:12:34 Speaker 4: SOU was signed. This MoU was signed. 01:12:37 Speaker 2: No, no, not them. 01:12:38 Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I know, but it's a good faith effort. Ye listen, these the particulars here and there, Like I might agree with you directionally, but to be clear, this is sick. There's an MoU that establishes a good faith sixty day debate. I don't think negotiation. I don't think that we know all the details of how it's going to be debated yet. I mean, I've talked to some people who think that the toll that you know, the Iranians have been approved to, you know, apply a toll in the strade of horn Moose. I can't gather that from anything. But by the way, did you know that you know, shipping containers that go through the Panama Canal often are charged about between one hundred and fifty thousand, four hundred thousand dollars, so sometimes there are costs of doing business. I don't know what's going to ultimately happen. Oman and Katar are saying that maybe they will charge fees just because it costs them something to monitor and keep the straight open. I don't know exactly how everything's going to pan out, but the President has been very clear that he doesn't want to have any tolls, especially from the Iranians in the strait. I'm just I'm trying to find out what if I'm putting a straw man argument out there, which you essentially said in not so many words. You did it nicely, but the point is, what is the alternative besides five dollars gas and in a dismal political reality for conservatives here at home. And I will tell you we had Rich Poster Rich Barrison yesterday he said he's already seeing a bit of a bounce back in some of the polling. He's live polling it right now. So I don't necessarily buy that baked into the cake, at least not completely for the midterms. 01:14:03 Speaker 11: Well, I guess we have, you know, directionally speaking, we're in. 01:14:07 Speaker 2: Yeah. 01:14:08 Speaker 11: I just think it's more important to finish the job there and in the way that the President promised when we first started. I know that he's a mercurial guy, and'll he says a lot of things that and we're just kind of. 01:14:19 Speaker 2: Brush it off. 01:14:20 Speaker 11: But he did make very specific promises about what we were doing and if we don't do those things. I'm not a polster, but I speak to a bunch of you know, conservatives, more like on the boomer side. 01:14:29 Speaker 2: Probably of the equation, and they're pretty unhappy. 01:14:32 Speaker 11: It feels like we it feels like we went there and we kind of lost in a way, or we didn't gain anything, or we're in worse place and I think that matters as well for perception's sake, and as far as tolls go. Listen, I didn't even mention that because I don't know. The Ranians say things. We say things, you know, and the Randians can't be trusted. But when we talk about the sanction sanction waivers, that did happen, so I know that that. 01:14:56 Speaker 2: The Iranians are going are saved by that money. 01:14:59 Speaker 11: It's ten billion for sixty days of oil trade, and I think that's a mistake until we get verifiable concessions from them, which we didn't do. I don't want to have boots on the ground. I don't think that's a realistic thing. I don't think anyone wants that. 01:15:17 Speaker 4: That's why I. 01:15:17 Speaker 11: Would have called it a straw man, because I don't think that's the argument. The argument is there's an array of other possible outcomes here in the sense of negotiating. 01:15:26 Speaker 2: Why haven't we explored those? 01:15:29 Speaker 11: But Yeah, if you're saying for politics we have to end it, then we need to end it. 01:15:33 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I mean that's what we want to say. 01:15:35 Speaker 5: David, But maybe we have to confront if we don't have the political will for boots on the ground we fired I think four years of Tomahawk missiles in the roughly month where this was an intense, hot war, we might have to confront there's there's just limits to what we can actually do in the Middle East. 01:15:51 Speaker 4: Well, that's uncomfortable, especially after Afghanistan after a rack. Yeah, I mean that's my that's a fair argument. Yep, we'll say that again. 01:16:00 Speaker 2: Saying that's a fair argument. 01:16:01 Speaker 11: If that's the argument, I accept that, But to say that we couldn't do other things is a little you know, I can't accept that. 01:16:07 Speaker 4: David. It's been a fascinating conversation. I appreciate you taking me up on the invitation to come on. It's it's been great to talk with you. Thank you so much. 01:16:16 Speaker 2: Nice meeting you guys. Thank you 01:16:21 Speaker 4: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust go to Charliekirk dot com.