THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 117- America First vs America Only? Luigi the Musical? Kids in Church?

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. 00:00:05 Speaker 2: 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. 00:00:24 Speaker 1: College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married. 00:00:28 Speaker 2: 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 1: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 2: 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 3: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 2: 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 1: Well, ladies and gentlemen. 00:01:10 Speaker 4: We are back with another addition, live edition of Thursday Thought crime definitely been a little bit since we've been here on Live, excited to be back doing this. We've had some elections going on, we've got a war going on, but the thought crimes never end, and that's why brings us back to tonight. 00:01:34 Speaker 1: So let's look around the room. Who do we have tonight? I know we've got right now. 00:01:37 Speaker 5: You've just got me and Danny will allegedly have Andrew join us. Eventually we'll see Tyler Boyer. I'm not sure what happened to Tyler. I have to assume Tyler. Whenever I can't find Tyler, I always jump to the first thing that comes to mind, which is that he's been forcibly conscripted by President Trump to go fight in the Spice Wars on a different on a distant colony planet. 00:01:57 Speaker 4: I would like to know if the Spy must flow, is that. 00:02:01 Speaker 5: Spice has definitely got a flow. And we all know that Tyler's really passionate about the Spice flowing. We know that he has good relations with the with the President's mentors, we know he's got a long relationship with the Spacers Guild, and I think between all of those things, he'll be a real asset to the Spice horse. 00:02:19 Speaker 1: Has he passed the pain box as of yet? 00:02:24 Speaker 3: Man, do you ever see if he did that? 00:02:26 Speaker 5: Do you know if Tyler ever passed the pain box. 00:02:28 Speaker 6: I'm being honest with you, I don't know what this. 00:02:29 Speaker 5: You don't know what the Spice Wars or the pain box. And that's gonna get you conscripted to fight in the Spice Wars and not in like a cool Sarto car regiment, and you're probably just going to be thrown into like the meat grinder. 00:02:39 Speaker 6: Well, all right, sign me up there. 00:02:41 Speaker 3: I mean, you are an Ohio State fan? 00:02:43 Speaker 1: What is? 00:02:43 Speaker 6: What is the spice? 00:02:44 Speaker 3: Spice? 00:02:46 Speaker 5: Are very disappointed he doesn't know what the Spice Wars are, Jack, I don't. 00:02:49 Speaker 1: Think we can't very disappointed. 00:02:51 Speaker 5: We can't reveal the secrets of the Beneges Era to to Danny, and he's not aware of these things. 00:02:57 Speaker 1: He is certainly not the quiznotsatorage. 00:02:59 Speaker 3: Yes he is not. 00:03:00 Speaker 6: Yeah, this is all foreign language. 00:03:02 Speaker 5: I have no idea a typical Ohio State fan anyway, So we'll have to just jump in there. 00:03:06 Speaker 4: Has nothing to do with the with current events whatsoever. 00:03:10 Speaker 3: Just so disappointing. 00:03:12 Speaker 5: What does have something to do with current events, though is our first topic. Everyone knows what the biggest event of the past few weeks is, uh and or the past well, definitely the past week, and it is of course our venture going down and Iran. We aren't going to get into the details of whether we should have gone now, what the politics of it are. We wanted to discuss a very specific version of this, which is the topic of what's always used with this administration the line America first and specifically what does America first mean? Does America first mean specifically America only, America alone, America. 00:03:52 Speaker 3: As soul, focus of all things? Or can America first? Does that imply it can be. 00:03:58 Speaker 5: First an other things? And there's a head of debate about that. We were passing this clip around as we discussed what to say about this, and I think a guy who's played a leading role in defining what America first is is, of course the President's aid, Stephen Miller. Let's look at what he had to say about this on just a matter of days ago. 00:04:20 Speaker 3: Six. 00:04:22 Speaker 4: I don't think that people understand the Trump doctrine is not isolationism. Maybe you can help set them straight, because I'm not too effective. 00:04:30 Speaker 7: I guess the President has made clear that he believes America's awesome military might should be used to protect and defend America's interests, not to surrender the world to our adversaries, to our enemies, to those who would do us harm, not to surrender the world's resources, lanes of commerce, or capacity to keep our citizens safe. No, America First means America will be theat greatest, most unquestioned, unmatched power in the world. 00:05:04 Speaker 5: So that's kind of part of the debate. Is a lot of I do feel, Jack, and maybe you agree that maybe in kind of in the beginning of the Trump surge twenty sixteen twenty twenty range, where America First was getting thrown around a lot in politics, A lot of it, actually it did, let's be frank, it had something of a isolationist streak to it, or a breakaway thing that the time for putting America first meant a time of pulling back, pulling away from a lot of international obligations. The idea was that a lot of foreign adventures constituted putting the rest of the world first, and that putting America first meant are focusing on America now. Stephen Miller's MAGA credentials are pretty impeccable, I would say, And he's pushing the line now that America first it almost means a revival of Cold War levels of American dominance that it does mean preserving an American empire or American respect back to American primacy. And is there is there a conflict between those things? Especially I guess does it work as long as we are maintaining border security for example. 00:06:13 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:06:13 Speaker 6: The thing that trips people up there is when you said American interests. And that's more so like whose interests are we talking about here? Because that's where, especially my generation gets caught up in with what, like Marco Rubio said the other day, when we say American interest, is that really America first? Are we kind of redefining the term and creating new interests within the movement that quote unquote now fall under America First. So that's where definitely young men are pretty upset right now about that. 00:06:41 Speaker 4: I am just cracking up because in the chat someone wrote, after after Blake drank all of that strong cell, I'm looking forward to see him coming on TPUSA with a three foot tall beehive hairdoo. 00:06:52 Speaker 3: Look it says you need to Did I miss something? 00:06:55 Speaker 1: Did you? Did you od on on strong Cell? 00:06:58 Speaker 5: No, I've just been I've just been dilagent drinking my strong cell every day. 00:07:02 Speaker 1: Jack. 00:07:02 Speaker 5: Unlike you know Andrew went to d C, he went to the State of Union, he didn't bring strong Cell with him. I think he reset the timer for whatever all progress benefits. Yeah, I think following the rules. And so he's he's he's lost the verve. Whereas I think I'm about I think I'm about one week out and I'm My expectation is is that I will close my eyes one night and I shall wake up the next day with a full, rich head of luscious hair. 00:07:26 Speaker 1: I think it'll happen. 00:07:27 Speaker 3: I believe, no be but Jack, Yeah, America first question. 00:07:31 Speaker 4: Not to dodge the question, although I although I certainly I certainly. 00:07:35 Speaker 1: Am an adept at doing so. 00:07:37 Speaker 4: Now, look, there's no question America First was always originally deployed as an answer to the neo con sort of neoliberal policy of the day. Keep in mind that if you go back to twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, you get back to that timeframe United States was still involved heavily in Afghanistan. The United States, it still had troops in Iraq and Syria where we were fighting Isis. The United States was involved in all of these conflicts all around the world. And America First meant building the wall, it meant putting the interests of Americans first. It meant taking the focus away from the federal government's focus away from foreign conflicts and focusing it on the American people and the American homeland. There's no question that's what America First always meant Americans First when it first was deployed. So when I hear America First also being deployed as saying, well, wait, that doesn't necessarily mean that America is going to be in a last in the world, I think there isn't necessarily a contradiction in terms there because, look, you mentioned Stephen Miller, because he's the guy who's been out front and center every single day defending ICE, defending homeland security, which were obviously we saw some changeover today, defending the agents in the field and conducting whatever he can in terms of deportation operation. So, as you say, Stephen Miller is a guy who absolutely doesn't have a any questionable credentials when it comes to MAGA, when it comes to these issues. But at the same time, I think that the bigger debate, whether we get into a semantics debate about rhetoric, the bigger debate is should America be isolationist or should America actually care about some of these things like influence in the wider world. And that's a debate that I've seen a lot of people get into. I'd love to see. By the way, if people want to get into the chat that we're into right now, you know, please go ahead, send in your rumble rants and in your comments. 00:09:41 Speaker 1: We're looking at it because we are alive. I'm seeing your chats right there, right here, President, right here. 00:09:48 Speaker 4: Dylan Ivy says he had it in his twenty seventeen inauguration speech. 00:09:51 Speaker 1: He said it twice. 00:09:52 Speaker 4: I remember, America first preserves American culture, and it certainly does. This is a huge part of America American excellence. And look at the end of the day, when it comes to these things like the Middle East, when it comes to these things like the others, I'm certainly not someone. 00:10:09 Speaker 1: Who's a proponent of these forever wars. 00:10:11 Speaker 4: I'm certainly not someone who's a proponent of all of these things. 00:10:15 Speaker 1: And I don't think that Charlie was. 00:10:16 Speaker 4: We obviously have seen Charlie's Charlie's tweets and statements on it. But at the same time, we don't necessarily want China and Russia just taking over all the entire world, do we like? 00:10:28 Speaker 5: No, we don't, And I think what we do under rate is America did get We looked at a lot of the negatives because those were particularly severe in the Bush years and the Obama years, the downsides of American global powers. It's like, oh, it just seems to be our job to perpetually have troops in dump countries like Afghanistan. It's perpetually our job to pony up tens of billions of dollars practically to have nations just kind of on the dole from US. I think that was really highlighted with the us AID stuff that happened last spring, where people flipped out because they learned to wait, we just spend fifty billion dollars a year to basically be propping up programs that like no one else in the world is funding, like no one Supposely, it was an atrocity for US to defend USAID, but the European Union didn't replace that funding, so I guess they didn't think it was important enough to do and so on. But we do get benefits from being the top dog around, from having a lot of countries that matter looking to us. We look at that with the US dollar being in the position that it is, and that if the US dollar went away, I've seen people say it would be like if US GDP just sort of shrunk five percent overnight, because that's the value of the dollar. Or the fact that US being so central to the defense of a lot of countries that did enable President Trump to use a lot of his tariff leverage on them that South Korea, Japan, and Europe. They can't just tell us to buzz off if we decide to pick a trade fight because they are reliant on US and so many ways. 00:12:01 Speaker 6: Now, well we saw that was Spain within the last two days, where they said we couldn't use their bases. Then Trump says, okay, we're no longer going to trade with you. 00:12:08 Speaker 5: Yeah, and now they've cradled right away exactly. So like there is there is real value to being an assertive top dog, and you have to one has to be very careful in the path one charts under that and I do think President Trump has been a lot more careful about that than prior administrations. 00:12:28 Speaker 6: Yeah, and the main problem with all of this has really been messaging. In my opinion, the best defense of us attacking them that I've heard was Steve Whitcoff when he was on Fox, And for some reason we hadn't heard that that line before from anybody else, which makes no sense to me, because if they really had enough uranium to make eleven nukes, I feel like that would have been the top issue that would have swayed persuaded people to being supportive of this. So I really think the messaging has been the problem. How we're kind of all over the place, and that's really causing a lot of the discomfort among people who maybe don't want us to get involved. 00:13:03 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:13:03 Speaker 4: Look, I'll say, and I've said this a number of times, that the President of the United States is his own best messenger, he's his own best influencer, he's his own best spokesman. And that's nothing against Caroline or Witcoff or Steve Miller p TEGs that there any of these guys. They're JD They're all phenomenal in their own right. But there's only one, Donald D. Trump, and you saw the tour de force that he gave at the State of the Union. He got high marks from everyone on the State of the Union. Even CNN's panel said, this was a great State of the Union. And the Venezuela operation, I'll point out, and as I've said over and over, was something that was celebrated at the State of the Union. It was it had its own section, it had a Medal of honor associated with it, It was given high billing because of its level of success. And that was something where again that was an international operation. Now of course that was in our hemisphere, so that was kind of a little bit closer to the don Roe doctrine, if you will, as opposed to the Middle East. But at the same time, that's something where President Trump was able to smartly and swiftly get the United States involved in something overseas, then pull back with the success, come home with the w and create a new deal that benefited the United States economically. 00:14:21 Speaker 1: And a lot of people have been hoping. 00:14:22 Speaker 4: For that same type of Venezuelan model when it comes vsav Iran, where the leader has already been taken out. Now at the same time, people want to hear that. And Day, it's your point. People want to hear that from the president. They want to see that moment of the President of the United States behind the desk, the resolute desk of the Oval Office, giving that addressed directly to the American people. And I think people are hoping and expecting a moment like that from their president to hear directly from the top what the game plan is, what the objective is, and if this is going to be longer than a couple of days, longer than a couple of weeks, the American people want to hear that from the president. 00:15:01 Speaker 1: There's no question. But Danny, I'd love to ask you again. 00:15:04 Speaker 4: You know, you know you mentioned, you know, younger people and their sort of view of this. 00:15:10 Speaker 1: I know that Blake, you and Andrew. 00:15:13 Speaker 4: Had interviewed some Turning Point chapter leaders and chapter members the other day or I guess it was earlier today on the show, and you know, I just wanted to kind of hear so, Danny, like when you're when you're talking, it doesn't necessarily have to be tposa people, but just people in general. You know, when it comes to foreign intervention, foreign wars, we know that Charlie always said that that's something that younger voters, younger members of the Coalition were just totally not interested in because they wanted to focus on domestic they weren't focused on economic relief. 00:15:42 Speaker 1: What are you hearing from them? 00:15:43 Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm hearing a lot of opposition to this, and especially because of Marco Rubio's comments. I mean it's no secret that gen Z's very anti Israel and more so Yeah, more so doesn't want to get involved. 00:15:58 Speaker 3: So a lot of it here. 00:15:59 Speaker 5: Break breaking the jacket rule again again, Yeah, get it off, take it off now. While he takes that one off, we did get a r morant ye Ja mcguireye. Yet cut the camera away from him. We can't show that there's children who watch this show. So he says, as a thirty year old, I don't want war. However, this Iran war is America first, as Iran is a direct threat when they are directly saying death to America while building a nuke with intent to use it on us. Although another guy in the chat is just saying he's pointed out chanting. He says chanting is not a threat? 00:16:33 Speaker 3: Is chanting a threat? Listen? 00:16:36 Speaker 8: I think that I think that you could definitely make an American first argument for this, but I'm very cognizant of the fact that young people don't love it. 00:16:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, they just don't. 00:16:47 Speaker 8: We sold We sold President Trump on campus Charlie did as the peace president to war president. I'm I'm already getting comfortable with the fact that this could have been the right GEOP political national security decision, right especially after we talked to Matt van Swall this morning talking about how basically I learned something this morning. Jack probably already knew it because he likes to said of these things. But it basically takes the same amount of time to go from zero to five percent enriched uranium as it does from basically five to sixty percent, So that first five percent is all you need to actually make nuclear energy from there. He basically said, there's no good reason to enrich uranium up to sixty percent unless you're trying to do something nefarious with it, or deterrence whatever, you know. I'm actually open to the fact that Duran could have been more of a rational actor when it came. 00:17:43 Speaker 3: To nuclear energy than most people believe. 00:17:45 Speaker 8: But regardless they'd made threats, they wanted it to be a deterrent factor, maybe an offensive factor, big story, big big point. Rather, it could be the absolute right call from a national security perspective and the absolute worst political decision you could make. Sometimes in life you're forced with those types of decisions. And I think, you know, we might just be in one of those conundrums right now. 00:18:07 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:18:08 Speaker 5: I think it's I will say, I mean, we have people in the chat who are saying, like, it's just not true that they were building the new And what I will say is, I don't know what is true. 00:18:15 Speaker 3: It is harder for them to make the. 00:18:17 Speaker 5: Case because I know and you know that they've been six months away from making a nuclear bomb. 00:18:23 Speaker 6: Fact that they told us that they annihilated like all their facilities and everything in June. 00:18:28 Speaker 3: Yeah, but then they told Cough and Jared Kushner. 00:18:31 Speaker 6: Yeah, but no one else has used that talking point other than wik Cough, which leads to me to believe. 00:18:36 Speaker 3: And Jared Yeah. Just I don't know. 00:18:40 Speaker 6: I would think that Rubio would have been starting with that, because that feels like the best talking point by a mile over. Israel was going to Israel was going in first, so we should go in. I feel like it's much. 00:18:50 Speaker 4: Better, Andrew, let me let me, let me, let me run if I can what I said before in front of Andrew, because and this is what I've said, because obviously there have been. 00:19:00 Speaker 1: Messaging challenges on all of this, and. 00:19:03 Speaker 4: My response to all of that, whether you have the whit cough stuff and you have the rubio stuff and all the rest of it, I said, well, I think the thing that the American people are waiting for is that moment where the President of the United States delivers an address from the Oval Office. 00:19:16 Speaker 1: That would be the way to cut through all this. 00:19:18 Speaker 8: Yeah, and it has to be really really well crafted messaging, because I agree there is a little bit of well, they had nukes and they were gonna make nukes, but we've been being told they're gonna make nukes for a long time. I mean, I think that they might have just candidly had a posture where they're like, we're not going to go full nuke, but we just want to be close enough to be like make them nervous. 00:19:38 Speaker 5: That could have been like the sounds bizarre to me, Like you either, well. 00:19:42 Speaker 3: Because they but they there was a red line. 00:19:45 Speaker 5: Being in that position is the most dangerous one to be in you should either have no nuke or you should have It doesn't the actual news. 00:19:52 Speaker 8: It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have made that decision because the entirety of the international apparatus was a rate against them to not get a nuke. Okay, So so maybe knew that that was a redline, but they wanted to be close enough to be dangerous and to make them nervous. 00:20:05 Speaker 3: Maybe that was their stated deterrent position. 00:20:07 Speaker 8: I'm just saying, it makes a lot of sense that they had material to make nuclear warheads or dirty bombs, which you could do it as sixty to eighty percent in Richmond, apparently seventy percent. And there's some indication that they used it in Iraq in twenty twenty already. I haven't seen that confirmed myself. Maybe it was Catherine Herridge that reported that, I believe. But so here's the thing. The arguments are layered, though. Yeah, they maybe they didn't want to lead with the nuke because of the point that you were saying, Blake, that you know, we've been told this for decades and it's never really materialized. But the idea about the missiles in the you know, intercontinental or with ICBMs. I mean they were building up an arsenal and a stockpile of missiles. That could have been No. 00:20:54 Speaker 6: We have that graph too five oh four if we still have. 00:20:57 Speaker 1: That, but they do not have ICBMs. 00:21:00 Speaker 3: They have what they were asking for, hypersonics from CC. From the CC. 00:21:03 Speaker 1: I know that maybe they're still not ICBMs. 00:21:05 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, fair enough. 00:21:06 Speaker 5: I rbm's intermediate range a lot of. 00:21:09 Speaker 3: Yeah, ir MR and s R. Yeah. 00:21:12 Speaker 8: So here's the graph arena missile stockpile versus US intercept and interceptive capacity, and so another part of the calculus could have just been this graph right, that they were going to get further and further. Uh, you know, they were going to increase their ability to outpace our production to intercept those as a defensive posture. 00:21:31 Speaker 6: So you know, and our production is. 00:21:33 Speaker 4: But keep in mind that it's that that the Iran also has an increased capacity for the Shahad drones and drone swarms which has been built up because of the Iraq or even the Ukraine war and those drones which you've now seen. If you go look at Bahrain and UAE, it almost looks like Iran has switched from the ballistic missile posture to more of a drone attack posture because they can send some money, or we're probably going to be the cheapest, you know, you know, they're cheaper, and you're probably going to start to see layered attacks because these air interceptors are so much more expensive. But at the same time you've got to try to use them as much as possible to take out whatever you can. Meanwhile, you've got the Kamakazi drones that could just slip right in. We talked about this so much when you know, we were talking about the context of Ukraine War. Now they're using, you know, in a sort of a counter offensive counter strike method and it's very successful against air defense. It's just an id answer to smart weapons is dumb weapons. 00:22:31 Speaker 8: Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, and I think that could have motivated the reason for the rationale for going now. I think the central question though, is not about air air power superiority. I think we've got that established. They basically we can we can do what we want from the air. The question and why this could continue dragging on is why, you know, how much popular support did the IATOLA and IRGC in the regime have in Iran, and that is a question. And then if it's low, how much muscle memories baked into the population after they just slaughtered twenty or thirty thousand protesters that came out, Like there could just be a function here where they're so scared to come out after getting thirty thousand of killed, they're not sure what happens next. They're gonna go out on the street and then they're gonna get bombed by the RGC. 00:23:25 Speaker 6: Also, how they organize, Like how do you. 00:23:27 Speaker 8: Organize, Like how do you cause the dominoes to start falling to oust the regime? And I think that feels muddy to me. It feels very unclear how you start a popular uprising even with the air power raining down on the IRGC and the regime. 00:23:44 Speaker 3: I just don't know. 00:23:45 Speaker 4: Whatever happened Air Superior or whatever happened a sty in Afghanistan for twenty years, correct, didn't cause the regime change. 00:23:53 Speaker 8: Well, and we did boosts on the ground right back, Yeah, and we did get regime changed, but it wasn't a peaceful thing we caused, you know, uh, Secretary, Yeah, I'm just saying like, even with that, it depends on the the nature of the country itself, like, is Iran a country that could basically just at this point peacefully turnover leadership or is there forty percent of the country that's gonna hang on for dear life? And we've been you know, Blake and I kept talking about this. We had these Iranians that would come on the show and during the popular uprising and in the protests, and we asked ourselves after it was done, were like, it was this an op, like are are we getting spun? And you know, it was unclear to us because they were all basically saying nobody likes the regime, nobody likes the RGC, and everybody loves this Pavla whatever his name. 00:24:47 Speaker 3: I always forget what's his name. 00:24:49 Speaker 8: Rasa and Blake and I were like, yeah, we just got endless. 00:24:54 Speaker 5: We just got endless stuff where it's like I saw the funniest one, which was a thread online that was It's like it was like, ask me anything, I'm inside Iran and like every other answer is finding a way. It's like we're all just waiting for the Sha to order us to go into the streets. 00:25:09 Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, bud okay, bud. 00:25:13 Speaker 8: Hi folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about y Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why ref I will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com. And remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 00:26:12 Speaker 3: But another thing we want to hit here. 00:26:13 Speaker 5: So, as Dan said, gen Z seems pretty skeptical. We saw that with our students, but I think another interesting populist angle of potential anger on this war. This has become I think the first big story, first big crisis of any kind where we've had these modern prediction markets play such a huge role, which is we've got people casting bets on Calshi, on Polymarket, probably on other places as well, for how the war is going to go. And we have a disturbing amount of evidence that military insiders were able to bet on what would happen, for example, to the Ayatola. The New York Times had an article that about I think about a thousand people were able to cast. 00:27:01 Speaker 3: Bets specifically that thousand. 00:27:04 Speaker 5: About a thousand people cast bets specifically that there would be bomb strikes on Iran. I believe on Saturday, because it happened Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon in Iran, and that was way more than any surrounding day. It's not just that a ton of people are betting. It was clear a ton of people had information. Some of them made tens of thousand dollars. 00:27:24 Speaker 1: Some of them I. 00:27:24 Speaker 5: Think made half a million dollars or more. Some people, it's good, really cashed in on this. And there's two possible answers. One is there's people who are really good at reading the signals, maybe in terms of radio traffic internet traffic, like they can see the signs when a military strikes about to happen. Or we can do the much more direct thing, which is currently not even illegal to insider trade on this sort of thing. And you might have people in our admin, people elsewhere in the government, people in foreign admins, people in foreign militaries, and they got the news this is going down. And the first they did was they opened up a prediction market and they said, yeah, I'm going to bet ten thousand dollars that we bomb tomorrow. 00:28:08 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:28:09 Speaker 6: It was one hundred and fifty eight accounts placed hundreds of bets of at least one thousand dollars or more. 00:28:15 Speaker 3: Were they all in the Pentagon. 00:28:19 Speaker 6: He would have had to be I don't know, Yeah. 00:28:21 Speaker 8: Like who would even be the most like obvious actors here? 00:28:28 Speaker 3: Yeah, did you place a bet? Did you do it? You've got good So. 00:28:32 Speaker 4: I don't gamble, and you know, I've I've I've actually kind of been racking my brain about this for a while now, and I just I just I don't I don't have like a prohibition against gambling. 00:28:44 Speaker 1: I just don't do it. 00:28:45 Speaker 4: And I'm sorry, but these prediction markets are just gambling. 00:28:48 Speaker 1: They're just online gambling. It's online betting. There's no question. 00:28:51 Speaker 6: But they say. 00:28:53 Speaker 5: This is insider trading on kind of questions of importance, and there's like two levels of that. 00:28:58 Speaker 4: I don't I mean, I don't think it had to have been insider training. I will say this because on human events, I didn't have any specific inside knowledge that the bombing wasn't going to start on Saturday. But we told everybody that, and you know, we went and Andrew you know, I remember, you know you went and like kind of said, hey, let's all sort of be around the don't go too far from the studio this weekend. So like we we kind of had a sense that things were off. 00:29:26 Speaker 6: It's more so the thousand dollars or more. 00:29:28 Speaker 8: I was gonna say, it's one thing to say be available if stuff goes off. 00:29:34 Speaker 3: It's another thing to put money down, like real money. 00:29:36 Speaker 1: No, no, no, I'm not disagreeing. 00:29:38 Speaker 4: I'm just saying there are ways you could have done it, Devil's advocate, But yeah, this doesn't seem like that. 00:29:43 Speaker 8: I think there's a but Blake brings up a good point. This is like not a regulated industry, you know. This is like it's not necessarily illegal to do this. 00:29:51 Speaker 5: And I've brought this up a few times before, and I'm just waiting because you create disturbing incentives when you can bet on this sort of thing. Because as an example, let's say President Trump was super fifty to fifty on weather to do it, and a guy is like, I can make a lot of money if I can make a bombing happen tomorrow, and he tilts the president a certain way. He's one of his advisor. He says the best time to hit us tomorrow, not on Monday. And that doesn't have to be on war stuff. It could be imagine a guy who places a bunch of bets. Let's say Justice Alito retires from the Supreme Court, and there's five favorites and like some long shot, and the guy it's someone guy who advises the president, bets one thousand dollars ten thousand dollars on this one percent long shot, and then he just endlessly lobbies the president on that specific guy, not because he'll be the best justice, but because that guy could make a ton of money. But obviously it's most worrying on military stuff because let's say Iran has guys watching these markets and they're able to see, Oh, a crapload of money just came in on a strike happening tomorrow. 00:30:53 Speaker 6: Yeah, I actually have it. On Friday morning, it went it was at seven percent that we strike, and then it closed Friday night at twelve twenty six percent, So we went from seven to just Friday alone. 00:31:04 Speaker 5: And I'm just gonna say, I think a straightforward thing we should say is like, if you are betting on a US military operation based on insider knowledge, we should treat that the same way we would treat any other espionage. Deliberately leak in US military intel. And I'm a bit of an authoritarian, I would say, you know, if you do that, Bam firing squad. Oh, come on, leak at US military intelligence. 00:31:27 Speaker 3: I mean that's true, that's true. Okay, okay. 00:31:29 Speaker 1: It would actually be a good way to to sow deception. 00:31:32 Speaker 6: Though. 00:31:32 Speaker 4: So if if Secretary Higgs has is watching this, you know, and we're about to launch another round of strikes or something, you should you should deliberately bet money on like the wrong day or something, and just show this huge spike going up on one day so that you know, perhaps our adversaries think, oh my gosh, this is going to be the day they move things out of place, but then that actually isn't the day, and then you strike the day before or something like that. 00:31:56 Speaker 3: That's for sure real. 00:31:57 Speaker 5: But I would point out that's kind of like you can have fake spies, fake double agents, fake leaks of intelligence, but you still have to very sharply punish real leaks of intelligence. 00:32:08 Speaker 8: Absolutely, that's interesting. So Foz is bringing up a good point. These crypto You can use crypto on these prediction markets, which means there's a level of anonymity. Right, So senators interview introduce a bill to ban officials from trading on prediction markets. Jeff Merkley from Oregon and Amy Klovachar so two Democrats. 00:32:32 Speaker 3: I don't know. 00:32:32 Speaker 8: I kind of think it's right up there with like banning stock trading, to be honest, which we. 00:32:37 Speaker 5: Should probably totally members of Congress. But it's both in a lot of ways. It's more sinister because you can have a direct financial incentive to just on any potential policy thing, like Okay, you know this company will benefit from Congress's regulatory actions. That's bad, and we know Congress does it, but now we're just on the level of whether we go to war or not is substantially based on how much one can insider trade on what the decision we reaches. 00:33:06 Speaker 3: That's really spooky. Yeah, I actually think you're right. 00:33:08 Speaker 8: The more I'm thinking about this, the more we really need to kind of clamp down on this because as a matter of fact, the banning stock trading, we should do ban we should just do it all together as one bill ban officials trading on prediction markets. 00:33:21 Speaker 5: Yeah, and officials, and I just get generally concerned about the amount that the way these prediction markets let you corrupt the process of government. And I think it's just a ticking time bomb until we have a really bad scandal related to it, Like this is almost marginal. There's a really huge one that we could have, and it's it's gonna eventually occur. A funny spin off of this, by the way, is that they had betting markets on Calshi about whether the Supreme Leader Kamene would be out by March first, and a lot of people were betting on that, possibly because the new strike would be hitting him, and Calshi has an else that actually that was only related to him leaving office. 00:34:04 Speaker 3: And you can't bet. 00:34:05 Speaker 5: They can't bet on a death because that would create bad incentives, and so they say they are not fulfilling the contract. 00:34:11 Speaker 3: For they're just returning the money or they're just. 00:34:13 Speaker 5: Gonna return the money and they're not letting people collect their winnings on him getting turned into you know, pavement paint, got him on a technicality, got him on a technicology. 00:34:23 Speaker 3: That I mean that that would be super bumped. I would bum you out. 00:34:26 Speaker 6: Though. 00:34:26 Speaker 8: Imagine if you were like to imagine like Lindsey Graham betting on something like that, I bet he would have like put a grip down on that and then not getting the payout, poor Lindsay. But by the way, can we just talk about this guy for okay, Lindsay Graham. This guy is like frothing at the mouth, just like, let's bomb more, let's like remove more dictators and regime change. And I like, for the life of me, I do not know why they let this man behind the camera. Why do they let this guy or behind the mycrophone? Why every if you are wanting popular support for this war, you should put a clamp down order on Lindsay Graham, because every time the man talks like I, I cringe. And it doesn't matter what good point that he may be making, I just can't listen to it anymore. 00:35:19 Speaker 3: That's my rant. 00:35:19 Speaker 6: Well, now we're going the talks of Cuba. Oh now, so yeah. 00:35:24 Speaker 8: Well listen, I think the whole point with Cuba is that you would maybe be able apparently after Venezuela, fl Cuba's probably yeah. 00:35:31 Speaker 6: Well, and also Cuba's I mean, affects us so much more than I ran, which is seven thousand miles away. Cuba's ninety miles right from Florida. 00:35:39 Speaker 8: Yeah, and by the way, you know, I do think that there is a case to be made that Cuba could fall just all on its own. 00:35:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, people don't. And maybe Jack you might know this. 00:35:47 Speaker 8: Because you spent some time in Cuba, But the Cuban intelligence services are still one of the most highly regarded in the entire world. Like, the whole country sucks, but like the one thing that they have that is pretty a f is their intel op. 00:36:01 Speaker 1: That's all the thing. It's the only thing they put their money into. 00:36:03 Speaker 8: It's like their biggest export. It's their biggest I'm not here. They sell it to Venezuela. 00:36:07 Speaker 6: Yeah, they didn't help them, didn't help them much there. 00:36:10 Speaker 3: But well it's yeah, that's true. 00:36:12 Speaker 4: No, there's no question that the Cuban government, the Cuban Communist regime has been definitely weakend for the first time since I guess the nineteen fifties. You don't have a Castro in office, right, and so this is a time where the culture personality around the Castro family isn't necessarily there in the way that it was. It's something that's clearly right off the coast of the United States. It's something where look, it's our our oldest overseas base is Guantanamo Bay, where I spent a year since eighteen ninety eight. There was talk about annexing it after the Spanish American War. There's lots of arguments that America should have done this. I'm actually kind of partial to some of those arguments. Again, that's you know, hypothetical alternate history type stuff. You know, obviously past is unchangeable. 00:36:59 Speaker 1: At this point. 00:36:59 Speaker 4: But the same time, it would clearly be much much more in America's interests to have a friendly a friendly government there in Cuba. 00:37:09 Speaker 1: There's no question, and it would keep it honestly, would be in Cuba's interest. 00:37:12 Speaker 8: Too, Monroe doctrine. This is our hemisphere. Yes, I'm so listen. 00:37:17 Speaker 3: I have a one frame of reference for far flung wars in the Middle East. I have a whole other frame of reference for wars in our hemisphere, or at least. 00:37:27 Speaker 1: I mean Cuba. 00:37:28 Speaker 4: Havana is like ninety miles from from Miami, right, it's like right there. 00:37:32 Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm not saying I want to go invade, just like I saw Danny give me the stink guy. I'm not trying to go invade Cuba. I'm just saying the interests are a lot easier to sell. 00:37:41 Speaker 6: Well, yeah, and that's an easier thing to sell to the American people than I ran, just because of its proximity to the United States. 00:37:48 Speaker 3: Cuba, Blake invade, I just don't. 00:37:50 Speaker 5: I just feel like, yeah, one hundred fifty okay, is it nineteen sixty Cuba. Cuba just like a dump that if we overthrew it, this would be a classic case of where we'd suddenly be suckered into giving them twenty billion dollars. It's just this decrepit place. It has an average age of like fifty. Almost every anyone who can get out of that country has left. 00:38:13 Speaker 3: Who cares it? 00:38:14 Speaker 5: Like we've talked about Iran plausibly being this like Cold War hangover, that all these sixty five year olds remember the hostage. 00:38:21 Speaker 3: Crisis and want to do something. Iran is Is that on a cuba? Is that on steroids? 00:38:27 Speaker 5: It's people who are still mad about the Bay of Pigs and maybe the jfk assassination might have involved it, and. 00:38:34 Speaker 8: They haven't done anything lately, sucked and we get them to come here. Yeah, I mean, listen, here's the thing. This is what I'm saying. Lindsay Graham needs to shut his yapper, stop talking, get him out of the view of a camera. 00:38:51 Speaker 3: For the love. 00:38:52 Speaker 8: I know it's a free country, but if I'm the Trump administration, I'm telling Lindsay Graham stop talking. You are only harming the costs. 00:38:59 Speaker 5: It's all right, We're gonna get off the war here in a second. But there was a question for Jack from Sandra gaev Hart. Jack, can you explain war? Meaning we've been successful with quick attacks, why do we need to keep. 00:39:12 Speaker 6: Going in now? 00:39:13 Speaker 5: I know it's not cut and dry, but there is a chance we can be done quick. 00:39:19 Speaker 4: I'm reading this again. Why do we need to keep going in now? I know it's not cut in dry, but is there a chance we can be done quick? And yeah, I mean, I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but I guess I'll explain it in terms of this. You know, the difference here between Venezuela and Iran is the difference in regimes. So in Venezuela you had a durable regime, but at the same time you had you have a lot more influence to bear and a single singular person who's really in charge of that regime being, you know, in the case of that, Nicholas Maduro and someone Delsea Rodriguez who is willing to work with the United States. In the case of Iran, it's much more of a mixed bag. And I was I was on Piers Morgan with like Tim Miller and some people, and they were like laughing about this, and I was trying to explain to them that, you know, in Iran it is mixed leadership. It's a decentralized revolutionary regime where you have the IRGC military, you know, secret military, religious police, kind of thing, which we don't really have a cognate four in the United States. We have the civilian leadership in terms of the president, the foreign minister, and then of course the Ayatola and the system of malas and now the Ietola's son, who may or may not have taken over. And so it's not like you can just change out one person and suddenly they, you know, become pro us. 00:40:43 Speaker 1: It's just not like that. 00:40:45 Speaker 4: They've also had much much longer to be in power and have always been since nineteen seventy nine, a revolutionary state for forty seven years, and so there they built up all of these institutions, they built up all of this power, all of this internal domestic control for the Islamic government. They just don't have the same type of government that a secular state would have. This is also actually it's kind of the reason that they didn't always work with the Communists, right, because the Communists were seen as atheists, and so even though they were roughly aligned with the Soviet Union during those years, they weren't necessarily super pro Soviet Union either. They also supported the Islamists and the Mujahagien in Afghanistan for the same reason. So you know, perhaps would have been better for their regime to have done so, but they're very fiercely independent. They're very hard to work with, and they are, for lack of a better term, actually Islamic jihadists and radicals. 00:41:42 Speaker 8: You know, most people don't understand the ethnicities. How many ethnicities there are in Iran. 00:41:48 Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a lot. I was just looking at this though. 00:41:52 Speaker 8: Iran is a diverse, multi ethnic nation. It's type of over there ninety million people, with ethnic Persians constituting the majority approx. Approximately sixty one percent. Other major ethnics groups include the Azeris sixteen percent, Kurds ten percent, the Lures six percent, Baloic Arabs, and various Turkic Turkic tribes such as Turkmen and Kashkai. 00:42:15 Speaker 3: So this is I mean, this is whereas Venice, Okay, new world is different than old world. New World. 00:42:20 Speaker 8: You got Venezuela. It's got this like national identity. They kind of fall in line, even though they might have different mixes of European and indigenous or whatever. 00:42:30 Speaker 3: This is something different. 00:42:31 Speaker 8: This is old world stuff where these people have really deeply entrenched identities and that's why you get factionalism. That's why you get this tribalism. That's why when there's a power vacuum, this tribe fights that tribe and this group, you know, goes. 00:42:46 Speaker 5: I will say my understanding from people I've talked to is a lot of these groups are basically still just Persians. Like that on your map here you've got these purple guys along the Caspian Sea. 00:42:55 Speaker 3: They're totally just Persian. I think you're right. I tend to agree with that, but it's still the Kurds are very different than you know. 00:43:03 Speaker 4: And yeah, the Kurds I would I would put aside, but Persian identity, right, the Persian Empire is an ancient state, so it already had sort of this identity as a as a country in the sense in it just in a different way that Iraq and Afghanistan never really had because there was this Persian Empire identity that they all sort of had to begin with. So it isn't necessarily you're not necessarily going to see the same level of separatism as you would in in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now, now the Kurds, obviously I wouldn't necessarily put in that same bucket, But at the same time, you know, there's there's real questions is whether or not the Kurds are interested in going out against the Iranian army. 00:43:46 Speaker 3: I I agree. 00:43:46 Speaker 8: I think the bigger question is how much popular support does the regime still have? 00:43:51 Speaker 3: And nobody can give me an answer. By the way, we got a question. So you can see. 00:43:55 Speaker 4: Videos, by the way that of of people marching in to here Square with pictures of the Ayatola carrying flags of the regime. Again, martyrdom is massive in Shia Islam. To understand the power of giving them a martyr, someone who died for the Islamic Revolution, someone who died at the hands of the Great Satan and the Little Satan right the US Israeli Joint regime again putting it in their words. So they're certainly viewing him as a holy martyr. They're certainly viewing him as something someone to uphold, and it's going to galvanized supporters of the regime in the same way that it may also lend some credibility to the opposition. 00:44:38 Speaker 3: I hear what you're saying, Jack. 00:44:39 Speaker 8: You know, we got a comment from old Floridian says, you guys need to talk to Robbi Dawkins about what's going on inside Iran. We actually had Robbie on the Charlie Kirk Show and got a lot of emails about him. So and I've known Robbie for years. He's a good dude. He's very bullish though, and you know, and yes he's he's in country. He says, the popular uprising is going to materialize in Iran International. They're they're they're circling Sunday at the break of dawn, that there's people are going to hit the streets. 00:45:09 Speaker 3: I hope all of that's true. I'm just really skeptical because. 00:45:14 Speaker 1: Why don't want to tell the RGC that. 00:45:16 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean exactly. So anyways, here we. 00:45:19 Speaker 6: Go, all right, well, before we move on from prediction markets, Blake, I was just wondering if we could get a prediction market going on. A strong cell will grow your hair back. 00:45:29 Speaker 9: And I. 00:45:32 Speaker 5: Am one confident that I shall have a completely luscious and. 00:45:36 Speaker 3: Full head of hair. 00:45:37 Speaker 6: He's got to be. 00:45:40 Speaker 5: There's a sprout bloom forth like flowers in the in the desert or something. 00:45:45 Speaker 8: And before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the Classics, the principles of the American Founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him, they shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead of. One of the courses he took was The Genesis Story, taught by Hillsdale Professor doctor Justin Jackson. This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith, gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit Charlie for Hillsdale dot com to enroll today. That's Charlie for Hillsdale dot com. Learn Deeply, Lead boldly, carry it forward. But we have a very important topic that has nothing to do with around. It has nothing to do with Cuba, mercifully and that is Luigi the musical. Oh not not Mario's brother, that other Luigi Luigi man g on. 00:47:12 Speaker 3: I think Jack should go to the opening night, do man on the street? I want to go to the open night. Clake, you, Blake and Jack need to go. 00:47:20 Speaker 5: The thing is is I just I kind of want to see the musical. Yeah, we have clips. I'm not sure if this is a clip from the musical or just about it. It just says clip, but I think we got to see it. 00:47:30 Speaker 3: It is for sixty Can I get a soap and some towels? 00:47:35 Speaker 1: I guess yeah. 00:47:36 Speaker 3: Let's just check your balance. 00:47:37 Speaker 1: It looks like it is. 00:47:40 Speaker 3: Four hundred thousand dollars. 00:47:47 Speaker 10: Wait, what what what are you talking about? 00:47:49 Speaker 3: What do you mean? Where's that coming from? 00:47:52 Speaker 10: It looks like a couple of places, Nopes for Healthcare Reform, Bottoms United for Luigi. 00:48:05 Speaker 3: The Lindsey Graham. 00:48:09 Speaker 8: Okay, I saw that clip earlier. I didn't understand. Foz was like, oh good, tie in for the next clip, and I didn't catch it. But I actually I lo oled at. 00:48:17 Speaker 3: The at the Lindsay Lindsey. 00:48:19 Speaker 5: So that was an excerpt from Well, I suppose not a song I want, what are the musical numbers in this guy idea? 00:48:24 Speaker 3: But the San fran looked fabulous. 00:48:26 Speaker 5: Yeah, so for those who couldn't see it that had they had Luigi in an orange jumpsuit. So I guess I think the context is that must be him after he's been arrested. 00:48:33 Speaker 8: He's getting a show and you buy supplies and they check your you know. 00:48:38 Speaker 3: Yeah. Anyways, I think Jack, I think you should start. 00:48:43 Speaker 4: I mean, look, this is disgusting, there's no question, and this is it just goes to show you that the the actual rise of support for Bolshevik activity is absolutely alive and well in the United States. Not only no, so not only do we see the sort of transformation of Luigi Maggioni into a folk hero who is an assassin by the way, who shot and killed someone in cold blood murder on the street on video that we've also seen the I can't believe it's in the video. We've seen him lose the access to the death penalty. I think the death penalty has been stripped in in both cases now, the state and federal case which he's facing. And by the way, he shows no remorse for his actions. He was lashing out in court just a couple of days ago when he was in his last hearing, so it certainly shows no remorse. Other Robinson also shows no remorse by the way, smirking and laughing. 00:49:42 Speaker 1: In his court hearings. And you see MAGGIONI. 00:49:50 Speaker 4: Also, I think they took away his murder charge in one of the cases. I'm trying to remember of the top of my head. But it's it's the way that this has been handled in the court is completely insane. 00:50:03 Speaker 1: Public opinion is absolutely playing a role here. 00:50:05 Speaker 4: The judiciary is buying large in agreement with Antifa activity here. 00:50:11 Speaker 1: And you know what can I say? 00:50:14 Speaker 4: It's it's it's Sacho and Vanzetti got what they deserved and Luigi deserves exactly the same. And yet here we are one hundred years later, and we just can't seem to deal with these Italian anarchists anymore. 00:50:25 Speaker 5: A little swipe at the effect I'm looking at whether it's any good? And I guess, so, how does San Francisco r on now? It's just it's running in New York, only a few blocks away from where he actually did the murder, where the murder was committed. A theater critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, which I guess it's something called the newspaper. I don't know if those I didn't know those existed. Still, but so this, Lila Janiak said, if only the show itself could justify the hype, bringing national attention to the often underappreciated Bay Area theater scene. Unfortunately, it just isn't any good, which I've got to say, how can San Francisco, Like, how do they produce a bad musical? If there's I feel like, if any town has enough, you know, remember the game, you should be able to produce good musicals. 00:51:16 Speaker 3: It should be San Francisco. Where is that that musical that we're coming for your kids? Children? 00:51:22 Speaker 6: Francisco Choir? 00:51:24 Speaker 3: Yeah you think that? 00:51:25 Speaker 8: Yeah, that wasn't any good either. It was just shockingly horrific. So so it says the musical satirical prison comedy inspired by the Bizarre true story, It's not bizarre, it's murderous. It's disgusting. Of three high profile inmates house together at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Sold out its preview run, and it's now adding part comedy, part social commentary. 00:51:48 Speaker 3: Luigi. 00:51:48 Speaker 8: The musical reimagines larger than life public figures as exaggerated characters representing three disillusioned pillars of American life, healthcare, Hollywood, and tech. Luigi the Musical use his comedy to bring deeper questions to the surface, says director and co creator Nova Bradford. 00:52:05 Speaker 3: But it, says Luigi the Musical doesn't glorify violence. It interrogates it. Oh got there. 00:52:11 Speaker 5: We need a ban on using the word interrogate in describing anything that is not the police questioning somebody, because they do that, that's a total college, postmodern world. 00:52:23 Speaker 1: Yeah, so would they do would they do a Jay six musical? Would they say, oh, JA six, which. 00:52:28 Speaker 4: You know where where no one died, No one was killed on j six, No one was killed by Maga right on J six, actually b Abbat died, you know, the protester who died. No, because they would lose their minds if anyone did something like that. But if you do a Luigi Maggioni musical or Luigi Maggioni is clearly, by the way, the protagonist of this thing where it's not that anti here, it's a comedy that yeah, he's he's they're basically I don't even think they're giving him an anti hero work. I think they're just showing him as a hero. Yeah, they're just they're just making him like the hero and everyone's a celebrity and he's just I wonder, I wonder if he can. 00:53:07 Speaker 1: I wonder if he's actually getting any money out of this thing. Probably not, because. 00:53:11 Speaker 5: It's I think it would be illegal for him to get it under Son of Sam. 00:53:14 Speaker 4: Yeah there's that act. That's I forgot that. The day of the law is but you can't benefit from. 00:53:18 Speaker 5: The Son of Sam laws because the actual son of Sam sold his memoirs. 00:53:22 Speaker 3: I believe in law. 00:53:23 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. 00:53:24 Speaker 3: So yeah, so here we got the clips. It's six thirty five. Let's play it. 00:53:27 Speaker 10: Saturday Night Live does this all the time, which is why we lead it into satire. Satire you have to take to an extreme so people know this is not about the people. It's about the themes that we're interrogating. 00:53:39 Speaker 9: The reaction I think about whether we were in the right to be creating art in this way also overlooks the fact that we are all kind of exposed to frequent information and takes on these things all the time. 00:53:53 Speaker 3: There is a lot of violence surrounding us right now, And of course we are not. Our intention is never going to be to make a mockery of the of that. Ever, we would never Okay, people, did that guy? Here's the ise. Did that first guy have like a Hitler mustache? He kind of looked like he did. No, that's just the San Francisco gay man squire. We need to zoom in. I think we should. 00:54:23 Speaker 8: We should look back rushmography. I think that stage aography. So here's the big problem, and I'm stealing this from Faz, He's totally right on this. The big problem is that there's a freaking audience for this. We have become so unmoored from you know, morality, We've become so unmoored from the value of life and that life should be protected at all costs. Okay, yeah, you can interrogate the healthcare system without you know, further contributing to creating a folk hero out of Luigi Maggioni, who is a cold blooded murderer, who is guilty of first degree murder and assassination. And you know what happened to Charlie. I mean, I'll never forget the clips of Charlie warning about the rise of assassination culture, only to see him become a victim of it, and for them to do this and to completely brush it off and talk about his art and that this is some elevated thing. 00:55:23 Speaker 6: No, well, we have a graph on it. Thirty one is the graph to thirty percent of lives. I believe it's totally justified. 00:55:30 Speaker 4: Yeah, will live an infamy discuss I'll I'll just say, you know, because I know we're all thinking it. 00:55:37 Speaker 1: They would do one of these about Charlie if if Tyler. 00:55:41 Speaker 4: Robinson was you know, more photogenic and yeah, and if they could get away. 00:55:49 Speaker 1: I would. 00:55:49 Speaker 3: I would, literally I would. There, you know they would. I would. You know, they were absolutely nuts and I would do everything in my power to just ruin their days. 00:56:00 Speaker 5: Everything in your power, not obviously not that legally speaking in minecraft, I would. 00:56:07 Speaker 3: I would. I would try and block it. 00:56:09 Speaker 8: I would sue them, I would, I would protest outside the venue. 00:56:13 Speaker 1: But does anyone disagree? 00:56:15 Speaker 3: I totally agree with you. I agree, I agree, Yeah. 00:56:20 Speaker 1: I that they would. They'd be laughing about it, and they would. They would. They would clearly be mocking Erica. There's no question about that. 00:56:29 Speaker 4: We see that every day now, which is disgusting, and they would make that a huge part of it, and it would be it would just be turned into a huge joke. 00:56:37 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's sort of like this giant mockery. It really is. 00:56:42 Speaker 8: It's a it's making a mockery out of something extraordinarily. 00:56:45 Speaker 5: I can see, I can see the reality manifesting in front of me where the show keeps playing, or they just bring it back where they successfully. They mean this so hard that Luigi gets off on a heinous murder he committed, and then he shows up at his own musical, his own satirical music call. 00:57:01 Speaker 1: But there is a musical called The Assassins, isn't there. 00:57:05 Speaker 5: I don't know, I am I'm not a huge musical theater enthusiast, but uh so there's a musical by Stephen Sondheim called The Assassins. 00:57:13 Speaker 4: It is a a you know, this is kind of a uh also uses satires. I mean, Stephen Sondheim is very very famous musical theater guy. And I'm trying to remember the cat. So the characters in this are John Wolf's Booth, Charles Gatteau, Leon chol Goosh who seat McKinley, Giuseppe Zengia, John Hinckley, Lee, Harvey Oswald. So those are all those are all cast members of you know, members of the of the show in the Assassins and it's you know, it's it's all about them. 00:57:52 Speaker 1: Pretty fun. Well in Stepheim, very very famous. 00:58:00 Speaker 5: In the Book of Mormon, they have Genghis Khan, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Johnny Cochrane appear during a song set in Hell. 00:58:09 Speaker 1: They as have a general. I can't remember his name. Do you remember his name? 00:58:12 Speaker 3: Blake General? 00:58:14 Speaker 5: I can't say his name because this is merely a PG thirteen show, not an R rated one. 00:58:19 Speaker 8: Uh, breaking inside scoop from our friend Grant Stinchfield. Trump will endorsed Senator John Cornyn over Texas a. 00:58:25 Speaker 3: G that's barely breaking, I feel like. And there's a video just the Save America get in the Save Act. Apparently that's a thought. It worth having in the Senate for six more years if you get the Save America Act. So is the Save America Act that part of the scoop? Yeah? 00:58:47 Speaker 9: Is it? 00:58:47 Speaker 2: You know? 00:58:48 Speaker 3: I kind of wonder. 00:58:48 Speaker 8: Because Paxton has been promised to very big positions within the Trump administration. Cornyn's going to agree to pass the Save America app. 00:58:57 Speaker 6: Does that mean we're getting rid of the filibusters? 00:58:59 Speaker 3: It could be could mean that we're getting rid of pan BONDI. 00:59:02 Speaker 5: Well, boy, I mean that'll be a fun confirmation fight too, there's so much exciting. 00:59:08 Speaker 3: Well, I would assume. 00:59:09 Speaker 1: I don't think BONDI goes anywhere. 00:59:11 Speaker 3: I mean, our chat is not enjoying this news. 00:59:14 Speaker 6: By the way. 00:59:14 Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm just listen. This is from Grant's ditchfield. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying he's He's saying it's an inside. 00:59:20 Speaker 6: Scoopn't I mean that we have to end the filibuster then. 00:59:25 Speaker 3: I don't know what it would mean. Maybe they'd be willing to do it finally. 00:59:27 Speaker 1: Just for this. 00:59:28 Speaker 5: I mean it does strike me as the sort of thing that make promise him where they'll say, well, now he's on board, but we can't do it because this other. 00:59:34 Speaker 3: Sor you'd have to get it. Yeah. 00:59:36 Speaker 8: I mean, if if they're smart, they would say, listen, we need McConnell on board, we need Susan Collins on board, we need least well because because I guarantee you, those senators want Cornyan to stick around they don't want another bulldog like Paxton. 00:59:49 Speaker 5: Now, will it is it worth passing the Save Act? I know a lot of I mean one of my thought crimes is I know a lot of people are very invested in it. 00:59:57 Speaker 3: I don't know that that act is. 00:59:59 Speaker 5: If I was go to say, if I needed one piece of legislation that I could appeal with filibuster pass. 01:00:04 Speaker 3: I don't know that it would be that one. You know what mine would be immigration reform. Oh yeah, yeah. 01:00:07 Speaker 8: I'd take the annual green cards down from one point two million to about zero point two which is about net zero immigration, and I change them all to like genius visas, no genius visas and gold visa. 01:00:19 Speaker 3: You know. 01:00:19 Speaker 8: I turns out this whole Trump thing where he's like you have to have five million dollars in net worth and you get a gold gold visa or whatever you have to invest turns out a lot of countries have that and they're very successful. 01:00:29 Speaker 3: So I'm open minded to that. 01:00:30 Speaker 4: But the problem with ours, though, is historically with the EB five program, it be the investments are always end. 01:00:37 Speaker 1: Up kind of being like scams. 01:00:39 Speaker 4: Yeah, so totally, Like the Chinese investors get their green cards and the jobs and projects never materialized. 01:00:46 Speaker 8: You know, you're totally right, it would have to be actually stringently enforced. But here's the benefit. If you drop the number down of total green cards, then you'd actually be able to. 01:00:54 Speaker 6: Well, Andrew, if we had if we had real senators who actually showed up to work, we could get more than one thing done too. If we passed the filibuster. 01:01:01 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, if we. 01:01:02 Speaker 8: Didn't have a fake and gay Senate, then it would be actually something we could do. 01:01:06 Speaker 6: Yeah, but none of them actually show up to work. 01:01:09 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the whole thing. Blake has a great take on this that the most positive upside the of nuke and the filibuster is that Congress would actually have to do work. 01:01:18 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:01:19 Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, and it'll be tough because this is why. But I feel like you kind of want to have the Democrats to break it because one there'll be some we don't have the Branks, right, there will be some criticism exactly so, and like there will be some backlash against the party that does it. It'll take them time to do it. We seem to constantly oscillating back and forth. You don't want to be breaking the filibuster to pass one bill only three months before like losing. 01:01:43 Speaker 3: The ability to pass. Here's the deal. 01:01:45 Speaker 8: I've been told very affirmatively that really the way to do this will not impact the mid terms. If you want the save ac past, you got to include it in the reconciliation bill in September, and then it won't It will be ready for the presidential election twenty eight, but it's not going to be ready before then. 01:02:04 Speaker 3: The other thing they should they should include in this. 01:02:05 Speaker 8: I don't know if there's a way to do it in reconciliation redo the damn census. 01:02:09 Speaker 6: The thing is, Bob, they can do it before the president has the power to call for in theory. 01:02:14 Speaker 8: In theory, in theory, the Commerce Department, Yeah, could call for it, but then you need to fund it. And the question is how do you fund? I mean, listen, where there's a will, there's a way. I believe that that's the way the Democratic republics should work. In theory, I don't know, probably derailized. 01:02:29 Speaker 9: Well. 01:02:29 Speaker 6: Also, the problem with letting the Democrats do it first is they're just gonna call for amnesty. 01:02:33 Speaker 8: Well, they're gonna call for amnesty, they're gonna make Puerto Rico states, so we'll never win again anyway. 01:02:37 Speaker 3: And then they're gonna they're gonna pack the Supreme So. 01:02:39 Speaker 6: Then waiting to get back in power by letting them do it first. It doesn't really matter anyways, because they would have already. 01:02:44 Speaker 8: Listen, why don't we match their state for state thing and basically turn eastern Washington into a state? 01:02:51 Speaker 3: Why don't we turn eastern Oregon in? Well, you do to dismember states. 01:02:55 Speaker 5: To do dismember states, it cannot be done without the permission of that state, So you have to become is off the state that agrees to that. All right, Well, then break up Republican states into two. I think at the point where we're creating new states by splitting states and a half, I'm just gonna say we are at we're at the point of just national death spot. Might yeah, I think I think of more likely it'll be funny for them to start trying to make Puerto Rico a state, and then they'll just confront what a disaster, what a disaster piece Puerto Rico is as an entity, Puerto Rico. 01:03:30 Speaker 3: That I guess we do. 01:03:31 Speaker 6: I guess we have floating pile of garbage. That was the line. What the floating pile of garbage the line, I guess what we could do? 01:03:39 Speaker 3: What we could we could we could use that. 01:03:43 Speaker 5: We could get rid of the filibuster, and we could impose independence on Puerto Rico, pre empt them preempt that side. We just give the presidency to. 01:03:54 Speaker 1: For our Caribbean operations. So it makes sense. We have a lot of naval a lot of naval infrastructure down there. 01:04:00 Speaker 8: Well, we just have to lease that piece of land like we do with Guantanamo Bay. Here's the other part we could do. And I saw this floated in an article. Uh so, based on the history of how DC was laid out, you know that the original map was stretched much further into northern Virginia. 01:04:17 Speaker 3: Yeah, it used to be square, Yeah, exactly. 01:04:19 Speaker 8: So the point is you could capture back something like six hundred thousand or five hundred thousand Northern Virginians and put them back in the District of Columbia, apparently by presidential edict. 01:04:31 Speaker 3: That's what they claimed. I know, I know, I know. 01:04:34 Speaker 8: I'm just saying, if you're gonna if you're if you're preempting their preemption, right, if you're getting ahead of this, you make Puerto Rico independent you you permanently leased the naval facility there. Then you grant back the land in northern Virginia, so you make Virginia essentially a red state. Then by giving all the Dems back to DC and a couple of and then you do the immigration thing. Those are the things you really did say that, Yeah, it's it's tough. Thou be preemptive measures to block their ability to really do it's tough. 01:05:04 Speaker 3: It would be interesting. 01:05:05 Speaker 5: Just a side effect of creating a real Congress is it would be hard to know exactly what would unfold because people have gotten so use to voting with a Congress that's fake. So you'd probably you'd probably in the end end up getting more moderates in Congress because people would get a little more spooked by the promises people make because we're so usarge, like you want to vote for people like these days, people are voting for these absolute fire breathers in part because I think deep down they know that nothing is ever getting passed by this Congress. 01:05:37 Speaker 3: That's my gut feeling. I don't know about that. 01:05:39 Speaker 5: Maybe maybe not, though, like in I guess to go the other way in the I guess I would say in the UK, they have a lot of squishes into parties. And in the UK they do have total absolute sovereignty of Parliament, can pass whatever it wants at any time, and there's definitely no filibuster, and you always have majority control because that's what decides who is the Prime Minister. And as a result, you seem to perpetually have a bunch of squishes in the House of Commons. 01:06:05 Speaker 8: Interesting, and I think I think you see that in a lot of different I think you might be right in the long term, but in the short run, we've got this muscle memory built up for fire breathers and we want them. I mean, this is the whole point of like, it's dumb for Trump to back Cornyn when you have Paxton sitting there, who's proven he can win a statewide race by ten points. By the way, not saying he would repeat that. Maybe it would be closer, certainly because that was a wave year a little bit with Trump winning. 01:06:31 Speaker 6: But anyways, well, and also if I mean the grassroots is upset about it, yeah, the grassroots may not even show up though. 01:06:37 Speaker 3: Also, this is what I'm worried about. 01:06:41 Speaker 8: You take everything good off the board and you think you're going to energize the base. You have another thing coming, like, you have to give the grassroots it's due. 01:06:47 Speaker 6: You have to give them, especially when the turnout was already going to be low. So now you just yeah, I take them again. 01:06:53 Speaker 3: Fully believe that. 01:06:54 Speaker 8: I think there's been a lot of press. I think the thing that turns turnout out is press, just people talking about out at Tall Rico, the drama, like it's going to turn out people. 01:07:03 Speaker 4: But you got to figure that if the grass given the corner to the guy who was booed off of the stage at the NERA convention in Texas just a couple of years ago. So if the grassroots aren't fired up for this guy, no, that's because he just because he gets the endorsement right, as powerful as it is, that doesn't mean you're going to get the same level the same level of turnout. 01:07:25 Speaker 5: And then. 01:07:27 Speaker 4: This is a race we know where the Democrats are going to put a ton of money into. They we just know they're going to They're going to look at flipping a seat. 01:07:35 Speaker 8: And I got interviewed by this New York Times reporter, real seasoned political reporter because I was tweeting up a storm yesterday about Tall Rico, and she kept you could tell what she was really driving at. She's like, do you think this post is a more serious danger to the Republican Party when you have a evangelical that kind of presents the way he doesn't. My take on it is, you know, maybe in the context of Texas, he'll fool some like normy, middle of the road people, but like, if you're a real Christian, a real evangelical, like steeped in the culture of evangelicalism, the big megachurches in Texas, this guy makes your skin crawl because it's like this fake religious skin suit that he's wearing, this gollie ge shucks like God's non binary and it's like, you know, trans abortions and pronouns on your business cards. It's like, no, this guy, this guy will animate the base in a massive way. So I actually think tall Rico is so hatable that he's going to animate a big turnout. But you're right, Cornin is not going to animate a big turnout. And Texas is different than a lot of states, Like Texas has its own identity, Texas has its own gravitational pool, you know. And I think Trump's endorsement is only going to carry so far. 01:08:47 Speaker 6: It is very similar though to Warnock and the fake Christian Act that they pulled there in twenty twenty, and in the twenty twenty one runoff there too, they got him to become a senator. 01:08:56 Speaker 3: Yeah, a lot of. 01:08:57 Speaker 6: People stayed home after twenty twenty and with the and then independence, either voted for him and fell for that, or just didn't vote at all. 01:09:05 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:09:06 Speaker 3: Well interesting. 01:09:08 Speaker 6: Mike Pompeo has also just endorsed John Cornyn too, of course, are falling, Yeah, all right. 01:09:15 Speaker 8: Listen, politics is the art of the possible. You don't get everything you want. It's important to say that. You know, we were looking at that one clip Blake where some caller called in Jack, you'll appreciate this some It was an email we got you read it to Charlie and maybe I just saw it. Maybe you didn't see this clip, but the email said I regret voting for President Trump. This was, you know, twenty five, early. 01:09:40 Speaker 3: Twenty twenty five. And Charlie just immediately said, be careful when you say that we have the clip. 01:09:46 Speaker 8: I think we do sor right if you have the clip and I you know, it's moments like this where you got to remember that President Trump has been an absolute fighter for the grassroots. He doesn't get everything right, and it's moments like this, Yeah we have all right, four ninety one. 01:10:01 Speaker 5: Of Joe Spinella five dollars. I regret my vote. Voted Trump sixteen, twenty twenty four. 01:10:07 Speaker 3: Let me just pause. We're almost done. 01:10:09 Speaker 2: Well, No, I want to pause. 01:10:10 Speaker 3: Be careful with that statement. Who what's his name? 01:10:12 Speaker 1: Joe? 01:10:13 Speaker 3: Joe? 01:10:13 Speaker 2: Because if all of a sudden, the economy is booming in December and we're getting spending cuts and the border secure and we're on Project ten million, be careful just saying you regret it, if this is just might be one night you don't like. Just be careful with such a statement like that. 01:10:26 Speaker 8: That was pretty strong, so Blake, Yeah, I had no hair upon my face. Jack, you are an avatar for many in the MAGA movement. I reflect on what Charlie said, though. 01:10:41 Speaker 4: Yeah, I get what Charlie saying. Charlie sand let him cook, Charlie san let the man cook. Let the man that we entrusted with our vote, the man who rose up at Butler, Pennsylvania to his feet and roared like a lion, the man who we put all of our hopes and dreams into in twenty twenty four. Let him cook, all right, literally, just let him cook. And you don't always know what the end game is going to be with President Trump because he operates from a level of strategic ambiguity. 01:11:14 Speaker 1: He uses strategic ambiguity to his benefit. 01:11:17 Speaker 4: I mean, you might go to sleep on Friday and wake up and find that we've arrested the president of Venezuela right without it, you know, any. 01:11:24 Speaker 1: Question about that. 01:11:25 Speaker 3: It was a little bit of a surprise. 01:11:26 Speaker 4: It's just something where I think what Charlie's saying is, you know, wait until you see the results, Wait until you see the results. 01:11:33 Speaker 3: Here's what Here's where I go back. 01:11:34 Speaker 8: I fall back on the fact that Democrats are simply unacceptable, and so yeah, we need to keep the fire on. 01:11:41 Speaker 3: We need to keep the pressure on. 01:11:43 Speaker 8: Senator Mark Wayne Ullan is a personal friend of mine, but he's now going to be in charge of DHS. I will absolutely light him up with a billion texts if he starts, you know, getting soft and so you keep the pressure to go though. 01:11:57 Speaker 1: But I could be good. 01:11:58 Speaker 8: I think you'll But listen, here's let me just preview what's gonna happen here. They're gonna put negotiating pieces on the table at DHS to get sanctuary cities to fall in line. 01:12:11 Speaker 3: The question is what do you put on the table to get that done? 01:12:15 Speaker 8: Anyways, I'm just I'm I'm previewing where this is gonna go, and everybody needs to brace for impact. 01:12:21 Speaker 3: I will say, you will get commas, not drama. 01:12:24 Speaker 9: You know. 01:12:24 Speaker 8: That was the expression that one of our guests used on the show today. If you get them to hand over the criminal illegals that are just arrested in normal due process, okay, you will get massive results if you get that. So are they gonna try and trade amnesty for some? Are they gonna try try and trade guest workers for some. Are they gonna say, hey, we'll leave the peaceful ones alone. Are they gonna say DACA recipients get citizenship. Whatever that thing is that they're gonna put on the offering block. 01:12:51 Speaker 3: It's gonna be. It could be, you know, I don't know. Just just just I'm warning you. 01:12:57 Speaker 8: But the point is, democrats are simply on acceptable. We got to keep the pressure on. But like the reason we're even talking about Somali fraud, and nineteen billion dollars. The reason we're talking about twenty million illegals flooding the border, the reason we're talking about Catholics getting surveilled, the reason we're talking about JA sixers getting in prison, The reason we're talking about all these terrible things is because Democrats, so they're simply unacceptable. 01:13:20 Speaker 3: Is as frustrating as the process can be. 01:13:25 Speaker 8: Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refy. You've probably been hearing me talk about why REFI for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refy will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over American We see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Y ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com And remember y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to y refi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 01:14:24 Speaker 3: All right, last topic. 01:14:26 Speaker 5: If we want to keep going, I don't know. If we have five months, we could do kids in church. 01:14:29 Speaker 3: Kids in church. 01:14:32 Speaker 5: We're diving into it, all right, So this is all. This was all sparked. I believe we have uh, the church in Washington. Let's throw that up and let's post this. Uh, let's save it French too. Well, we need the initial prompting. So this is a church in Washington and they publish their loud Kids policy, which is UH. At Mount Washington Church, we are committed to transparency and accountability in all matters of church life. The following document outlines are comprehensive procedures regarding loud children in worship. Please consider this your official notice of policy clarification. Option effective immediately. If a family is considering visiting Mount Washington Church and they have a loud kid, the following options are available. Option one, the family brings the kid. Option two, the family makes sure that they bring the kid. Option three, the family is to see that the kid is brought to church. And option four the kid is absolutely welcome and respected. 01:15:27 Speaker 3: So this went viral. 01:15:28 Speaker 5: Of course, they say policy enacted, no exceptions. They're saying, bring your kids in. It doesn't matter how much they scream or puke. 01:15:36 Speaker 3: Fact, if your child makes noise, you are not bothering us, you are blessing us. And so there were a variety of responses to that. 01:15:44 Speaker 5: That was embraced by a man I feel like we don't hear as much from lately, but he was a lot during the early Trump days and he does still exist, and that is David French. And David French strongly endorsed that he thought that was a great policy for churches to have. But there was also a competing response tweet from Matt Walsh, a guy a lot of us know, and he said, I don't love it. He says, I'm actually considerably less tolerant of loud kids in public now than I was before I had my own. Your children should not be allowed to disrupt a church service or any other public gathering. If they're being unruly unruly, remove them if they're old enough to know better, take them out and discipline them. And if they're too young to control themselves, then again remove them. I've had to do this many times in many situations. It blows my mind when parents just let them just sit there and let their kids totally disrupt and irritate an entire room full of strangers. 01:16:49 Speaker 3: I don't have any. 01:16:50 Speaker 5: Kids, but how do you guys feel about this? 01:16:53 Speaker 3: Jack and Andrew, Jack's Jack's the Catholic guy go first. 01:16:57 Speaker 4: Well, I'll go yeah, So, I mean we look when when your kids are little, that's a time where you know, like like babies and toddlers, each kid, you know, kind of grows out of at a certain time, they're going to go through that crying stage. And yeah, there are times if the kids just wailing, you go in the back. You just you take them in the back, You hang out there till they till they've calmed down, and then you bring them back. You want them, you want them to experience as much as possible. So one thing that we do at church that we've done since we've had kids is that we sit in the very front row, or at least as close to the front row as possible, so they can see everything that's going on, and we tend to choose churches that. 01:17:39 Speaker 1: Have, you know, have much more going. 01:17:42 Speaker 4: On in terms of what you see, not just staying glass windows, but artwork and you know, more traditional services than sort of like the y m c A with across kind of churches, if you know what I mean. And so we want them to be able to see all of that. But at the same same time, if your kids being loud, if your kids being unruly, then they need to be disciplined, there's no question. 01:18:05 Speaker 1: And I use a variety of. 01:18:09 Speaker 4: Incentives and punishments, right, so you know it's it's the carrot and stick method, but the incentives are, Hey, you know I usually what I'll tell the kids is all right, guys, if you're good in church today, we're going to wah wah. But then if they're not good, I'll sit there and go is that wahwah behavior? 01:18:27 Speaker 3: Is that wah wah behavior? 01:18:28 Speaker 4: And then they'll kind of realize if not, and if they're really bad, guess what, we don't go to wah wah. And if they're worse, they go they go in the back and they get time out. There's no question, So you have to discipline. So I think there's a you know, look, I don't want to ever come down on a parent that's you know, that's got a kid that's not listening. But at the same time, you do have to have like actual, you know, just basic social understanding and social braces when you're out in public, not just in church. 01:18:55 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:18:55 Speaker 8: I sounded off on this and that got like quoted in a few places. Suppress you know, it's just like, listen, I'm a father of three. My kids are crazy. They're really good kids, pretty well behaved when we give them, like when we prep them, but they're loud, like we have energetic kids. I actually think Jack, your kids, from what I've gathered, are better behaved in public than mine. So like, there's zero judgment here coming from me. But the thing is, there is a big difference between you know, fostering a reasonable tolerance for families and that kids are gonna cry and they're gonna be loud sometimes versus just embracing and endorsing absolute chaos and disruption mixed places. We're talking restaurants, movie theaters, churches. Kids should absolutely be on their best behavior. And if I totally agree with Walsh. If they're not, you remove them. And by the way, we have a whole deal with our kids. It's like, if you guys don't shape up, you get a warning, we'll just leave and yeah it's embarrassing for the whole family. 01:19:58 Speaker 3: We'll leave. 01:19:59 Speaker 8: We'll say, sorry, gotta go. Our kids are our monsters right now, and we gotta leave. 01:20:03 Speaker 3: So I think. 01:20:04 Speaker 8: And by the way, once you do that once or twice, the kids figure it out and they stop acting up. And as soon as you give them that warning, they'll they'll usually simmer down. 01:20:12 Speaker 3: And this is the other thing. 01:20:13 Speaker 8: This is I'm all about having like context for kids to participate in church life and in the mix, not just in kids church or childcare whatever. But it's like, you know, they they have to be respectful and then if they don't prove that they can be respectful again, you remove them. So yeah, I think this is just like this feels like a woke liberal church that French would go to. 01:20:37 Speaker 3: I don't know if it is a woke liberal church or not. I don't know. 01:20:39 Speaker 5: I think that I think you would commonly see this in I think it's a way of saying like, oh, we're pro family we're pro like, it's kind of aligns with pro life stuff to be like super pro baby in all contexts. I think it's probably a misguided impulse over That's what I'm saying. I don't think it's a big deal either way. I think one that is interesting is there's probably an aspect of maybe low church versus high. 01:21:04 Speaker 3: Church there or something. 01:21:06 Speaker 5: Yeah, Like there should generally be a degree of solemnity to a lot of religious services. 01:21:12 Speaker 3: Yeah, and if you're just. 01:21:12 Speaker 5: Letting a kid scream to get stop, it does disrupt solemnity. There should be an element of the sacred This is what I think. 01:21:20 Speaker 8: If you don't care about young kids disrupting your church service, you don't have a high regard for what your pastor's preaching or the Word of God or the homily or whatever. 01:21:28 Speaker 3: Yeah, I would so put it another way. 01:21:29 Speaker 5: It's, for example, would you want a kid screaming as a lot as possible during a wedding, during a funeral. 01:21:37 Speaker 3: During your favorite movie. 01:21:38 Speaker 5: And for a lot of parishes you should review, you should view a weekly religious service. I mean certainly, if you're a Catholic at a mass, an Orthodox set a mass, you should see that as similarly sacred actually to a funeral or a wedding. 01:21:53 Speaker 3: I agree, Jack, you were about to chime in, No, of course, I was just gonna say. 01:21:57 Speaker 1: You know, when you talk about in and when you go to Latin mask, it's. 01:22:02 Speaker 4: I mean, you see so many kids there because it's there's so many young couples these days, and you know, kids are all over the place. 01:22:10 Speaker 1: However, when church starts, they stay in the back. 01:22:13 Speaker 4: If they're you know, below a certain age, if they're below the age of being able to control themselves, then. 01:22:17 Speaker 8: They hang out and back with mom and there's you know, it's just totally it's totally magical. It's common sense. Fas says should be more sacred than a movie theater. That's my point. Most of these people that process letter would get more upset if these young kids were loud during their their trip to the movies and a date night, then they would if they interrupted their church service. 01:22:38 Speaker 3: Yeah. Probably, Blake. I don't know, I don't have any kids. I don't have a super strong investment in this. 01:22:44 Speaker 1: Blake is really loud during movies, though. 01:22:47 Speaker 4: I remember, whenever I'm in town and there's a new Tyler Perry out, Blake is always demanding that we go see it, especially the media series. He's never missed a single one opening night, by the way, and he's just you know that's not true. 01:22:59 Speaker 5: Because you know, I make sure to never travel when there's a new media movie coming out. 01:23:04 Speaker 1: That's an interesting I'm in town. 01:23:06 Speaker 3: When I'm in town, I would never let you. 01:23:08 Speaker 5: I would never I wouldn't want to be hosting you when I could be going to a media movie. 01:23:13 Speaker 3: Don't go in there, don't go in thew and open that door. 01:23:17 Speaker 1: Blake, you're excited for Scary Movie six too, right, they're. 01:23:21 Speaker 3: Up to six of them. I can't believe those are still going. I'm completely we have some wait, scary movies. We have something terrifying. 01:23:31 Speaker 1: I think this. 01:23:32 Speaker 8: Here's the poster for Scary Movie six. The Strong Cell is fully kicked strop Cell dot Com ninety day risky money back guarantee, You too could have Blake as good or as hair as good as Blake. 01:23:50 Speaker 3: Oh my goodness. 01:23:51 Speaker 8: Yeah, it's funny if you throw back to that clip of you with Charlie and how like just everything was shaved. 01:24:00 Speaker 3: Like you look like a newborn in that cliff. 01:24:04 Speaker 5: That's why I'm not allowed to scream stream that looks. 01:24:07 Speaker 1: Like the baby was it? You get screaming inserted A. 01:24:15 Speaker 3: I could make this happen. You guys are weird. Well that was fun. 01:24:22 Speaker 1: Baby baby stand up comic. And he's it was it was hilarious. 01:24:27 Speaker 3: He's like, he's like, so, what's the deal with breastfeeding? Huh? 01:24:30 Speaker 1: My food comes from my mom. It's crazy. 01:24:32 Speaker 3: All right, Before before we go here, Jack, we have to I'm just waiting. Are we sure? 01:24:38 Speaker 8: I'm getting it's typing. I'm gonna say something. I just want to make his personal information. 01:24:44 Speaker 3: Hold on, stand stand by. 01:24:47 Speaker 8: Waiting, waiting, never mind, stand by. I'll do the second part of this. Don't forget Daylight savings. It's happening. 01:24:54 Speaker 3: I want to forget. 01:24:55 Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, it's not changing. 01:24:57 Speaker 3: Luckily we get to forget it. We don't have to change. Yeah, but only then it's to change the time to show our shows an hour earlier. 01:25:04 Speaker 8: Which stinks, by the way, super lame and our earlier does does kind of stink for us. 01:25:12 Speaker 4: Sinfold Wait wait, wait, you have you have to explain this for people who don't understand that outside of you, guys, it's affect you guys get affected by daily savings way more than everybody else, because in a way, your time doesn't change, but your relationship to. 01:25:27 Speaker 1: The rest of the country changes because Arizona doesn't have real so. 01:25:30 Speaker 6: We also don't get as much light like at night. It's terrible. 01:25:34 Speaker 8: Hold okay, hold on, go back to the go back to the Blake fro six fifty. So Kaboose just goes. Blake looks like he's about to kneel for the national anthem. It's so true. 01:25:46 Speaker 3: I think you are the same the same as him. By the way, I think my. 01:25:49 Speaker 5: Friend may have literally just done a Colin Kaepernick me mash up. 01:25:53 Speaker 3: There is that? 01:25:53 Speaker 2: What that is? 01:25:54 Speaker 8: That's literally alright? You have the exact all right. Uh, And we have a big family business announcement. Our boy Russ, who works on human events and also on this show. So it's one of Jack's producers has gotten engaged. 01:26:12 Speaker 3: Let's go, let's go. Congratulations to Russ. 01:26:17 Speaker 8: You are joining the club of the well almost joining the club. Danny's next, hopefully maybe, and then Blake. 01:26:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll see. 01:26:26 Speaker 8: Send your emails Freedom at Charliekirk dot com if you are there. It is congratulations to our guy Russ. 01:26:33 Speaker 3: This has been. He's been planning this. He was gonna come into work today and I was like, no, you can't. And you know, anyways, So that's Russ one of Jack's producers. 01:26:42 Speaker 1: Also, he also just became a homeowner, I believe. 01:26:46 Speaker 3: In the last let's go checking off the boxes, dream. 01:26:52 Speaker 4: Total total life upgrade for him. Houses swank by the way, he's got to see some of the pictures. Haven't gone and visit myself. But Rusty, great guy, and uh, you know, I said, just make sure make sure she's not a spy, bro, just make sure she's not a five. 01:27:07 Speaker 1: Because you know, you know, that's what's what always happens around us. What can I say? 01:27:10 Speaker 3: Oh yeah, hopefully she's been properly vetted. So well, there you go. 01:27:14 Speaker 1: That's it. 01:27:14 Speaker 3: What a good note to end on, you know, crying babies. 01:27:19 Speaker 8: Russ is gonna have some soon church wait in church probably, and strong cell is working to great effect. 01:27:25 Speaker 3: All right, Jack, you want to take us out. 01:27:28 Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen, as always, go out there and commit more thought crime. 01:27:36 Speaker 6: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.