The Charlie Kirk Show - ACB's SCOTUS Letdown + Record Deportations

00:00:03.000 My name is Charlie Kirk.

00:00:05.000 I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.

00:00:11.000 My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.

00:00:14.000 If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.

00:00:19.000 But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful.

00:00:24.000 College is a scam, everybody.

00:00:26.000 You've got to stop sending your kids to college.

00:00:27.000 You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.

00:00:31.000 Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter.

00:00:33.000 Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter.

00:00:35.000 Go find out how your church can get involved.

00:00:37.000 Sign up and become an activist.

00:00:39.000 I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.

00:00:41.000 Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same.

00:00:45.000 Here I am.

00:00:46.000 Lord, use me.

00:00:48.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:00:49.000 Here we go.

00:00:56.000 Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.

00:01:06.000 Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at NobleGoldInvestments.com.

00:01:13.000 That is NobleGoldInvestments.com.

00:01:17.000 All right.

00:01:17.000 Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

00:01:19.000 It is Monday, June 29th.

00:01:22.000 Hanging out here in the remote YRefi studios.

00:01:26.000 Blake is in the real YRefi studio.

00:01:29.000 How are we doing, Blake?

00:01:30.000 We're doing splendid.

00:01:31.000 The mic flag is mine once again.

00:01:35.000 Well, I'll be back to reclaim it soon.

00:01:37.000 In the meantime, We have four Supreme Court decisions breaking this morning.

00:01:43.000 That is where we will start our show.

00:01:45.000 Here to help us unpack them all is Bill Shipley.

00:01:48.000 He's a veteran DOJ prosecutor.

00:01:50.000 You can find him on X at Shipwrecked Crew.

00:01:53.000 So please check him out there.

00:01:54.000 I've been following him for a long time.

00:01:57.000 Bill, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

00:01:58.000 Good.

00:01:59.000 I guess it's afternoon for a lot of the audience on the East Coast.

00:02:04.000 Good morning on the West Coast.

00:02:06.000 Exactly.

00:02:07.000 So, Bill, the big one that's getting all the headlines this morning, and we are going to go through all four of them, but But it is this decision about Watson v. Republican National Committee about ballots that are postmarked, apparently, day of the election, but they come in days after.

00:02:24.000 Help us break this down, separate truth from fiction, because people are getting really worked up about it.

00:02:30.000 I would be one of those people.

00:02:32.000 Help us understand what this decision actually means.

00:02:35.000 Yeah, well, it's written by Justice Barrett, joined by the Chief Justice and the three liberal justices of the court.

00:02:40.000 It's written in a relatively narrow fashion.

00:02:43.000 But obviously, it doesn't produce the result that conservatives had hoped for.

00:02:49.000 And all the court really says is that there's a variety of election related statutes, federal statutes.

00:02:58.000 And one thing that happened was Congress amended some of the statutes to cover what it refers to as the period of voting.

00:03:09.000 And by describing something as the period of voting, they opened the door.

00:03:16.000 To an interpretation of election day as something broader than just the 24 hours on the day in question.

00:03:26.000 And the court specifically says that the question before it is narrow whether counting ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later violates federal election day statutes.

00:03:40.000 So it's purely a statutory decision.

00:03:44.000 And it says the plaintiffs do not challenge the general practice of absentee voting.

00:03:49.000 The use of the postal service, so mail in votes, or common carriers to transmit ballots, early voting, or the counting and certification of votes after election day.

00:03:59.000 The court also does not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections.

00:04:06.000 Meaning, yeah, if you can muster the political support to further refine down Election Day and eliminate this period of voting aspect, then there's nothing that prevents Congress from saying Election Day is one day.

00:04:21.000 But as federal law currently stands, there is not a requirement.

00:04:30.000 In these election statutes, that all the voting, all the votes cast be in by a particular deadline in order to be validly counted.

00:04:40.000 So, Bill, to make sure I'm understanding this right, Congress, maybe they could throw it into the Save Act or make a separate bill entirely.

00:04:47.000 They could just pass a law that says all federal elections, you've got to have the ballots count.

00:04:52.000 You can only count stuff that arrives by election day.

00:04:55.000 Maybe even they could require count them on election day.

00:04:58.000 They could pass that, but the court also didn't really rule if that's allowed.

00:05:02.000 So, Whenever they do, we'll probably be back before the Supreme Court again, but on the left?

00:05:08.000 It'll be challenged.

00:05:09.000 I mean, but Congress certainly could pass it.

00:05:11.000 The court's saying, look, we're not issuing an opinion that defines the scope of Congress's authority.

00:05:18.000 We're just recognizing that there are election statutes, and some of those election statutes authorize what is referred to as a period of voting as opposed to simply a single day.

00:05:30.000 So, when did those statutes get updated by Congress?

00:05:33.000 You said that this was an update at some point, or was it even legislation?

00:05:37.000 No, there was, you know, it's buried in the text of the case.

00:05:43.000 I don't have it exactly offhand.

00:05:45.000 There are a variety of statutes that have, over time, been modified to sort of accommodate sort of the modern practices, you know, absentee voting.

00:05:59.000 I think one in particular is the statute involving military ballots cast from overseas and the time within which those are allowed to arrive after election day.

00:06:11.000 So, you know, there's certain classes of voting.

00:06:15.000 It's not a general rule, but just certain classes of voting, Congress has authorized or recognized that the period of voting extends beyond simply election day.

00:06:28.000 Got it.

00:06:28.000 All right.

00:06:29.000 So, this is yet a renewed call for those of us that care about this sort of thing.

00:06:35.000 And this audience, I believe, Bill, that we have to pass the Save America Act.

00:06:39.000 Congress has to act.

00:06:39.000 Okay.

00:06:41.000 And if they refuse, we want names of who's blocking it.

00:06:43.000 So, that's simple as that.

00:06:45.000 For those listening, we got to pass the Save America Act.

00:06:48.000 President Trump has been reiterating the same.

00:06:50.000 I've seen it across from different people in the conservative movement this morning, and I concur.

00:06:56.000 I echo that sentiment.

00:06:57.000 The other one here, Bill, that's getting a lot of news is this Trump v. Slaughter, the independent agency removal, the FDC, et cetera.

00:07:09.000 Please explain this one.

00:07:11.000 Yeah, this is one that's been around for a long, long time.

00:07:14.000 And I'm not talking about the slaughter case, but this controversy.

00:07:16.000 Over a 1937 decision, I think, or 35, in Humphrey's executor.

00:07:23.000 It's often referred to as Humphrey's executor.

00:07:26.000 And in that case, a New Deal era case, the Supreme Court basically said that independent commissioners, and in that case it was the Federal Trade Commission.

00:07:35.000 So independent commissioners are immune from termination by the president, even though they're part of the executive branch, except for cause as defined in the various statutes.

00:07:49.000 And this runs up against the concept, the concept that's gained a lot of traction in the last 50 years.

00:07:55.000 Of what's called the unitary executive, meaning there's one president under the Constitution, and everybody under the Constitution that exercises executive authority is exercising the authority given to the president, to the person, to the individual who's elected.

00:08:11.000 And so the concept of an independent agency and independent commissioners runs up against the authority of the president to have his executive authority exercised only in ways that he approves of.

00:08:28.000 Justice Gorsuch has a concurring opinion that really goes deep into the roots of the problem this created.

00:08:37.000 There's this great clip the team just flagged for me, and it goes back to the first case that we're talking about here about election day as opposed to postmarked ballots that come in five days after election day.

00:08:48.000 This is Justice Alito during, I believe, oral arguments on this case, SOP 36.

00:08:55.000 We have lots of phrases.

00:08:58.000 That involves two words, the last of which, the second of which is day.

00:09:04.000 Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, birthday, and election day.

00:09:13.000 And they're all particular days.

00:09:16.000 So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.

00:09:30.000 Exactly right.

00:09:31.000 A lot of common sense wisdom from Justice Alito there.

00:09:34.000 I want to keep going through these cases here with you, but I also, we cut you off mid sentence on this Trump v. Slaughter case about the FTC.

00:09:46.000 Boil it down.

00:09:47.000 How much authority does the president have when it comes to removing, you know, FTC commissioner, for example, or I guess it would be the Fed board members?

00:10:01.000 Well, the Fed Board is different, so let's set that one aside.

00:10:04.000 But my initial read through the Slaughter case is it pretty much resets the bar back to pre Humphreys executor, pre New Deal, essentially expanding the president's authority to terminate executive agency officials, regardless of what independence Congress might have tried to write into the statutes for these agencies.

00:10:31.000 And that's sort of where this dispute comes from.

00:10:34.000 Is when Congress creates the agencies and gives them authority and either participates in or allows the president to appoint them, it's tried to insulate them, the commissioners, and make them independent of the president's judgments.

00:10:49.000 And that's created a big problem over time because once people assume these positions with these protections Congress affords them, you can't dislodge them.

00:10:58.000 You can't get rid of them until their term ends.

00:11:00.000 So a new administration ends up with commissioners on these various boards that Congress has created that are insulated.

00:11:08.000 From the politics of the administration.

00:11:12.000 This basically eliminates all of that.

00:11:15.000 It basically says, Slaughter says Humphrey's executor was wrongly decided.

00:11:21.000 And to the extent Humphreys, it's been chipped away at in several decisions over the last several years, but basically it says to the extent Humphreys executor exists as controlling authority, protecting agencies in any respect, it's reversed, it's done away with.

00:11:40.000 Now, the second decision today is the involving Ford, federal board member Lisa Cook, and President Trump.

00:11:52.000 Fired her from the board because of allegations about an investigation produced allegations of mortgage fraud.

00:12:00.000 Now, in reading this opinion today, basically all this opinion involves is a request by the government to vacate a stay of her removal.

00:12:11.000 In other words, the president fired her, wanted her removed. 0.73

00:12:14.000 She went to the district court in DC, sought an injunction.

00:12:18.000 The injunction was granted, basically saying she gets to remain on the board until the entire Firing process and her legal challenges in the trial court and then in the appellate court until they're all done.

00:12:33.000 She stays in place.

00:12:34.000 If ultimately the firing is upheld, then she gets removed.

00:12:38.000 But between now and then, she remains a Fed board governor.

00:12:43.000 The court today, all it said was, we're not going to disturb that decision.

00:12:47.000 It did not decide the case on the merits, it did not decide whether she should be fired or she shouldn't be fired based on the allegations.

00:12:55.000 In fact, as I read through it briefly, It's a relatively narrow decision that does not, in my view, give her a lot of comfort in the sense that the court basically said, look, she's entitled to a certain level of due process before losing her position.

00:13:17.000 And if you recall, the facts were that an investigation was done, the investigation was announced, she was not charged.

00:13:24.000 There hasn't been a criminal allegation, no criminal indictment filed against her.

00:13:29.000 Just the allegations of potential mortgage fraud.

00:13:33.000 Involving her were made public.

00:13:35.000 And based on that, the president fired her. 0.94

00:13:39.000 The opinion says, well, look, you've got to give her some fundamental, basic due process.

00:13:44.000 You've got to give her notice of the allegations against her and an opportunity to respond.

00:13:49.000 If you do both those things and you still fire her, that might very well stand up.

00:13:55.000 They just didn't do that.

00:13:57.000 So, Bill, I'm trying to distinguish something here.

00:14:01.000 It seems, based on what we just said with this case overruling Humphrey's executor, why.

00:14:07.000 Can't they basically say she gets her due process here, but also we just ruled that the president can fire all of these people so President Trump could go do that?

00:14:16.000 This is one that's kind of difficult to explain, and I can't even tell you because I'm not intimately involved with the history of the Federal Reserve.

00:14:24.000 But the court notes here, as it has done earlier, that the Federal Reserve is a little different than just an independent agency.

00:14:32.000 It's structured to be a quasi public private entity, it's not just a federal government agency.

00:14:41.000 It operates, it not only operates independent of the executive branch, it's funded independent of the executive branch.

00:14:47.000 It doesn't get its money from the federal government.

00:14:50.000 It raises money through fees imposed on banks and other mechanisms, but it's not tax dollars.

00:14:58.000 And it was purposely created sort of in the aftermath of the first and second banks of the United States, which were government agencies.

00:15:07.000 And there was an effort to say, well, you know, banking should not be controlled by the federal government.

00:15:12.000 You know, other than regulations on banks, but the actual banking system should not be controlled by the federal government.

00:15:21.000 It's controlled by the board of governors and the chairman of the board.

00:15:26.000 Its structure historically is just a little different than a typical federal agency.

00:15:31.000 Bill, that it feels like a distinction without a difference to Blake's point.

00:15:35.000 And so I think in a lot of ways it is.

00:15:37.000 There's going to be a lot of, yeah.

00:15:38.000 So it's, it seems like they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth here.

00:15:42.000 The Supreme Court is.

00:15:44.000 I think it probably.

00:15:45.000 Based on what we're just talking about, it is worth diving into the dissents here in some detail to see if they're pointing out the same inconsistencies, because I would assume that they are.

00:15:56.000 I want to, with the time we have remaining, we've got about 90 seconds left, Bill.

00:16:00.000 So tomorrow is going to be the last decision day of this term for SCOTUS.

00:16:05.000 So we should basically all be bracing for the birthright decision, correct?

00:16:10.000 Yeah.

00:16:12.000 And again, I think there's a lot of hand wringing over the birthright citizenship case.

00:16:16.000 And I think everybody's likely to be disappointed, not.

00:16:19.000 Just in the result, but in what the court doesn't say.

00:16:22.000 I don't think the court's going to reach the constitutional issue of what the 14th Amendment means.

00:16:26.000 I think the court's going to look at it and say, look, we're dealing with an executive order.

00:16:30.000 We're not even dealing with something that has the power and force of a federal statute.

00:16:34.000 It's an executive order signed by the president that this is his view of the law.

00:16:37.000 Okay, well, fine.

00:16:38.000 That's one branch's view of the law.

00:16:40.000 Congress has a different view of the law or may.

00:16:44.000 And the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to legislate.

00:16:47.000 And in fact, Congress has legislated.

00:16:49.000 There's a federal statute that essentially tracks the language of the 14th Amendment.

00:16:52.000 So you have a statute.

00:16:54.000 Now, that doesn't answer the question of otherwise subject to the jurisdiction, which, you know, the phrase that comes after that is the one that's so controversial.

00:17:03.000 I don't think the court's going to reach it.

00:17:05.000 I think the court's going to say this is a matter of statutory interpretation.

00:17:10.000 Congress has spoken and Congress can change it.

00:17:14.000 If there's a political will to change it to, you know, eliminate birther tourism and, you know, the children of illegals born in the United States, Congress can do that. 0.83

00:17:25.000 It just never has. 0.77

00:17:27.000 Bill Shipley, former DOJ prosecutor, follow him on an exit.

00:17:31.000 Shipwrecked crew, thank you so much for joining, Bill.

00:17:34.000 Pleasure to be here, guys.

00:17:37.000 Hillsdale College, great books 101, ancient to medieval course, is an absolute game changer.

00:17:45.000 I'm taking it right now, and you got to check it out.

00:17:47.000 So before Charlie ever stepped into a debate stage or behind a microphone, he understood something important.

00:17:52.000 If you want to lead, you have to first learn.

00:17:55.000 Charlie believed that ideas shape character and conviction and courage.

00:17:58.000 And that's why he spent so many years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible.

00:18:02.000 And he did a lot of that through Hillsdale College's free online courses.

00:18:06.000 These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors.

00:18:11.000 They're amazing, the best academics in the country.

00:18:14.000 One of those courses, like I just said, is Great Books 101 Ancient to Medieval, where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization, and they still speak to the deepest questions about our human nature and courage and family and.

00:18:30.000 Government.

00:18:31.000 The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West for thousands of years.

00:18:38.000 And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey.

00:18:43.000 Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey course launches in July.

00:18:49.000 Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge, it's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage.

00:18:57.000 So you can enroll today completely free.

00:19:00.000 Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today.

00:19:03.000 That's Charlie for Hillsdale.com.

00:19:06.000 Charlie for Hillsdale.com.

00:19:08.000 Learn deeply, think clearly, lead boldly, carry it forward.

00:19:12.000 All right, Secretary Mullen, welcome back to the show, my friend.

00:19:18.000 It's good to see you.

00:19:19.000 You have been a longtime friend of the show, but this will be your first time in your new role as DHS Secretary.

00:19:24.000 So, welcome.

00:19:25.000 Thanks, Andrew.

00:19:26.000 Appreciate you having me on.

00:19:27.000 It looks like you're in a laundry room.

00:19:29.000 Yeah, it's a hostage situation.

00:19:33.000 It's like there's a great follow-on.

00:19:35.000 If you need help, I think I understand Morris Code a little bit.

00:19:38.000 Blink twice.

00:19:39.000 Blink twice.

00:19:40.000 All right.

00:19:40.000 Yeah.

00:19:43.000 So we got to get into it here, sir, because I was getting all these angry texts.

00:19:48.000 You went on Jake Tapper, and I think people interpreted what you were saying as you were encouraging these Haitian TPS recipients, where the Supreme Court rightly ruled that temporary means temporary, but you were encouraging them to apply and that they could stay.

00:20:05.000 I read through the transcript, and so I texted you immediately.

00:20:08.000 I was like, are people misinterpreting?

00:20:10.000 What are you trying to say here?

00:20:12.000 So let's give you the opportunity.

00:20:15.000 What. 1.00

00:20:16.000 Are the options for these TPS Haitians that now temporary actually does mean temporary?

00:20:21.000 What are the options for them and what is the goal of this administration?

00:20:25.000 They don't have an option now.

00:20:26.000 The courts rule they have to go back.

00:20:28.000 They don't have to go back to the country they went to.

00:20:30.000 They can choose another country and we'll assist you in that.

00:20:32.000 You can self deport or we're going to pick you up. 0.82

00:20:35.000 What I was saying on Jake Tapper is like people have been here 15, 20 years.

00:20:39.000 They had time to change their status if they wanted to.

00:20:43.000 Because you didn't change your status, there's nothing I can do at this point.

00:20:48.000 The court has spoken full stop.

00:20:50.000 Period.

00:20:51.000 There's no other place to go to change your status now. 0.85

00:20:53.000 You're going to go back to your country you came from and change your status, or, and what I mean by change your status, reapply to be able to come into the country legally, because as of right now, TPS is ended and you're currently in the country illegally.

00:21:08.000 So I'll give you a $2,600 check and an airline ticket to go back to the country you choose that will accept you or go back to your country that you came from. 0.75

00:21:17.000 So if I'm a Haitian in Springfield and I've been there for, let's say, two years or whatever, Right now, I'm an illegal.

00:21:26.000 And is there a legal process that I could pursue?

00:21:31.000 Say, I go to some office somewhere, some immigration lawyer to apply to not get removed?

00:21:37.000 Or is that option off the table for them?

00:21:39.000 If you have current status change pending, say you filed it before the court ruled, you could stay while your court case is being heard or while you're going through the process.

00:21:54.000 And then you have an option to appeal it.

00:21:57.000 That's if you had the paperwork filed prior to the court ruling.

00:22:01.000 Before.

00:22:01.000 Yes.

00:22:02.000 The only, or yeah, before the court ruling.

00:22:07.000 Now, the difference is if you're married to an American citizen and you haven't changed your status, but you've been married for, you know, not for the point of being legal or getting status in the United States, but you married out of love and you pass all the qualifications of it, you can at that point apply for what we call a family visa.

00:22:30.000 But that's, But that's under special circumstances.

00:22:33.000 And that special circumstances is because you merited an American citizen.

00:22:36.000 Outside of that, very few options apply.

00:22:39.000 The end of the day, the temporary status, which is temporary, and you got to emphasize that it was never meant to be permanent, even though the Democrats wanted, I don't know how they can finagle that word temporary when it was in TPS's own language.

00:22:55.000 You have to go back to the country to reapply to come back in the country in a different legal status.

00:23:00.000 All right.

00:23:00.000 So just to be.

00:23:02.000 100% clear because I mean, I saw so many people interpreting this clip just so many different ways.

00:23:08.000 You've got to go home.

00:23:10.000 If you did not pursue some other type of visa, and that's getting litigated and that's getting heard before this ruling, you are officially an illegal immigrant. 0.95

00:23:20.000 You need to get the heck out. 1.00

00:23:22.000 How, yeah, how, what percentage of the Haitian population living in the United States is like, I mean, I don't know if you know this, but like, The base wants them all out, as you can gather. 1.00

00:23:36.000 How many can we just immediately get out? 1.00

00:23:38.000 And what is the process that DHS is now engaged in to identify, locate, and remove?

00:23:43.000 So there are two groups.

00:23:45.000 There's a group that came in after the earthquake years ago, and then there's a group that came in underneath the Biden administration.

00:23:53.000 The Biden administration, there is very little legal status that you can even pursue at this point because that was part of the whole TPS lawsuit to begin with.

00:24:06.000 The ones that came in prior or after the earthquake years ago, there is a challenge that could possibly be made, like I said, if your status had changed by being married.

00:24:21.000 But if you haven't changed your status, there is no percentage that can stay.

00:24:25.000 If you were just here for TPS and you don't meet the special circumstances, you have no path forward. 0.50

00:24:31.000 You're here illegally.

00:24:32.000 Your work permit is now void.

00:24:35.000 You have to go back to change that status.

00:24:37.000 When you have status in the United States, say you come over on a vacation visa or you come over on an H 1A visa and you want to change that status, the way the statute wrote, which is this is Congress that wrote the statute, the way the statute wrote is written, is you will have to go back to the country that you came from to reapply to change the status to re enter into the country. 0.75

00:24:58.000 So there is no other path for you. 0.99

00:25:01.000 We will begin deporting individuals immediately.

00:25:04.000 In fact, to be quite frank, we already started the enforcement this weekend.

00:25:09.000 We have, over the weekend, we set two records.

00:25:12.000 I can't tell you where we did the enforcement at, but we set two records of daily arrest in ICE.

00:25:18.000 And we averaged 3,500 individuals per day on Saturday and Sunday underneath the president's direction and ICE's leadership.

00:25:27.000 Fantastic.

00:25:28.000 Fantastic.

00:25:29.000 So I saw a clip of you saying that we were on pace right now to break the deportation record set in 2025 in about six weeks.

00:25:39.000 Is that correct?

00:25:40.000 Right.

00:25:41.000 We are about 100,000 below what we did last year.

00:25:45.000 Actually, we're below 100,000, but we'll just round up to 100,000.

00:25:48.000 What we did an entire year of 2025, we will surpass that definitely by the end of August at the rate we're going right now.

00:25:57.000 We're going to probably pass that by the middle of August.

00:26:02.000 Keep in mind, every single day we get better at the system and well organized with it.

00:26:08.000 We work directly with the White House.

00:26:11.000 We work directly with our partners and are adjudicating these cases.

00:26:17.000 We have a very good system on our flights to deporting individuals.

00:26:23.000 We have a lot of people now that are starting to take advantage of the self deportation.

00:26:29.000 Total, we are over 1.3 million individuals since President Trump is coming into office.

00:26:34.000 We have either deported or they self deported.

00:26:38.000 And we expect to, if we can continue to increase the numbers we're doing right now, we could possibly double what we did last year.

00:26:46.000 All right.

00:26:47.000 And Secretary, that people kind of fixate a lot on the daily amount.

00:26:51.000 How many per day are we talking about at this new escalated pace?

00:26:55.000 And how high do you think it can go?

00:26:57.000 Is there a goal maybe for next year that can even exceed what we've done this year?

00:27:01.000 Well, it's there's a being successful also has a downside because you it's like the low hanging fruit you get the low hanging fruit accomplished, and then you got to go and really dig in and go find the people that are deeply hiding.

00:27:16.000 So at some point, the self deportation number is going to start decreasing, and we're going to have to start rounding all these individuals up.

00:27:24.000 When we start going after the worst of the worst, what we found out is the worst of the worst, these are individuals that have felony charges that the sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go.

00:27:34.000 Or they have pending charges that once again, sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go.

00:27:41.000 When we go find the individuals, we usually arrest an additional 4.3 individuals that are with that one person with a felony. 0.75

00:27:51.000 And so, since we're doing a heavy focus on the worst of the worst, we're actually increasing our numbers on rounding up all the illegals that are here.

00:27:59.000 And we expect that number to continue to increase, but we're probably going to hit a plateau sometime early next year. 0.78

00:28:05.000 But we don't, we're really, we're, Every time we think we're about to hit a plateau, we continue to find another area that we can increase on finding the individuals.

00:28:15.000 So, we don't have set speculations or estimates on next year's numbers yet because we're redefining our systems that we have right now.

00:28:29.000 And I really do think that my goal is to double what we did last year, and I think we can get there.

00:28:37.000 I know the American people would be very.

00:28:37.000 Amen.

00:28:39.000 Happy about that, Mr. Secretary.

00:28:41.000 I have one quick question about this Haitian matter.

00:28:46.000 So I looked it up.

00:28:47.000 There's about 200,000 of them that came through Joe Biden's CVP1 app.

00:28:52.000 So technically, that was a legal process for them.

00:28:56.000 Are they in a separate bucket, or does the SCOTUS ruling apply to them too, and they got to go?

00:29:02.000 Well, so some of them applied not through TPS, but they applied through asylum seeking.

00:29:07.000 The ones that are applied through asylum, we have to go through the court system on those.

00:29:11.000 We are spinning that.

00:29:12.000 Process up or in a court in a cooperation right now with DOJ to help them hire 1500 additional judges.

00:29:21.000 But if they claimed asylum, we have to get their asylum case heard.

00:29:28.000 The majority, not majority, by far, the majority of the individuals that come to in front of a court after seeking asylum, they don't qualify for it.

00:29:39.000 In fact, a lot of the asylum cases, when we go and send them their new court date, They haven't updated their system, meaning they haven't updated in their system.

00:29:48.000 So we don't have an accurate number on them.

00:29:50.000 We don't have an accurate address on them.

00:29:52.000 And when that happens, they immediately come and at that point, as they've broken parole.

00:29:57.000 And so once you've broken parole, now you don't have a claim anymore and we can arrest you.

00:30:02.000 So we're doing a tremendous amount of those cases.

00:30:04.000 In fact, a lot of those cases are what we arrested this weekend.

00:30:09.000 And so that's a violation, obviously.

00:30:12.000 And so once you have that violation, you don't get a second chance.

00:30:16.000 And we call that cleaning our books.

00:30:17.000 So we're going through the process and cleaning the books up right now.

00:30:21.000 Yeah, Secretary Mullen, I just want to give you some due.

00:30:24.000 You are getting the daily deportation numbers up.

00:30:26.000 You're doing it quietly behind the scenes.

00:30:28.000 I know the Haitian thing is charged, and a lot of people had an emotional response to that.

00:30:33.000 But you are also working within a system that has been established before you, and you got to do it lawfully, and you got to do it the right way, or it could blow up in our face.

00:30:40.000 Thank you for taking the time today, sir.

00:30:42.000 God bless you.

00:30:43.000 Andrew, thank you.

00:30:47.000 Hi, folks.

00:30:48.000 Andrew Colvett here.

00:30:49.000 I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Refi.

00:30:51.000 You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now.

00:30:55.000 We are all in with these guys.

00:30:57.000 If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.

00:31:03.000 Maybe you're behind on your payments.

00:31:05.000 Maybe you're even in default.

00:31:07.000 You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.

00:31:10.000 Y Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.

00:31:14.000 They tailor each loan individually, they can save you thousands of dollars, and you can get your life back.

00:31:21.000 We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.

00:31:27.000 Many of them don't even know how much they owe.

00:31:29.000 Why Refi can help.

00:31:31.000 Just go to YRefi.com.

00:31:33.000 That's the letter Y, then Refi.com.

00:31:36.000 And remember, YRefi doesn't care what your credit score is.

00:31:39.000 Just go to YRefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

00:31:45.000 Blake, we just took in a lot of information.

00:31:48.000 I kind of love that we took in all the info.

00:31:50.000 Here we are at the end of the hour, being able to interpret it.

00:31:54.000 You know, I feel for Secretary Mullen.

00:31:56.000 I put a lot of pressure on him.

00:31:58.000 People don't understand this behind the scenes.

00:32:00.000 I'm one of probably, you know, hundreds of people blowing up saying, We need more deportations.

00:32:05.000 We need more deportations.

00:32:07.000 And he's stuck within a system where he has statutes to follow.

00:32:11.000 He has laws and rules and regulations that he's bound by.

00:32:15.000 Some he can sort of trump and get over.

00:32:19.000 Regardless, his messaging this morning was very firm and it was very encouraging.

00:32:23.000 And I felt like it was a step in the right direction that they got to go.

00:32:26.000 If you did not apply before this for some other, I mean, many of these people had years, decades, Blake, to try and stay in the country via a more.

00:32:35.000 Long lasting route, and they did not, those people are got to go.

00:32:38.000 And all these TPS people that are more newly arrived, they got to go.

00:32:42.000 And I love that he kind of, at least from a messaging standpoint, course corrected there.

00:32:46.000 Your interpretation.

00:32:47.000 I mean, people have fussed a lot about Mullen and a lot of other people in the admin because sometimes they will say rhetoric other than maximal, everyone's going to go deportation.

00:32:58.000 Not everyone is Stephen Miller.

00:32:59.000 And I understand why people worry about that because they've been around the block of having.

00:33:06.000 Politicians who run on a really hardball message and then back off.

00:33:09.000 But that's why it's so important to look at what is actually happening.

00:33:13.000 And all of the last year and a half, what we have consistently seen under both Mullen and under Nome and in other departments run by others is they are consistently rolling back the regulations, rolling back the policies that allowed all of the open border stuff that flourished for decades.

00:33:31.000 And they're getting the deportation number higher and higher and higher.

00:33:34.000 As he said, I love that Mullen, he was frank and said, we may eventually hit a plateau, but we've blown through.

00:33:39.000 Plateaus in the past.

00:33:41.000 They're finding new ways to arrest people.

00:33:44.000 They're finding new ways to deport people.

00:33:46.000 They're causing more people to self deport.

00:33:49.000 And the number does keep going up, regardless of whether their rhetoric is always exactly what we want.

00:33:55.000 I don't care if they go on TV and say maximum deportations or worst of the worst, as long as the number keeps going up.

00:34:02.000 And so far it has been.

00:34:04.000 Yeah, 3,500 deportations a day is a very significant new high.

00:34:09.000 If you could roll that out for the remainder of Trump 2.0, Plus the self deportations.

00:34:15.000 I guess we're offering $2,600 stipends.

00:34:18.000 I would increase that.

00:34:19.000 I don't even care. 0.98

00:34:20.000 Just get them the heck out.

00:34:21.000 That's where I'm at.

00:34:22.000 So I like the direction, the tone.

00:34:25.000 And here's the thing the admin is going to make mistakes.

00:34:30.000 What I look for is are they responsive?

00:34:33.000 They might make messaging mistakes.

00:34:34.000 But as you said, from a pure execution standpoint, it's going in the right direction.

00:34:40.000 So we need to stay on them.

00:34:41.000 I mean, listen, I believe his heart is in the right place.

00:34:44.000 I believe he wants to get those deportation numbers up.

00:34:47.000 So we're going to stay on him.

00:34:48.000 You guys are going to stay on them.

00:34:49.000 And that's the way the system works.

00:34:51.000 And when they're responsive, you got to give them their due and say, good, you're hearing us.

00:34:55.000 That's the way this is supposed to work.

00:34:56.000 So, tomorrow, Blake, we got the biggie.

00:34:56.000 All right.

00:35:00.000 The Supreme Court drops four rulings at once.

00:35:03.000 None of them are insignificant, they're all big deals.

00:35:06.000 So, you got the birthright citizenship, which is the one you and I have been looking at.

00:35:09.000 We're not expecting good things there.

00:35:10.000 But as Bill Shipley said in segment one and two, he expects them to rule narrowly.

00:35:15.000 Okay.

00:35:16.000 So, there could be out clauses that they give us, right?

00:35:19.000 Saying, kicking it back to Congress, which is interesting.

00:35:22.000 So, then you've got the.

00:35:24.000 There's two cases actually, and we've heard about this from ADF, the trans athletes in women's sports.

00:35:30.000 So, dudes in women's sports.

00:35:32.000 So, there's two different cases split into two cases, and they're going to be decided simultaneously. 0.91

00:35:36.000 Then there's a campaign finance limits as the fourth.

00:35:39.000 So, tomorrow is the day.

00:35:41.000 Set your calendar, set your alarm.

00:35:43.000 We're going to be covering extensively tomorrow.

00:35:45.000 Blake, you are not a lawyer, but you do play one on TV.

00:35:48.000 You're the best non lawyer at this stuff that I've seen.

00:35:51.000 What are you expecting tomorrow?

00:35:53.000 I am frankly not optimistic on the birthright citizenship. 0.70

00:35:57.000 Case for all the reasons we don't want to litigate it. 0.78

00:35:59.000 What I do want to push back on is there's a lot of doomerism.

00:36:02.000 We even saw doomerism today with the decision on day of voting, where I've seen people say our elections are done now.

00:36:10.000 It's a bad one.

00:36:11.000 It's not a good ruling.

00:36:13.000 All they did is they preserved the rules under which we won the 2024 election, under which we won the 2016 election.

00:36:20.000 It's not a great rule, but we have this path.

00:36:23.000 Congress could change the law, and I know that's a source of endless frustration, but I don't like doomerism on this sort of thing.

00:36:29.000 And I feel the same way with Birthright.

00:36:31.000 I don't think we're going to get a good ruling, but even any ruling at all is actually better than what we had before, which was just this universal presumption that they have birthright citizenship, that it was actually already decided when in fact it never was.

00:36:47.000 Now we'll have a ruling, and that ruling can be a litmus test for every judge that Trump appoints for the next two years, for every judge that a President Vance or a President Ruby or anyone else, any Republican in the future appoints.

00:36:59.000 It would just become a target for us to go after, and that's going to be.

00:37:03.000 A good thing.

00:37:04.000 Yeah, I mean, here's the thing. 1.00

00:37:05.000 I mean, it becomes increasingly more frustrating when you think about these Haitians. 1.00

00:37:10.000 A lot of the Haitians that are under here on TPS, they've had kids since being in the United States. 1.00

00:37:14.000 Those kids are now able to vote in future elections and determine the future of the United States and Western civilization. 1.00

00:37:20.000 I think that's wrong.

00:37:21.000 I think that's completely a bastardization and a poisoning of U.S. sovereignty, U.S. citizenship.

00:37:29.000 I would love for us to get this right.

00:37:31.000 It is increasingly frustrating, but.

00:37:34.000 We also have to remember that the way the founders established this country, it was intended that Congress would act.

00:37:40.000 And so we've got a lot of problems here.

00:37:42.000 And I'm hearing that there is some rumblings on the Save America Act.

00:37:46.000 So all is not lost to your point.

00:37:48.000 But I mean, listen, this is frustrating.

00:37:51.000 The fact that you can get a ballot five days after election, this is the third worlding of the United States.

00:37:57.000 And yeah, perhaps it wasn't the Supreme Court's job here.

00:38:00.000 And they're saying this is Congress's job to define these statutes more clearly or narrowly, if that's what they want.

00:38:06.000 We have to have a full out push.

00:38:08.000 Uh, for this, and to your point, yeah, we have won elections like this, too big to rig all this.

00:38:14.000 What we saw in Los Angeles, it's incomprehensible to me that what you saw with Spencer Pratt, what you saw with Steve Hilton in California, that there would be any other plausible outcome that would make any type of sense.

00:38:27.000 But whatever, I understand we're not dooming, we never dooming, and a big lesson we're getting is we're headed towards the future, we need a real Congress again, and so we'll be discussing that, yes, into the future.

00:38:40.000 Good conversation is about respect.

00:38:43.000 It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard.

00:38:47.000 Charlie knew that.

00:38:48.000 Turning Point still knows that.

00:38:49.000 And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other.

00:38:59.000 When ideas meet respect, good things happen.

00:39:01.000 On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name, or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers, viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond.

00:39:12.000 TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding.

00:39:16.000 You can feel it in the comments, in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world.

00:39:21.000 TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion, and discussion helps us build something real.

00:39:29.000 We have Orrin McIntyre, host of the Orrin McIntyre show at Blaze TV.

00:39:35.000 So check him out there.

00:39:36.000 Orrin, welcome back to the show.

00:39:37.000 It's good to have you.

00:39:38.000 Thanks for having me, guys.

00:39:39.000 So, Orrin, I love having you on because you're based on immigration, just like me, and you want maximal enforcement at every possible line there is imaginable, right?

00:39:51.000 And that's how I feel, too.

00:39:52.000 So, we just had Secretary Mullen on to kind of explain some of his jigs.

00:39:56.000 Tapper commentary that got a lot of uproar. 0.78

00:40:00.000 Let's talk about Haitians, though.

00:40:02.000 And to his credit, by the way, he's sounding a much more firm tone.

00:40:06.000 I think he's sort of getting stuck in an ideological cul de sac, thinking about statutes and what the actual process was.

00:40:14.000 He says they got to go home, right?

00:40:16.000 Just explain to our audience, because you're very good at this, the implications, the consequences, why this is so critically important to the future of America and thereby all of Western civilization.

00:40:29.000 Well, it hits us on so many levels.

00:40:31.000 The obvious one is simply elections.

00:40:33.000 With our current setup, and unfortunately, what will probably be the ruling from the Supreme Court right now, anyone who stays in America long enough will have children, and those children will have birthright citizenship.

00:40:44.000 The fact that also the Democrats are pretty good at laundering ballots, and they now also just receive basically a pass to do, you know, count a ballot for a month or two if they need to.

00:40:54.000 This means that election fraud is very easy. 0.86

00:40:56.000 And so the more illegal immigrants you have here, or even those that are here under some form of legal protected status, like Haitians, They will ultimately end up becoming dedicated voters for the Democratic Party, or they will end up producing dedicated voters for the Democratic Party. 0.99

00:41:11.000 And this is a fundamental shift in what democracy is supposed to be. 0.89

00:41:15.000 Democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the positions of the people, the popular sovereignty.

00:41:21.000 But if you swap out all of the people, if you introduce new people constantly who will always vote one way, then you are rigging that game.

00:41:28.000 You are changing the fundamental nature of elections.

00:41:31.000 You are undermining the authority and legitimacy of elections.

00:41:34.000 But of course, it goes much deeper than just elections.

00:41:37.000 It also impacts our cultures, our neighborhoods.

00:41:40.000 People who come into the United States had to, at some point, assimilate through the years, but they tended to be people who were closer to the founding stock.

00:41:48.000 Now, we expanded that over time.

00:41:50.000 We found different populations that were more assimilable, less assimilable, and we worked with them as much as possible.

00:41:56.000 But even when it came to assimilating, say, the Germans, which many people think of as very American today, there were a lot of challenges there.

00:42:03.000 There were very serious challenges.

00:42:05.000 Issues to overcome.

00:42:07.000 And so we have to recognize if it was hard to assimilate, say, Germans, then Haitians and other people from third world countries that are very, very different from our own, they are only going to be more difficult. 1.00

00:42:17.000 They are going to break down the characteristics of neighborhoods, the continuity of tradition and heritage and culture. 1.00

00:42:26.000 And when we bring in so many people from so many places that are so hard to adapt, we fundamentally make it impossible to have a high trust society. 1.00

00:42:34.000 And that's something that every American really relies on, even if they can't say that out loud, even if they can't. 1.00

00:42:39.000 Articulate that expectation.

00:42:41.000 That is how our society is supposed to run.

00:42:44.000 So let me play devil's advocate here, then, Oren.

00:42:46.000 Okay.

00:42:47.000 You know, you and I agree on everything.

00:42:49.000 So instead of agreeing, I'm just going to throw out, you know, some arguments here.

00:42:52.000 But, Oren, labor, we need labor.

00:42:55.000 Okay.

00:42:55.000 Americans, you know, they just don't want to do certain jobs.

00:42:58.000 Maybe we can phase this out. 1.00

00:42:59.000 But obviously, agriculture, hospitality, cooks in the kitchen.

00:43:04.000 What are you suggesting here, Oren?

00:43:06.000 I'm suggesting that we pay Americans a wage that will allow them to raise families and have homes and earn a good living, even if they're not working in the highest end of the information economy. 0.92

00:43:17.000 We have to have a society that allows for people who are not going to have.

00:43:22.000 Some kind of job rearranging information on a screen to still have a good life. 0.99

00:43:27.000 And that means we can't import a bunch of foreign labor to undercut the wages, to drain, or rather to flood the labor pool and make it impossible for average Americans to earn a good wage at that price. 0.93

00:43:38.000 It's also going to increase things like housing prices, reduce the quality of things like education or medical care. 0.71

00:43:44.000 So that cheap labor comes with an extreme cost.

00:43:47.000 Yes, there are some benefits to different corporations and maybe even some consumers that get a cheaper product.

00:43:54.000 But there is a larger society wide cost that is hidden inside those lower wages.

00:43:59.000 And we have to remember that.

00:44:01.000 You know, one of the things that I find interesting too is that there does seem to be, and sorry, I'm not playing devil's advocate here because I just agree too much. 1.00

00:44:09.000 The point is that when you bring in millions and millions and millions of foreigners from foreign cultures, there does seem to be this depressive impact on the native born population less kids, less self confidence, less of an enterprising spirit, less of a pioneering spirit. 1.00

00:44:26.000 I don't know what that is, but there is something that transacts and transpires when you bring in an invading force, millions upon millions, where the native population loses their verve. 1.00

00:44:38.000 And it's hard to put a finger on it, it's hard to quantify it, but it is so evident.

00:44:43.000 It is so visible if you're looking for it.

00:44:47.000 And once you see it, you can't unsee it.

00:44:49.000 And it's hard to.

00:44:50.000 I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say here, Oren, but it is impossible for me not to see it at this point.

00:44:56.000 Yeah, the sociologist Robert Putnam put out a book called Bowling Alone, and it's one of many times he's had to kind of suppress for a little while, then ultimately succumb to the fact that his data keeps showing something that liberals don't like.

00:45:09.000 Putnam himself is no radical right winger, he's very much a center left figure, but he kept discovering that this diversification of cultures creates huge problems in social cohesion.

00:45:20.000 People are less likely to trust each other, people are less likely to spend time outside in public, people are less likely to meet and talk to their neighbor.

00:45:29.000 And they are less likely to have children.

00:45:30.000 They're less likely to see a vision for their future.

00:45:34.000 We, whether we like it or not, have to have a shared identity.

00:45:37.000 I know the left has made the word identity toxic, but it is actually a critical function of human society to create a shared vision and identity that people feel like they can be a part of.

00:45:49.000 If you're going to have children, if you're going to have a future, if you're going to form a family, you need to know that those children are going to continue something that is valuable to you, that they will grow up in a society that was much like the one you grew up in.

00:46:02.000 The desire to reproduce and grow is something that comes from a recognition of who we are as a people.

00:46:08.000 And if all we are as a people is an economic zone, if we're just a bunch of economic opportunities that people can come and take advantage of and leave whenever they feel like, and we don't owe anything to each other, we don't have a shared vision of the future, then even again, if people won't say it out loud, they slowly shrink away from forming families, from having children, from making the sacrifices that allow civilizations to thrive.

00:46:31.000 No one is going to sacrifice for an economic zone.

00:46:34.000 That's what we have to understand.

00:46:35.000 Yeah, Oren, I love what you just said there because it got me thinking of a fact that really stood out to me.

00:46:40.000 They just had a presidential election in Peru, and the right wing candidate barely won.

00:46:45.000 And it seems she barely won because voters from America who are allowed to vote in proving elections voted for the right wing candidate. 0.54

00:46:53.000 And we know that this is a pattern we see in country after country that immigrants to the U.S. will vote for left wing causes here because it seems they don't value the United States as a long term thing. 0.89

00:47:03.000 They just want money. 0.91

00:47:04.000 And then they're voting total blood and soil nationalism for their home countries.

00:47:08.000 And I just think that illustrates so much of what you're talking about there.

00:47:12.000 On Twitter, Kevin Deanna has a catchphrase everyone is a blood and soil nationalist for the people they actually care about.

00:47:12.000 Yeah.

00:47:19.000 And that sounds a little scary to people, but you have to look at the third world and recognize how they interact.

00:47:24.000 You might have been raised in this deracinated society where you were told that any idea of collective identity was terrible, that you need to act as an individual.

00:47:32.000 And maybe that even works when everybody in the country believes that.

00:47:35.000 But when you start importing a bunch of people who still have very tribalist mentalities, still have these very hardcore, what is often considered third world, but is really just often traditionally human organizational patterns, they will not behave that way.

00:47:48.000 When they enter into your society, they don't suddenly become these free individuals. 0.94

00:47:52.000 They maintain those tribal clannish patterns. 1.00

00:47:55.000 And so you cannot maintain a system of some kind of free and open liberal democracy while importing a lot of people who are specifically going to come in and vote in ethnic blocs to improve their lives while taking things from you. 0.99

00:48:09.000 Again, it sounds like something we should be able to lecture people out of. 0.61

00:48:11.000 Don't you know socialism fails?

00:48:13.000 They don't care.

00:48:14.000 They don't care about the ideology.

00:48:15.000 They care that you have the stuff and they want the stuff.

00:48:17.000 And when they get the stuff from you, their life is better.

00:48:20.000 There's really no logic beyond that.

00:48:22.000 Hard for me not to instantly think of Zorhan Mamdani in New York City when you're talking about that, Oren.

00:48:29.000 It's just New York has been such a five alarm fire. 0.73

00:48:33.000 Listen, guys like you and I have been very awake to this, Blake as well, for a long time.

00:48:38.000 But how do you not look at what happened in New York and just think, what the hell is happening?

00:48:42.000 So, Oren, tomorrow we are expecting to get the birthright decision.

00:48:47.000 And we are expecting them to rule against what guys like you think is patently obvious, common sense.

00:48:55.000 Nevertheless, I do expect that to be a narrow ruling in keeping with the character of this court, trying to say, hey, this statute, Congress can redefine it, whatever, but it's probably not going to go our way.

00:49:07.000 That's every indication that I've heard.

00:49:09.000 I find it obscene.

00:49:10.000 What do we do after?

00:49:13.000 The moment after that ruling hits, and we're all disappointed, what do we do?

00:49:17.000 Well, clearly, we have to address things at the minimum with the SAVE Act.

00:49:20.000 And it's been embarrassing that the Republican Congress has not put more emphasis on this.

00:49:26.000 You would think, obviously, that this would be in their favor.

00:49:29.000 We know that election meddling, election integrity, it's key because if you don't stop the Democrats, they are a machine at this.

00:49:37.000 So every Republican, in theory, would have the self interest, even if they don't care about the country at all, just to keep themselves getting elected to put something like the Save Act in place.

00:49:48.000 Ultimately, what we really need is some kind of amendment that addresses American citizenship in a permanent way.

00:49:55.000 The 14th Amendment was never meant to grant a Permanent idea of birthright citizenship.

00:50:00.000 It was a specific amendment written to address a post Civil War disparity when it came to black citizens who had been born in the United States, but it wasn't clear since they were slaves whether they were actually citizens.

00:50:13.000 The 14th Amendment clarifies yes, they are.

00:50:16.000 It was never meant to grant citizenship to every child who is born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal.

00:50:22.000 But that is what it has been interpreted as and what it will probably continue to be interpreted as after.

00:50:28.000 This ruling.

00:50:29.000 If we do not change this, this will destroy our country. 0.99

00:50:32.000 We cannot have secure elections for the very reasons we discussed with Haitian immigration if we do not fix the 14th Amendment. 1.00

00:50:39.000 The 14th Amendment, as it is currently understood, is an absolute sword of Damocles over the existence of our republic. 1.00

00:50:46.000 Man, I couldn't agree more. 0.88

00:50:47.000 It's such a, it is an absolute affront to, and by the way, I think to the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, if you look at their arguments from the Senate floor, they never imagined a world in which illegal immigrants and their children would be granted such wide, broad sweeping benefits of U.S. citizenship. 0.84

00:51:09.000 It's just not anywhere in there.

00:51:10.000 So, it's a complete statutory thing.

00:51:12.000 Blake, I know you have thoughts on this.

00:51:13.000 Sorry, I want to make sure you get a chance to chime in here.

00:51:16.000 I'm looking at my friend of mine who is watching, and he says if we're given any leeway at all by the court, where if they say, for example, that there's just a statutory opening here, throw that into the Save Act.

00:51:26.000 Force, at the minimum, force every Republican to vote and say they actually want to define citizenship as children of people who are actual U.S. citizens, not every birth tourist, not every illegal.

00:51:39.000 Force them to get on the record about that.

00:51:41.000 So, that's a great idea from a friend of mine.

00:51:43.000 Well, it, but.

00:51:44.000 Yeah, and Blake, I totally agree.

00:51:46.000 You were saying before that this becomes a litmus test for every jurist that could come in the future.

00:51:53.000 And by the way, our two oldest are our two best, which is just heartbreaking because replacing Alito and Clarence Thomas, if and when that time comes, is going to just be fraught waters because getting somebody as reliable as either of them will be difficult.

00:52:06.000 But this becomes the litmus test for anybody that you want to elect in Congress.

00:52:10.000 We need to get them on the record saying, Will you redefine the statutes?

00:52:14.000 Will you be very clear? 1.00

00:52:17.000 That the children of illegal immigrants should not be made citizens. 0.89

00:52:20.000 Will you vote this way? 1.00

00:52:22.000 And I agree, Oren.

00:52:23.000 I think this is a great idea.

00:52:25.000 Attach it to the Save America Act.

00:52:27.000 I'm hearing that there are rumblings.

00:52:29.000 There could be a new way emerging.

00:52:31.000 So I don't want to, it's all I'm going to say, but there are people working on this behind the scenes.

00:52:35.000 There could be a new way emerging that could get the Save America Act passed.

00:52:40.000 So attach this new definition of citizenship and for children of illegals to that Save America Act.

00:52:46.000 If that's what the court rules, There's still an outside, I would say, 10 20% chance that the court gets this right on its face.

00:52:53.000 But let's make this the litmus test going forward for anybody that we let get near power.

00:52:59.000 What are you going to say about birthright citizenship, Orrin McIntyre?

00:53:03.000 Oh, no, I agree absolutely 100%.

00:53:05.000 You have to put this at the center of everything you do.

00:53:07.000 If you do not secure elections, the rest of the government is illegitimate.

00:53:11.000 That's all there is to it.

00:53:12.000 We are literally talking about the future of the country.

00:53:15.000 People will tear themselves and the rest of this country apart if they cannot trust our elections.

00:53:20.000 And really, after 2020, There's already too many questions about the legitimacy of our elections. 1.00

00:53:26.000 If people know for sure that illegal immigrants can simply get citizenship or get the ability to vote in the United States simply by having children over time, this is going to eventually destroy everything we believe in the country. 0.99

00:53:41.000 So we should hold Republicans' feet to the fire. 1.00

00:53:43.000 We should make this the central issue for judges.

00:53:46.000 We should make this the only question when it comes to any kind of primaries, any kind of continuation.

00:53:52.000 The only problem is that so many of the Republicans.

00:53:55.000 Have continued to push back against this.

00:53:57.000 I mean, we still have Republicans out there openly pushing for amnesty. 0.93

00:54:02.000 This is ridiculous. 0.98

00:54:03.000 This should be purged from the party. 1.00

00:54:06.000 100%.

00:54:07.000 100%.

00:54:07.000 Luck, as we say, we are making progress one election at a time.

00:54:11.000 It's just, it's unfortunate that it does.

00:54:14.000 You have these fossils from the 90s, from the 2000s.

00:54:17.000 We have a gerontocracy.

00:54:18.000 We have aging lawmakers who aren't good at updating to new realities.

00:54:23.000 And we're gradually getting better.

00:54:25.000 We're getting better litmus tests. 0.88

00:54:27.000 And I just like to flag that because I know it's frustrating, but it's also worth remembering how far we've come that the Amnesty Party was the default 20 years ago. 0.63

00:54:36.000 And we're getting better on this and a bunch of other issues. 0.54

00:54:39.000 We've gotten better on guns, gotten better on life, gotten better on a lot of things. 0.97

00:54:42.000 You see that John Kasich video where he's like, Haitians need to stay in Ohio. 0.99

00:54:47.000 That was the party in 2016. 0.99

00:54:50.000 That man was a governor, a two term governor.

00:54:53.000 Yeah.

00:54:54.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:54:54.000 I mean, Ohio just has a knack for getting crappy Republican governors. 0.99

00:54:58.000 Or, yeah, we have a situation where we absolutely need to make this the next abortion.

00:55:02.000 One of the reasons that the abortion issue, the pro life issue, was so successful is they made it.

00:55:07.000 The key thing every candidate knew they had to stand against abortion.

00:55:11.000 Every judge knew that if they wanted to get confirmed by conservatives, they needed to have an openness to something like overturning Roe v. Wade. 0.55

00:55:18.000 And that's why that program was successful.

00:55:21.000 Immigration has to be exactly the same, just as important. 1.00

00:55:24.000 My new litmus test is going to be immigration moratorium for anybody that gets in. 1.00

00:55:28.000 That's where I'm at. 1.00

00:55:31.000 Hi, folks.

00:55:32.000 Andrew Colvett here.

00:55:33.000 I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Refi.

00:55:36.000 You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now.

00:55:40.000 We are all.

00:55:41.000 All in with these guys.

00:55:42.000 If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.

00:55:48.000 Maybe you're behind on your payments.

00:55:50.000 Maybe you're even in default.

00:55:52.000 You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.

00:55:55.000 Y Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.

00:55:59.000 They tailor each loan individually.

00:56:01.000 They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.

00:56:06.000 We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.

00:56:12.000 Many of them don't even know how much they owe.

00:56:14.000 Why refi can help?

00:56:15.000 Just go to yrefi.com.

00:56:18.000 That's the letter y then refi.com.

00:56:21.000 And remember, why refi doesn't care what your credit score is.

00:56:24.000 Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

00:56:30.000 All righty.

00:56:31.000 Well, we love, I love having Kremu J Lasker.

00:56:35.000 You could follow him on Substack at Kremu or on X at Kremu Rakul.

00:56:40.000 We love having him on for a few reasons.

00:56:43.000 One, he knows the stats on a million different things.

00:56:45.000 And two, Kermu, you're a never ending source of white pills.

00:56:48.000 Every time we talk to you, I feel like you're saying everything's going awesome.

00:56:52.000 There's so much progress going on.

00:56:55.000 And we want to hit a few things.

00:56:56.000 We're going to be talking about RFK and something you're saying he can do about cancer.

00:57:00.000 But first, because there's been a lot of discussion on this in the last day, I wanted to flag something you were talking about.

00:57:06.000 We remember when President Trump took office and the Doge cuts were happening, their biggest source of cuts was USAID.

00:57:14.000 They really dismantled that agency.

00:57:17.000 And this was basically instantly labeled by a lot of people as.

00:57:20.000 Essentially, I think they threw around the term genocide.

00:57:23.000 They said millions of people are going to die because of these programs.

00:57:27.000 And you were posting just the other day that data has come in on this.

00:57:31.000 And basically, this was a total lie, correct?

00:57:34.000 Essentially, yeah.

00:57:35.000 The most extreme claims, especially, are basically blood libel.

00:57:39.000 There's nothing true to them.

00:57:41.000 So, for example, the most famous paper on this, the one that is cited the most often because it is from the most prestigious venue, this Lancet paper, has been used to claim that 14 million people have or will die by like 2030.

00:57:53.000 And It's based on modeling an intentionally kind of ridiculous scenario where practically every country involved in USAID or any sort of aid distribution of the sorts dealt with in the paper cuts off everything.

00:58:06.000 And that didn't happen.

00:58:09.000 In fact, a lot of the programs that they talked about being shut down entirely, they've continued being funded by the US.

00:58:17.000 So the scenario is wrong.

00:58:19.000 And then it's modeled incorrectly as well.

00:58:21.000 And they knew it was modeled incorrectly because they had the model diagnostics.

00:58:24.000 And it turns out that the choices they made.

00:58:26.000 Really, really exaggerated the numbers upwards.

00:58:29.000 So, we end up with a scenario where you essentially have fake numbers for statistical reasons and fake numbers because the scenario you're modeling didn't even come remotely true.

00:58:39.000 Remarkable, remarkable.

00:58:40.000 And it just seems like this is a common statistical trap.

00:58:43.000 We're falling for a left wing scam here where it seems, I even saw it speculated, they kind of knew this was bogus, but they're colluding on this.

00:58:51.000 It's sort of their way of you can have, if the real stats are on your side, great.

00:58:55.000 But if they're not, you just sort of make up stats to bring about the reality that you want.

00:59:00.000 And this just seems like a top example of it.

00:59:03.000 It's also just a fundamentally broken way of doing things.

00:59:06.000 Sorry, go ahead.

00:59:07.000 No, no, no.

00:59:07.000 I just want to be very clear for the audience.

00:59:09.000 So you're saying that Elon Musk is not a genocidal murderer.

00:59:13.000 No, he's not.

00:59:15.000 He didn't kill millions of people.

00:59:17.000 Okay.

00:59:17.000 I just want to make sure everybody's clear because that is the accusation right now.

00:59:21.000 On lefty Twitter and like Blue Sky and all the Reddit chats, they are without any sense of shame claiming that Elon Musk is a genocidal murderer.

00:59:32.000 I just want to make sure that that's.

00:59:34.000 That's where we're at.

00:59:36.000 It's really extreme and it's really unwarranted.

00:59:38.000 And fundamentally, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense because what they're arguing is that if you don't spend certain amounts of money, you are killing people.

00:59:47.000 And you can always spend more money to save more people.

00:59:50.000 If you cut any program, some number of people will die.

00:59:52.000 Do we ever actually do this whole death attribution game with anything else?

00:59:56.000 The answer is no.

00:59:58.000 We really don't.

00:59:59.000 I mean, sometimes we do, you know, in a very political, kind of happenstance way, like, oh, we really want to attack this guy. 0.96

01:00:06.000 We're going to say he killed a lot of people.

01:00:08.000 But it's not really fair.

01:00:10.000 Sometimes you have to, for example, cut your budget.

01:00:12.000 And if you cut your budget, some people will die, regardless of what you're cutting, too.

01:00:18.000 Just because somebody relies on that money somewhere along the chain.

01:00:21.000 Money circulates.

01:00:23.000 If you're cutting anything and reducing economic activity, any downturn in the economy will kill some considerable number of people, but it's a very diffuse effect.

01:00:32.000 And we don't play this genocide-mongering game about all this stuff.

01:00:35.000 And we don't play it about the counterfactual money people aren't giving.

01:00:38.000 Why aren't you donating all of your money to charity?

01:00:40.000 You are killing people. 0.99

01:00:42.000 You're genocidal. 0.91

01:00:44.000 It's fundamentally a very broken way of viewing things.

01:00:46.000 And it's not very helpful.

01:00:48.000 It's politically poisonous.

01:00:49.000 I was having this up because we're also talking about.

01:00:50.000 So, yeah, you can say you cut USAID, you killed millions of people.

01:00:54.000 Okay, well, Mackenzie Scott Bezos, they're highlighting her.

01:00:57.000 She's given away $28 billion, but I'm looking at her top causes racial equity, LGBTQ rights.

01:01:04.000 She's donated to early childhood education.

01:01:06.000 It seems like you could go up to her and say, Mackenzie, because you were donating to those things instead of this charity in Africa, you basically committed genocide.

01:01:15.000 Yeah, she's like, you guys know about effective altruism?

01:01:18.000 Oh, oh man.

01:01:20.000 I don't think our audience has heard too much about it, but yes, this idea.

01:01:24.000 It's basically moral blackmail to say you are killing people unless you donate to the specific thing I believe is most important right now.

01:01:31.000 In some sense, I mean, the basic fundamental idea is just we want to give money where it's most effective.

01:01:35.000 And that's fine.

01:01:36.000 I think that's good. 1.00

01:01:37.000 But Mackenzie Bezos is effectively the opposite of that. 1.00

01:01:41.000 The money she gives does like the least amount of good, she gives it to the most ineffective possible charities you can imagine. 0.93

01:01:48.000 Just things that make no sense and are actually, in a lot of cases where you look at it, they're quite harmful.

01:01:54.000 Like, she donates to a lot of DEI things.

01:01:56.000 And it's like, it's just, what is your reason for doing this?

01:01:59.000 How could you possibly believe this is a good idea?

01:02:02.000 Do you really not have any advisors coming to you and telling you, hey, there's actually this alternative where you can give money effectively?

01:02:08.000 Like, if you want to save a bunch of lives, you could do it.

01:02:11.000 But then she just doesn't.

01:02:13.000 It's bizarre. 0.98

01:02:13.000 She's like the most ineffective altruist ever. 0.98

01:02:15.000 And it's really, really sad.

01:02:17.000 Well, thank goodness in some way, because if she was more effective, I'm sure she'd be like George Soros on steroids and. 0.61

01:02:22.000 We would have infinity crime in our cities.

01:02:25.000 That's a good point, Blake.

01:02:26.000 Yeah, exactly.

01:02:27.000 But we also wanted to talk about, you were very excited to talk about stuff going on with HHS, with RFK Jr.

01:02:37.000 And every time we have you on, you're laying out all these ways that they're making big health leaps and gains in the Trump administration.

01:02:44.000 So why don't you lay that out for us?

01:02:46.000 So, the big thing I want to focus on today, and there are a lot of things going on at HHS all the time, there's all sorts of really cool stuff.

01:02:50.000 They're doing clinical trial reform, they're doing IV reform, they're doing a million really cool things that they just need to be able to get some lawyers and engineers in there to.

01:02:58.000 Finally, finish it up, wrap it up, make it actually happen.

01:03:01.000 I'm really excited about pricing transparency, but the big thing I want to talk about is called Q Star.

01:03:06.000 Q Star is this really awesome way to make it so broadened right to try laws.

01:03:11.000 And right to try laws are these laws that make it so patients, like a potential patient, has the ability to access a drug that might not be through its phase three trials, might not be approved by the FDA yet.

01:03:25.000 They allow people to access therapies early before they're actually on the market so that they can, if they have like a debilitating condition or they have.

01:03:32.000 Or they might die from cancer or something, they can actually get drugs that might save their lives.

01:03:37.000 And these are really cool laws.

01:03:38.000 I think everybody I talk to supports them in some way or another.

01:03:41.000 But some states also have like expanded versions where you can get stem cell therapies.

01:03:46.000 You can get those in Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

01:03:51.000 Some states have extremely broad right to try laws where you can access stuff that's gone through a phase one trial.

01:03:57.000 That's like New Hampshire and Montana.

01:03:59.000 And some states have like a right to personalized treatment.

01:04:02.000 And altogether, if you threw together all the states that have these expanded right to try laws, You'd find the majority of states have their laws that allow people to access this stuff, which is awesome because you want patients to be able to access drugs that might save their lives.

01:04:14.000 But unfortunately, these laws don't really work because the FDA has not made clear if they're going to prosecute drug manufacturers if they provide people with these drugs, which is kind of crazy to think about.

01:04:25.000 What I'm saying here is that if a patient says, I'm dying of cancer, please let me access the cancer drug that might save my life, the FDA has not made it clear if they're going to sue that company if the drug doesn't actually work.

01:04:37.000 So, you might be on your last leg.

01:04:39.000 You might be on like putting it out, putting everything on the line to try some drug, and then the FDA still hasn't made it clear if you're allowed to access it.

01:04:48.000 That's the situation we're in.

01:04:49.000 And so, Q star would be basically I don't know what it's short for, but it basically would be RFK Jr. would come out and say, This is the new policy, and states can run wild.

01:05:00.000 That's right.

01:05:01.000 What he would essentially say is that manufacturers are allowed to put all the liability for the drug, working, not working, having bad side effects, not having bad side effects, anything on the patient.

01:05:10.000 The patient can consent.

01:05:12.000 Can like willingly go.

01:05:14.000 I know it's an experimental therapy and I'm willing to take it anyway.

01:05:18.000 That's what he's saying.

01:05:19.000 The FDA will allow them to do exactly that.

01:05:22.000 Currently, they don't allow them to do that.

01:05:24.000 Well, is there any downside to this?

01:05:26.000 It sounds great on its face.

01:05:27.000 So I want to say I'm broadly supportive.

01:05:29.000 I'm just wondering, you know, these are big corporations.

01:05:33.000 Sometimes their motives are obscure, sometimes they're malign.

01:05:37.000 Is there any downside that could, you know, you just let these companies run wild with this stuff on these treating human beings as, you know, Experiment labs?

01:05:49.000 I mean, ultimately, no.

01:05:49.000 I don't think there is.

01:05:50.000 It's a consent issue.

01:05:51.000 At the end of the day, like, if somebody says, you know, I want to take the drug and the drug company says, I would love to supply the drug, then what's the problem here?

01:05:59.000 It's a consenting market transaction.

01:06:00.000 It's like going to the grocery store.

01:06:01.000 It's like closures, though.

01:06:02.000 Yes.

01:06:03.000 Every state with one of these laws has a lot of information on consent stuff.

01:06:08.000 They make it so if you are going to provide these to a patient, you have to tell them everything.

01:06:13.000 You have to inform them about the risk.

01:06:14.000 They need to be fully aware that what they're doing is like experimental, it might not work.

01:06:20.000 All of this is in there.

01:06:22.000 It's a major part of doing this in the first place is making sure patients know exactly what's on the table for them so they're not exploited, so they're not, you know, fooled into thinking that they found some miracle cure and that it's going to work.

01:06:34.000 It's either like if it's a kid, it's the parents that have to do all the good sense about that.

01:06:38.000 But it's taken very seriously.

01:06:41.000 Alliance Defending Freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it.

01:06:45.000 Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years, and now we must do so again.

01:06:51.000 Censorship is rising.

01:06:52.000 Threatening your free speech in every sphere, from classrooms to counselors' offices, and even online.

01:06:58.000 Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide.

01:07:02.000 Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives.

01:07:06.000 Your best gift by June 30th will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Konepa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith.

01:07:18.000 Rosalie Markozic, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take mail order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby.

01:07:25.000 And Dan and Jennifer Mead, Parents whose 13 year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school, every dollar you give today will be doubled by a $1 million matching grant only while funds last.

01:07:38.000 So go to joinadf.comslash Charlie.

01:07:41.000 That's joinadf for Alliance Defending Freedom.

01:07:44.000 Joinadf.comslash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848.

01:07:49.000 That's Charlie to 83848.

01:07:51.000 Please give your best gift now to defend the next 250 years of freedom.

01:07:55.000 That's joinadf.comslash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848.

01:08:02.000 If you do not follow him on X, you guys need to give him a follow.

01:08:05.000 I'm just telling you right now.

01:08:06.000 Like, I am.

01:08:07.000 Completely agree.

01:08:08.000 So, Blake, I was like, how do I prep for this segment with Craig Moon?

01:08:12.000 Blake goes, just go to his X, man.

01:08:14.000 And I'm like, I'm like having mind explosion after mind explosion.

01:08:17.000 Okay.

01:08:18.000 So, I'm going to do rapid fire with you, Jay.

01:08:20.000 We've only got seven minutes here.

01:08:21.000 So, let's go quick.

01:08:23.000 So, apparently on TikTok, people who are getting migraines swear by eating a large McDonald's fry and a Coca Cola to cure a migraine.

01:08:31.000 Yeah.

01:08:32.000 So some of these people.

01:08:33.000 We're all on low sodium diets.

01:08:35.000 Yeah, a lot of people are really low sodium.

01:08:38.000 You know, it's really funny.

01:08:39.000 People have been lowering their sodium a little too much, a little too aggressively, and they feel kind of bad from it.

01:08:44.000 Some of these people also probably have blood sugar issues, and some of them are probably caffeine addicts.

01:08:48.000 But I'm going to guess a lot of people have too little sodium in their diet.

01:08:52.000 When I went on with Charlie, the one product I endorsed from you guys was LMNT.

01:08:56.000 Really good, like just lots of salt, basically.

01:08:58.000 You'll feel a lot better a lot of the time with it.

01:09:02.000 Fascinating.

01:09:03.000 Who would have ever imagined that anything good came out of McDonald's when it came, at least to the health side?

01:09:08.000 Okay.

01:09:08.000 So true.

01:09:09.000 President Trump loves a fillet of fish.

01:09:11.000 Does President Trump love a fillet of fish?

01:09:14.000 Because you're saying he hits everything.

01:09:16.000 You mentioned maybe your coffee is not okay, but I went and I read it during the break.

01:09:20.000 He has a post on his Substack.

01:09:22.000 Do hot drinks cause cancer?

01:09:24.000 And the answer is probably not.

01:09:26.000 It was bad for you.

01:09:27.000 And then it was a superfood that was really good for you.

01:09:30.000 And the answer is it's probably just a nice thing to drink.

01:09:32.000 Although, I guess we can get addicted to the caffeine and then we need to go to McDonald's to stop our migraines.

01:09:37.000 So true.

01:09:37.000 Topic two.

01:09:39.000 Topic two, Kremu.

01:09:41.000 It looks like parents, both in Western countries and Eastern countries, are giving their kids HGH to make them taller.

01:09:50.000 They're tall maxing as a status symbol.

01:09:53.000 This is a new one for me.

01:09:55.000 What's going on and how common and prevalent is this?

01:09:58.000 So it's not very prevalent in the West yet.

01:10:01.000 It's increasingly prevalent among rich families.

01:10:03.000 They go to a Pediatric endocrinologist, a baby hormone doctor, a kid home run doctor, and they go and get them HGH, and they end up up to about three, possibly sometimes even four inches taller if they take it for long enough and they take high enough doses.

01:10:19.000 And there don't really seem to be any downsides besides any of the general downsides associated with height.

01:10:23.000 So, like, nothing in, like, they don't grow weird.

01:10:27.000 They don't become weaker.

01:10:28.000 They just end up, like, taller.

01:10:30.000 It's pretty neat.

01:10:31.000 And it's really expensive in the West.

01:10:33.000 So, I don't think it'll proliferate too much yet.

01:10:35.000 If we can lower HDH prices a lot, I think it'll go actually become, like, a big thing.

01:10:39.000 But in Korea, it is a big thing.

01:10:41.000 It's becoming increasingly common.

01:10:43.000 Like, very, like, meaningful percentages of the parents are looking into this option.

01:10:47.000 And I think it might end up being, Kind of like the equivalent of sending your kids to Hagwon, the like after school schools they send kids to to do additional studying.

01:10:56.000 And it might be like almost a universal thing in Korea, like a generation.

01:11:00.000 Are there downsides to HGH?

01:11:02.000 I mean, higher rates of cancer for something like this?

01:11:06.000 You can get acromegaly, and to the extent that larger people get more cancer, you should expect that as well.

01:11:11.000 But it's not going to be meaningfully elevated, and I think probably totally worth it in most cases.

01:11:15.000 So, like, would you rather live your life six foot two versus like five foot nine?

01:11:20.000 Or would you, like, even if it came with a little bit of cancer risk when you're 70?

01:11:24.000 I mean, like, the answer is probably you'd go for the six foot two with a slight bit of cancer risk. 0.80

01:11:29.000 I could see it becoming a Red Queen's race in Korea where it's just, and now suddenly everyone is six two and you have to be six five to stand out.

01:11:37.000 And it's just, you know, it's just all over if you're a normal height. 0.95

01:11:41.000 Yeah.

01:11:42.000 All right.

01:11:42.000 Next one.

01:11:43.000 What do you want next?

01:11:44.000 Wait, hold on.

01:11:45.000 I have one follow up on that, Blake.

01:11:47.000 Is that really the height difference that you can achieve from like five ten to six two if you give your kids HDH at the right age?

01:11:54.000 No, no, five nine to six one is like more realistic.

01:11:58.000 Okay, it's the same number of inches.

01:12:00.000 That's wild.

01:12:01.000 Okay.

01:12:01.000 Oh, I thought it was good.

01:12:02.000 Blake, take us to the next one.

01:12:03.000 All righty.

01:12:04.000 Which one?

01:12:05.000 No, you had another one you wanted to hit.

01:12:07.000 Oh, so this is coming out of the UK. 0.79

01:12:10.000 Unmarried couples in Britain may soon gain stronger rights to share assets after a breakup.

01:12:16.000 This feels diabolical to me, Kramer.

01:12:18.000 This is like Western democracies saying we don't want you to actually get married, which seems like a really poor decision to be making for the sake of civilization.

01:12:27.000 Yeah.

01:12:27.000 It seems quite bad.

01:12:28.000 Like, if you were theoretically trying to reduce the rate of coupling in the UK without looking like you were trying to reduce the rate of coupling, what alternative policies would you do?

01:12:37.000 This seems about like what you would do.

01:12:39.000 It's effectively instituting like common law marriages at a more meaningful scale and giving more protections to people in the sense that like you can claim more of your partner's assets.

01:12:48.000 So it disincentivizes people living together, cohabiting, et cetera.

01:12:52.000 And reduced rates of cohabitation lead to reduced rates of marriage.

01:12:55.000 Finland has done something similar to this, apparently.

01:12:57.000 I haven't looked at this actual paper yet, but there's an economist who commented to this effect.

01:13:01.000 Saying that when they did something like this, it did reduce rates of cohabitation or reduce rates of marriage as a result.

01:13:05.000 So it's probably a policy that works exactly as we think it does, and it's going to be quite harmful, unfortunately.

01:13:12.000 All right.

01:13:13.000 I just loved because, like I said, when we have you on, you're always telling us all these other good things that are going on with health.

01:13:18.000 So you mentioned that Q star thing, but what's some other stuff that's been going on in the world of HHS and the world of health that we should be aware of?

01:13:27.000 Good developments. 0.98

01:13:28.000 Well, I mean, a lot of the focus right now is on trying to get ahead of China. 0.92

01:13:31.000 A lot of the reforms you'll be seeing, such as, for example, this really cool Bayesian clinical trial thing they did late last year, what it does is it allows you to run a clinical trial with a non standard configuration of the control and treatment arms and various different ways of treating the groups. 0.61

01:13:50.000 But it allows you basically to accelerate the trial and run it for less money. 0.93

01:13:53.000 And a lot of reforms are basically how can we out deregulate China and get ahead of them, which is really neat. 0.76

01:14:00.000 And QSTAR is actually part of that. 0.96

01:14:03.000 What QSTAR does that's really important for the beating China race in biopharma in drug production is it allows us to demo drugs that have had their phase ones where they've shown that the drug is safe so that they can start gathering data to show that the drug works, which is the phase two thing you have to start showing. 0.95

01:14:20.000 And they can also raise money to fund a phase two trial so that they can actually start funding more drugs without having to immediately go full mass market. 0.80

01:14:32.000 It'll allow more drug companies to survive and get their research done and get the research funded.

01:14:38.000 And basically, everybody wins in this.

01:14:40.000 I mean, like, patients get more access to drugs and we get more research data.

01:14:44.000 And that's what a lot of what the HHS is doing they're trying to figure out ways to make everybody in the ecosystem win so that we can do more innovation, save more lives.

01:14:54.000 Maybe make it so there's no cancer to even worry about when you're 70 and you've grown three edges from HGH.

01:15:01.000 Amen.

01:15:02.000 We have a few seconds left here.

01:15:04.000 I just want to, again, shout out your ex, shout out your substack.

01:15:07.000 Even if you don't agree with everything Cremu says, I don't think Andrew does.

01:15:11.000 He has so many interesting thoughts.

01:15:12.000 You're going to get a never ending supply of stuff you hadn't heard about otherwise.

01:15:18.000 It's very fun stuff to read.

01:15:20.000 And I know Charlie was very excited when he talked to you.

01:15:23.000 We went like three hours or something like that.

01:15:25.000 It was quite remarkable.

01:15:27.000 That was great.

01:15:28.000 Kremu, that was fascinating stuff.

01:15:30.000 It's always a fascinating trip with you and really great stuff.

01:15:35.000 And we all hate cancer.

01:15:36.000 Everybody, tomorrow is the birthright citizenship decision.

01:15:39.000 We're going to be covering that.

01:15:41.000 Be sure to tune in, we're going to be hitting it hard.

01:15:47.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - June 29, 2026

ACB's SCOTUS Letdown + Record Deportations

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript