The Charlie Kirk Show - November 11, 2025


Are We Finally Cracking the J6 Pipe Bomb Case?


Episode Stats


Length

37 minutes

Words per minute

185.44969

Word count

6,942

Sentence count

517

Harmful content

Misogyny

2

sentences flagged

Hate speech

10

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, host Ryan James Gurdesky and host of the numbers game podcast "Numbers Game" joins host Charlie Kirk to discuss the impact of the government shutdown, why it happened, and what it means for the country.

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Charlie Kirk Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
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'll end up purposeful.
00:00:24.000 College is a scam, everybody.
00:00:26.000 You 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.
00:00:43.000 And I encourage you to do the same.
00:00:45.000 Here I am.
00:00:46.000 Lord Museum.
00:00:48.000 Buckle up, everybody.
00:00:49.000 Here we go.
00:00:56.000 The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers.
00:01:09.000 All right, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show.
00:01:11.000 I'm Andrew Colvett, executive producer of this show.
00:01:14.000 Hour two is kicking off now.
00:01:16.000 We have a great guest for this.
00:01:18.000 It's going to help make sense of the insanity of shutdowns and so much more.
00:01:23.000 And that is Ryan James Gurduski.
00:01:25.000 He's the host of a numbers game podcast, and he is also in charge of 1776 Project PAC.
00:01:33.000 Ryan James Gurdesky, welcome to the show.
00:01:34.000 Thank you for having me on, Andrew.
00:01:36.000 Yeah, great to see you.
00:01:37.000 We also have Blake Neff here.
00:01:38.000 I want to open this up to a larger conversation, but let's start with this shutdown fight.
00:01:43.000 I mean, this is okay.
00:01:46.000 So there was a vote last night, and then all hell breaks loose in the Democrat caucus.
00:01:51.000 They're freaking out because they feel like they had all this momentum in New Jersey, Virginia.
00:01:56.000 And I want to get into New Jersey.
00:01:58.000 You have a contrarian take on New Jersey that I want the audience to hear about.
00:02:01.000 But so they think they've got the momentum.
00:02:03.000 So why concede any points?
00:02:05.000 Why give in?
00:02:06.000 Why open the government back up?
00:02:08.000 Which just strikes me as highly, highly cynical on a thousand different levels.
00:02:12.000 What are you making of this?
00:02:14.000 Make sense of it for our audience, please.
00:02:16.000 Well, I think in part they didn't want to do this before the elections, right?
00:02:20.000 I think that they wanted to keep the government shut down before the elections.
00:02:23.000 I think that it helped juice their voter base for sure.
00:02:26.000 Then I think that also when it comes to why did they go along with this shutdown is because people are really suffering.
00:02:33.000 I mean, it is, I mean, the fights were being canceled.
00:02:36.000 People do need, people who are on food stamps do need food stamps.
00:02:41.000 There were actual, and those are their constituents.
00:02:44.000 Those are their voter base.
00:02:45.000 So why wouldn't they do something for their voter base?
00:02:49.000 And I think they got the vote on health care they're going to get.
00:02:52.000 Who knows how it's going to go?
00:02:53.000 It's a promissory vote.
00:02:54.000 But then they have to refund the government again in January.
00:02:57.000 So it's not like it's like a, you know, they lost the fight for a million years.
00:03:01.000 They get the fight again in two months.
00:03:03.000 And I think that they'll get the health care vote and then they'll have the conversation.
00:03:06.000 But ultimately, a large portion of the Senate Democrats are centrists, I guess is what they're insight.
00:03:14.000 They're not part of the far left, which is why you see the far left on social media crying all day today.
00:03:19.000 Yeah, I mean, it strikes me, though, is that there was essentially a calculation by a lot of these far left members of the caucus, even in the media.
00:03:29.000 And you see this, Sonny Hostin is basically saying, hey, we want Schumer out.
00:03:34.000 He's out.
00:03:36.000 We want to replace Schumer.
00:03:37.000 So you're essentially, it feels almost like they're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here because they were winning the messaging war.
00:03:45.000 They had convinced a large percentage of at least their electorate, but maybe some squishy middles, that we were just wanting to starve little kids and take health care away from Americans. 0.65
00:03:54.000 They were sort of winning on that.
00:03:56.000 And now they're freak out over reopening the government because they were never going to have the votes, Ryan.
00:04:02.000 They were never going to get there.
00:04:04.000 The caucus, the Republican caucus was staying firm on these ACA subsidies.
00:04:08.000 So essentially they were doing it for optics.
00:04:09.000 But it's like the point is the most cynical reaction to it.
00:04:15.000 And I think their reaction is giving Trump and the Republicans the upper hand here.
00:04:19.000 Well, go back to when the shutdown starts.
00:04:22.000 What was the number one story going on in the political media?
00:04:25.000 AOC potentially to challenge Schumer.
00:04:28.000 And he needed to seem like he was a fighter.
00:04:30.000 This is what the fight was over.
00:04:32.000 It was over Schumer's political career and Schumer's political future.
00:04:36.000 And I think that was a big part of it.
00:04:38.000 I think Schumer really, and that's why Schumer voted against it.
00:04:41.000 Schumer would never usually vote against a government spending bill.
00:04:43.000 He usually always votes for this.
00:04:45.000 It's to show that Schumer is still tough and Schumer should not be primaried.
00:04:49.000 And they're all going to come after him.
00:04:51.000 Rokan has already come after him.
00:04:53.000 As you said, Sonny Haassen, there's other people on the left saying Schumer has to go.
00:04:56.000 And I think that that's really the tragedy of Schumer's life.
00:04:59.000 He's been his entire life trying to get to this point.
00:05:01.000 And the most I think he ever had is 51 Democratic senators to really do nothing with.
00:05:07.000 Yeah, it is.
00:05:08.000 All right.
00:05:09.000 So let's go back to this 50-year mortgage debate and kind of this Gen Z economic moonshot idea. 0.71
00:05:16.000 We actually talked about it in our one.
00:05:18.000 And I mean, we got inundated by emails across generations about what they thought of it.
00:05:24.000 I'll be honest, I think, Blake, you would agree.
00:05:27.000 It was more positive than we were expecting.
00:05:29.000 People are actually a little bit more positive on this idea, at least in our audience, than what you would see on Twitter X discussion.
00:05:36.000 Blake, I don't know if you— I was definitely expecting more negativity on it.
00:05:40.000 And then I got a lot of people who said they liked the idea.
00:05:42.000 Yeah, they basically are seeing in a very pragmatic way how people could use this, use it to get into the market in the first place, and then refinance or use it to trade up to a home.
00:05:53.000 So people are seeing flexibility.
00:05:56.000 They're seeing opportunity, being pragmatists about it.
00:05:58.000 Our original take this morning was that it reeks of debt slavery.
00:06:02.000 It's not addressing the underlying root causes.
00:06:04.000 It's just sort of like covering over them, papering over them.
00:06:08.000 Ryan James, Girdowski, make sense of that for us.
00:06:10.000 What's your take?
00:06:11.000 Yeah, I kind of agree that it's an entrance to the marketplace.
00:06:16.000 I don't hate it because it's not like you have to do it, right?
00:06:18.000 You're not forced to say that you could still do a 30-year loan.
00:06:21.000 It's not like they're getting rid of the 30-year loan.
00:06:24.000 And I think for a lot of people is that try to get in for lower rates and then readjust over time.
00:06:30.000 But the American public is extremely fickle.
00:06:34.000 We want solutions to take care of itself within six months.
00:06:36.000 I mean, it's almost like we almost have like a sitcom show brain.
00:06:40.000 Like the whole episode has to have a happy ending within 28 minutes.
00:06:43.000 Otherwise, we don't really want to be part of it.
00:06:45.000 So we would like a very short-term answer to this.
00:06:49.000 And the problem is the root cause of our economy, the real stressors of it right now for everyday people, it's been happening for at least the five years, at least since COVID.
00:06:58.000 A lot of these problems have been taking place.
00:06:59.000 If you want to talk about the deficit and talk about other things, it's going on way longer, right?
00:07:02.000 Trading balances, way, way longer.
00:07:05.000 But right now, the insustainability of life for working class people, and especially for Gen Z, has been going on for five years.
00:07:11.000 You can't fix the whole thing in the nine months that Trump has been president, right?
00:07:14.000 And I know at times it doesn't seem like he's been paying attention to it because he's been out there on high-profile things, the wars in the Middle East and trying to solve Ukraine and other stuff.
00:07:23.000 But I think that given what is the problem, right, for the everyday life, it's a question of how do I make it better in the immediate?
00:07:33.000 And that's a good answer.
00:07:34.000 It's a band-aid.
00:07:35.000 It's not the full solution, but I don't hate it.
00:07:38.000 All right.
00:07:39.000 So I'm going to say a provocative statement.
00:07:42.000 And I want both of you to react to it.
00:07:44.000 I'm not saying I agree with this.
00:07:46.000 I'm saying this is a critique that has been leveled against this administration.
00:07:51.000 And I've heard it from both sides, actually.
00:07:54.000 I had a conversation this morning from somebody on the left that alleged this, which doesn't surprise me, but hearing it over the weekend from the right.
00:08:00.000 President Trump's economic populism is fake.
00:08:04.000 Prove me wrong.
00:08:05.000 Do you guys agree or do you disagree?
00:08:08.000 Blake, you can go first because Ryan's thinking right now.
00:08:11.000 I mean, he's definitely done some pretty populist things.
00:08:11.000 I can see him.
00:08:16.000 I mean, the tariffs are a populist measure, clearly.
00:08:18.000 Like, he's done them for a populist objective to bring manufacturing back to America.
00:08:24.000 And, I mean, even the 50-year mortgage.
00:08:26.000 This is intended as a populist thing, and it might be more popular.
00:08:29.000 He's talking about the $2,000 tariff.
00:08:32.000 The $2,000 tariff.
00:08:33.000 That I don't like.
00:08:34.000 That is.
00:08:35.000 That's not your cup of tea.
00:08:36.000 It's not my cup of tea.
00:08:38.000 You'd rather pay down debts.
00:08:39.000 I'd rather not take it.
00:08:40.000 And it feels like I almost suspect some of it is he's trying to, you know, maybe politically pressure the Supreme Court because he can be like, well, I'd have to take $2,000 back from everyone if the tariffs get repealed.
00:08:52.000 And it's also just, we saw during COVID, we had a lot of stimulus payments during COVID, and it just drove an inflationary spike.
00:08:59.000 Get me those stimmies.
00:09:00.000 Give me those stimmies.
00:09:00.000 Yeah, the stimmies.
00:09:01.000 It's like, you know, it's sort of like, oh, give me one more hit of okay or something.
00:09:06.000 It's in the end, we are addicted to cheap money.
00:09:09.000 And the trip for that is not more cheap money.
00:09:12.000 But coming down from that, this is what the hard point of a lot of populism is: it is painful to make good economic decisions.
00:09:20.000 Long term, it is very healthy.
00:09:22.000 But especially because of how addicted America's gotten to our current pattern, it will be hard to break that pattern, and possibly even politically impossible.
00:09:30.000 And that's really tough.
00:09:32.000 Ryan James, good ass.
00:09:34.000 I think that it has been a mixed bag, right?
00:09:36.000 American right, the American right is obsessed with free market capitalism, and so he's sticking to things like the tax cuts on the wealthy.
00:09:43.000 That I don't think, I think if he would have gotten rid of those, that it would have been much more populist.
00:09:48.000 But I think that at the same exact time, he has done, he has, he's in arguably done populist things.
00:09:54.000 I think that's, I think it's a mixed bag.
00:09:55.000 It's hard to sit there and say he's only done one and only done the other.
00:09:58.000 He has to work within a Congress.
00:09:59.000 He has to work within the Senate.
00:10:00.000 I know that I went to Capitol Hill right before the tax cut votes were coming up and I said, here's a poll that I've done with some very smart people.
00:10:08.000 Least popular thing were tax cuts for millionaires.
00:10:11.000 Most popular thing, no tax on Social Security, no tax on tips.
00:10:14.000 They really did not like that answer.
00:10:16.000 So I think that given- I can say that again, Ryan.
00:10:19.000 What was the problem?
00:10:21.000 The most popular thing was no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security.
00:10:24.000 Overwhelmingly by voters.
00:10:25.000 Least popular tax cuts for millionaires.
00:10:28.000 I brought that to the Republicans in Congress in the committee, and they were not really feeling that information.
00:10:35.000 Are you ready to drop up to 20 pounds or more by the new year?
00:10:39.000 At PhD Weight Loss, they've cracked the code with their metabolic reset system, a science-backed method that gets your body to burn fat first.
00:10:48.000 The program is simple.
00:10:49.000 They tell you when to eat, what to eat, and customize the program to your body's needs and your schedule.
00:10:55.000 But that's not the best part.
00:10:56.000 PhD is the only program that guarantees your success and your results.
00:11:01.000 No starving, no endless workouts, no risky drugs, just a smarter system that resets your metabolism, shrinks dangerous belly fat, and keeps the weight off permanently.
00:11:11.000 PhD can help you too, and they won't let you fail.
00:11:14.000 Give them a call and schedule your weight loss consultation and see if the program is right for you.
00:11:19.000 Call 864-644-1900.
00:11:22.000 That is 864-644-1900.
00:11:24.000 When you call right now, they'll waive your consultation fee.
00:11:27.000 You'll get two extra weeks free, and they'll cover the cost of your food during the program.
00:11:32.000 And just for booking, you'll receive Dr. Ashley's book, Five Steps to Reset the Scale.
00:11:37.000 Hurry.
00:11:37.000 The offer is only good in October.
00:11:39.000 So call now.
00:11:40.000 Mention the code New Year.
00:11:42.000 Call 864-644-1900.
00:11:45.000 That's 864-644-1900.
00:11:48.000 Or visit their website at myphdweightloss.com.
00:11:52.000 That's 864-644-1900.
00:11:56.000 And mention code NEWYER or visit their website at myphdweightloss.com.
00:12:03.000 Ryan, real quick, give us your coordinates here.
00:12:05.000 Where can people follow you?
00:12:06.000 Find the work that you're doing.
00:12:08.000 Yeah, you can find my Twitter at Ryan Gurdowski.
00:12:11.000 I have a website, RyanGerduski.com, where you can get my great newsletter.
00:12:13.000 I have a podcast on the iHeartRadio app, an ever-week podcast called The Numbers Game.
00:12:17.000 And I have a PAC for education called the 1776 Project Pack.
00:12:21.000 And we have a foundation called the 1776 Project Foundation.
00:12:24.000 What are you doing at the PAC there?
00:12:26.000 Just so people.
00:12:27.000 We invest in school board elections.
00:12:28.000 So we did about 80 school board elections last week.
00:12:31.000 We didn't do a great night, but we still won 27 of them.
00:12:33.000 And then the foundation gets involved with those school boards to sit there and say, how do we improve reading levels?
00:12:37.000 How do we get involved with discipline?
00:12:38.000 How do we get rid of some critical race theory in your classrooms?
00:12:41.000 How do we celebrate America's?
00:12:43.000 Yeah, stuff like that.
00:12:43.000 So super important.
00:12:44.000 And it involves a lot.
00:12:45.000 I was reading just over the weekend about someone in a really conservative part of the country, but they just said the school board is like all kind of just libs because people don't pay attention to it.
00:12:55.000 And it was like one guy blocking all the insane race communism and he lost re-election. 0.82
00:13:00.000 Oh, geez.
00:13:01.000 So that school board is now screwed again.
00:13:03.000 So actually, this is all by an endorsement.
00:13:06.000 Yeah, exactly.
00:13:07.000 So check out Ryan's stuff.
00:13:08.000 He's doing great work.
00:13:09.000 And I read your National Populist sub-stack all the time, your newsletter.
00:13:14.000 I appreciate it.
00:13:14.000 Yeah, absolutely.
00:13:15.000 And by the way, which is why we actually had you on here, is you had a contrarian take on New Jersey.
00:13:22.000 It all ties in because Dems were playing the shutdown to juice up their base voters, especially, and it was smart because this is an off-year election.
00:13:30.000 Our turnout, we have low-prop voters, they have high-prop voters.
00:13:33.000 So you juice it.
00:13:34.000 This is why we saw some of these margins increase over 2021 years.
00:13:39.000 You say there's a glass half-full interpretation of what we saw in New Jersey specifically.
00:13:44.000 I'm sure you could extrapolate that out, but what is your take?
00:13:47.000 Yeah, so unlike Virginia, where Winston Sears really didn't run a very good race, Chittorelli did run a very good race.
00:13:53.000 He got 200,000 more votes, sorry, 122,000 more votes than he did last time.
00:13:58.000 That being said, he would have won any election in New Jersey's history since 1973, except for the one last week, because turnout increased by more than 50%.
00:14:07.000 But when you look at the very bare bones metrics of where New Jersey is going, it's undeniably going in favor of Republicans.
00:14:15.000 And I'll point this out.
00:14:16.000 In the first year of the Trump administration in 2017, Democrats out-registered new voters in New Jersey, 12,500 to Republicans.
00:14:26.000 Sorry, Republicans registered about 12,500.
00:14:28.000 Democrats raised about 45,000.
00:14:30.000 There was an immense blowback from Trump's, when Trump first got in, tens of thousands of new Democrats coming out of the woodwork, hundreds of thousands of new Democrats over the course of the four years.
00:14:42.000 In the first year of this year, that all begins to reverse when Biden became president, by the way.
00:14:46.000 In the first year of this year, Democrats lost 8,600 voters in the first 10 months of this year, while Republicans gained 21,000 new voters, right?
00:14:57.000 An unparalleled trajectory, completely different than when Trump first became president.
00:15:03.000 That shows that where the direction, where the trajectory of Jersey is going is undeniable, even though we had an election loss, even though independents swung against us this one time, people would much rather be a Republican than a Democrat.
00:15:15.000 And there's a point of clarity in New Jersey that the Democratic Party really isn't working there.
00:15:19.000 Now, we've heard a lot about like the Latino vote, right?
00:15:22.000 The Latino vote swung heavily.
00:15:24.000 When you look at how the Latino vote compared, voted in 2025 versus 2021 and 2017, they're still way more to the right than they were in 2017, right?
00:15:33.000 They haven't lost all this huge support that we're going for Republicans.
00:15:36.000 In some places, it's a double-digit increase.
00:15:39.000 When you look at Republican versus Democrat increase in the raw vote, Republicans in many cities, they like Passaic, there was more raw vote increase towards Republicans over the last eight years than there were towards Democrats.
00:15:50.000 And actually, when the liberals are like, oh, it's all immigration, when you look at what voters are talking about, it was cost of living because you know what group swung even harder against Republicans than Latinos in this last election from compared to 2021?
00:16:07.000 It was non-college-educated whites. 0.53
00:16:10.000 Non-college-educated whites actually had a bigger swing because it's about affordability and they are feeling it in the pocketbook.
00:16:17.000 So it wasn't an immigration thing.
00:16:18.000 It's not a Trump thing.
00:16:19.000 It's just, it's a mixture of high propensity turnout from Democrats and anger over the economy.
00:16:25.000 So would you say that, and by the way, I'm glad you brought up Latinos because one of the things Blake and I have talked a lot about is these new maps out of Texas.
00:16:32.000 A lot of that is contingent on Hispanics staying in the Republican column.
00:16:36.000 You could overengineer those maps and find yourself in a worse position theoretically.
00:16:40.000 So I hope so.
00:16:42.000 Yeah, hope.
00:16:44.000 Are you seeing that trend continue?
00:16:46.000 Is it accelerating?
00:16:47.000 What's happened with Latinos? 1.00
00:16:48.000 And I know I'm talking about Texas and New Jersey.
00:16:50.000 It's probably two different things, but we got 30 seconds.
00:16:52.000 Yeah, well, there was a poll by UNATOS, which is not a great polling firm.
00:16:56.000 They're pretty liberal.
00:16:57.000 However, they polled Latinos and they said, what are your five biggest issues?
00:17:00.000 Four were related to the economy, cost of living, healthcare, housing.
00:17:03.000 And the fifth one was gun violence.
00:17:05.000 Immigration does not make the top five.
00:17:07.000 And when you look at where they project Hispanics to go versus where they went, it's about maybe a five-point swing in the direction of Democrats, but it's not overwhelming and it's not pre-2020 to swing towards Republicans 2020.
00:17:19.000 Do you think that holds for Texas too, real quick?
00:17:22.000 Yes, I don't.
00:17:22.000 Okay.
00:17:23.000 Good.
00:17:23.000 All right.
00:17:23.000 Sahanos are more to the right than the Latinos are.
00:17:25.000 Ryan James Gerdowski, great work, my friend.
00:17:27.000 Thank you for making the time today.
00:17:29.000 I know you had to move some stuff around.
00:17:31.000 Thank you so much.
00:17:34.000 President Trump walked into a catch-22 when taking office.
00:17:37.000 Do nothing in America would be staring at a ticking debt bomb, the kind of crisis that could cripple our future.
00:17:42.000 Instead, he's taken action with strong policies to slow the train and buy us some time.
00:17:47.000 But the effects of past administration spending are still working through the system and experts predict dramatic price increases and market uncertainty.
00:17:55.000 Trump is doing all he can, but no matter who's in office, protecting your retirement savings is ultimately up to you.
00:18:01.000 And that's why many Americans are turning to real assets like gold and silver.
00:18:05.000 Preserved gold is our go-to choice here at the Charlie Kirk Show.
00:18:08.000 We use them because they make it easy to own physical gold and silver even inside your retirement accounts like an IRA or 401k.
00:18:16.000 Now, here from Charlie in his own words.
00:18:18.000 Preserve gold is my go-to choice for all my precious metal needs.
00:18:21.000 They are the real deal.
00:18:22.000 And I recommend them to my friends, family, and viewers.
00:18:25.000 Get their free wealth protection guide now by texting Charlie to 50-505.
00:18:30.000 President Trump is fighting for America's future.
00:18:32.000 Now it's your turn to help protect yours.
00:18:37.000 Julie Kelly is with us, the great Julie Kelly.
00:18:41.000 Welcome back to the show, Julie.
00:18:42.000 I think this is the first time we've had you since all of everything went down.
00:18:46.000 So welcome back.
00:18:47.000 It's been too long.
00:18:48.000 It has been, Andrew.
00:18:50.000 Thank you so much for having me on.
00:18:52.000 And I know we're going to talk about some issues that were near and dear to Charlie's heart and that he and I discussed several times over the last few years.
00:19:01.000 So thanks so much for having me on.
00:19:03.000 Yeah, absolutely.
00:19:04.000 And, you know, we talked about this over the weekend and it's true. 0.99
00:19:06.000 I mean, I think about all the times we had Darren Beatty on and you on talking about who did this?
00:19:12.000 Like, you know, it's if you think back on the stakes of the J6 pipe bomber, I mean, if we're to believe what we're told is like Kamal Harris almost got, you know, murdered.
00:19:23.000 And then like nobody in the government seemed to care.
00:19:26.000 So it is a very, very weird.
00:19:29.000 We heard so much about January 6th, and yet so rarely would they mention like, oh, the attempted assassination of the vice president or like this terrorist bombing is at the center of it.
00:19:39.000 So there was some news this weekend.
00:19:41.000 Julie, I'm, I, I, I approach it with, with fear and trembling because there's a lot of moving pieces here and a lot of allegations being thrown around.
00:19:50.000 So, please set the stage.
00:19:52.000 Tell our audience what happened this weekend, and then we'll get into whether we should believe it or not.
00:19:59.000 So, first of all, as you guys know, and Charlie knows that I have been covering the pipe bomb, January 6th pipe bomb issue really since the summer of 2021.
00:20:10.000 And no one did more work on this really than Darren Beatty at Revolver News.
00:20:13.000 He's now in the administration.
00:20:15.000 I really miss him at times like this because he always pegged and he exposed so many strange circumstances with both the DNC, that is where the pipe bomb was found outside of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at about 1:05 on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.
00:20:37.000 You could see police officer vehicles right there, including one belonging to the U.S. Secret Service, because to your point, we also uncovered the fact that strangely, Kamala Harris, who was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time, she was going to be part of the proceedings that day.
00:20:54.000 Also, historic incoming vice president, for inexplicable reasons, went to the DNC headquarters at around 11:25 that morning.
00:21:04.000 She was there when this really dummy device was found outside just to the right of where that black SUV is.
00:21:14.000 And then also, we've covered the equally strange circumstances about the discovery of the device outside of the Republican National Committee headquarters.
00:21:22.000 That was detected at about 12:40 p.m., 20 minutes before that joint session of Congress convened.
00:21:30.000 So, anyway, we've been exposing all of this, Kamala Harris's presence, the law enforcement ties of the woman who discovered the RNC pipe bomb.
00:21:38.000 I found the video that showed bomb-sniffing canine units, not once, but twice, right near the DNC device.
00:21:48.000 So, look, few people want to know the identity of the person or people who set those devices.
00:21:57.000 But what we saw happen over the weekend was a, and there is, um, you could see law enforcement after the alleged device was found.
00:22:06.000 And as you guys know, it was right in between those two benches under that bush.
00:22:10.000 Um, so at any rate, few people want to know the identity more than I do, or Darren Beatty, or the people who've really done so much work on this.
00:22:18.000 But over the weekend, a really bombshell, sorry for the pun, story on the blaze claiming that a gate analysis had determined the identity of an individual who had similar walking patterns as this individual here, seen on surveillance video the night of January 5th, which is when the FBI thinks that both of those devices were planted.
00:22:48.000 So, this has been, yes, I'm not going to say everything, but she was a Capitol Police officer on January 6th.
00:22:56.000 She was using non-lethal munitions against the crowd, firing pepper balls into the crowd, as many Capitol Police officers were doing. 0.98
00:23:04.000 And apparently, looking at that video, Steve Baker, who's one of the reporters on this story, thought that her walking patterns mirrored the one on the individual on January 5th, who still has not been identified.
00:23:21.000 And the so-called gate analysis, apparently, some software determined that the match was around 94% certainty.
00:23:29.000 So I have a lot of skepticism about that story.
00:23:32.000 We can talk about it.
00:23:34.000 But this, as you know, you guys, this took over the internet over the weekend and is still getting a lot of coverage and attention.
00:23:42.000 There's other circumstantial evidence they claim, right?
00:23:47.000 Like she did leave the Capitol Police shortly after. 0.90
00:23:50.000 Like they're offering other, certainly not, it's certainly not proof 100% by itself, but they do have more than just gate analysis, literally just AI analyzing how they walk, I guess.
00:24:03.000 Yeah, well, and it is interesting to note that she did leave the Capitol Police like pretty shortly thereafter.
00:24:09.000 And it's like she left and there's like a lot of quiet, like they claim, you know, it's all very quiet.
00:24:14.000 Yeah, but I'm not like, I'm not in a position, and Julia, I'd love your feedback on this.
00:24:18.000 I'm not in a position where I even want to name the person because, you know, if allegations like this are wrong, it's deeply unfair to the person being named and having their reputation, you know, sullied basically for, you know, we're not sure, right?
00:24:35.000 We're not sure.
00:24:36.000 But it is a giant mystery.
00:24:37.000 And I think there's two sort of stories under going on here at the same time.
00:24:42.000 One is this analysis that Steve Baker did, gate analysis, walking, which is walking analysis, but it's also one of those stories that keeps coming back around because it is so mysterious why it wasn't made the hugest story, you know, during January 6th.
00:25:01.000 It should have been at least a top two or top three story that the vice president was almost, you know, murdered along with the RNC.
00:25:08.000 There was one at the RNC as well.
00:25:10.000 And some of it, it just doesn't make any sense because it's this glaring kind of outlier and we can't make sense of it.
00:25:17.000 But we all know that there was funny business going on on J6, and this would be a linchpin in the unraveling this narrative that I believe has been sold to us that doesn't make any sense.
00:25:27.000 There's just too much wrong with it.
00:25:29.000 So what is how reliable?
00:25:31.000 Yeah, how reliable are we to take this analysis?
00:25:35.000 I think it needs to be met with a very heavy dose of skepticism.
00:25:39.000 And I will explain why.
00:25:40.000 But first, I want to clarify my position.
00:25:43.000 Number one, I do not believe and have never believed that those devices were set the night of January 5th.
00:25:50.000 Because to believe that, you have to believe that neither device was, that both devices went undetected for 17 hours, and which seems particularly unlikely in the case of the DNC device, where not only, again, there were two bomb-sniffing canine units who were right there, you had law enforcement from the Secret Service, Metro Police, Capitol Police, who were right outside of the DNC headquarters numerous times.
00:26:21.000 And again, that device wasn't really obscured.
00:26:23.000 It was right between those two benches.
00:26:25.000 Not to mention pedestrians and other dogs and people just walking back and forth.
00:26:31.000 Very strange that that would have sat there for 17 hours undetected.
00:26:36.000 The RNC device, also very sketchy, the woman with law enforcement ties. 0.71
00:26:41.000 Now, she told the FBI that there was no way that that device, that the device was not planted before noon on January 6th.
00:26:51.000 She said it had to have been planted between noon and 1240 on January 6th because she went to that area at noon and didn't see the device there.
00:27:01.000 Now, she is kind of a sketchy story.
00:27:03.000 I've reported on her.
00:27:04.000 I've got a couple.
00:27:05.000 Right.
00:27:05.000 So that is where the DNC device you could see right there allegedly was sitting there for 17 hours and no one spotted it.
00:27:16.000 There's also some video that indicates that maybe there was a plain clothes police officer who could have set it there around 1253, 1255 on January 6th.
00:27:28.000 So I've never doubted that this was an inside job.
00:27:30.000 This was a hoax.
00:27:31.000 It was a stunt.
00:27:33.000 And that law enforcement was probably tied to that.
00:27:35.000 So I want to say that very clearly.
00:27:39.000 The problem with this report is: number one, this analysis and investigation took place in a matter of two weeks.
00:27:47.000 That means that they identified this Capitol police officer, thought that her walking pattern matched the individual on January 5th.
00:27:56.000 They put some sort of video samples together.
00:28:00.000 In the report, in this article on the Blaze, they said that they did not use the FBI video.
00:28:08.000 They used a different sample that was of better quality and speed it up to a normal speed.
00:28:16.000 So we don't even know what the video clip was.
00:28:18.000 Then they also used a video clip of this individual playing soccer.
00:28:21.000 She was a college soccer star and then played, I think, like professional soccer.
00:28:27.000 So they have, they use that as a gate analysis.
00:28:31.000 But Julie, you're saying in order to believe this report, you would have to believe that the pipe bomb was planted on January 5th.
00:28:39.000 And you're saying that's not even what you think is true because it would have had to sit there for 17 hours.
00:28:44.000 Did they address that in their reporting, Julie, Steve Baker?
00:28:49.000 They have not.
00:28:50.000 Okay.
00:28:50.000 But I do want to make clear, Andrew, this is what the FBI believes as well.
00:28:53.000 They just did another update on that too.
00:28:55.000 They just did an update on that as well.
00:28:58.000 The problem with this article, the public should be able to see the video samples that they use for the gate analysis.
00:29:04.000 And we also should be able to see a copy of the analysis they call forensic evidence.
00:29:11.000 So when you're not including those links or that evidence or material in your article, it definitely should raise questions about the veracity of it.
00:29:22.000 Furthermore, people who are asking questions, and I think these are legit, legit are being attacked.
00:29:27.000 So I'm not really sure what that is about.
00:29:29.000 This could kind of be simply solved by just giving everyone the evidence that they used to determine this was a suspect.
00:29:37.000 Yeah.
00:29:38.000 Please check out Julie's Twitter.
00:29:40.000 It's the super important Twitter follower, X follower and her sub-sect. 0.98
00:29:44.000 Julie, thank you for making the time for us today.
00:29:47.000 I really appreciate it.
00:29:48.000 Thanks, guys.
00:29:49.000 Talk to you soon.
00:29:52.000 If you're a listener to the Charlie Kirk Show, you know that Charlie built an amazing community through conversation.
00:29:58.000 And that was online.
00:29:59.000 That was in person.
00:30:00.000 It was everywhere.
00:30:01.000 We're able to go very viral about what we're able to do on TikTok.
00:30:05.000 Billions and billions of views.
00:30:06.000 But it was one connection at a time.
00:30:08.000 TikTok offers opportunities for respectful exchanges of ideas.
00:30:13.000 And through that, opportunities for community, not to talk over each other, but to talk with each other.
00:30:18.000 On TikTok, you'll find creators who teach and encourage a carpenter passing on his craft, a mom explaining how to make a budget stretch, or a gardener showing us how to bring a backyard back to life.
00:30:29.000 Different stories, but the same drive.
00:30:31.000 The desire to connect and to understand.
00:30:33.000 That's what makes a strong community, a common desire to connect, to find a way forward through respectful dialogue, building trust and feeling heard.
00:30:40.000 Freedom to speak what we know and hear each other out.
00:30:43.000 That's the power of TikTok.
00:30:45.000 It gives everyone a seat at the table, a place to speak, to listen, and to remind each other of what connection really looks like.
00:30:51.000 Conversation build connection and connections build communities.
00:30:57.000 We are still getting blown up by emails here.
00:31:01.000 No pun with the pipe bomb story, but we're still getting a lot of your emails about the 50-year mortgage.
00:31:07.000 Colleen is worried that we're being swayed by the email from emails from you guys that seem a little bit more positive than we anticipated.
00:31:16.000 Don't worry, Colleen.
00:31:17.000 I still don't think it's a great idea.
00:31:19.000 I still think it papers over the issue.
00:31:21.000 I will say that it could be a tool.
00:31:24.000 It could be a useful tool for people to get in the market.
00:31:26.000 You still get to write off your mortgage.
00:31:27.000 I think you could make it even better, candidly.
00:31:30.000 And I want to highlight this Lomez tweet.
00:31:33.000 Yeah, go for it.
00:31:34.000 So Lomez says, and this is image 98 if you want to throw it up.
00:31:37.000 He says, back of the napkin proposal for MAGA home buying policy.
00:31:40.000 Foreign nationals purchase something like 2% of American homes every year, mostly in luxury areas and much of it in cash.
00:31:46.000 This should come with a steep tax.
00:31:49.000 Such a tax is common elsewhere.
00:31:51.000 Canada, et cetera, has a non-resident acquisition tax.
00:31:55.000 Use that tax to offset interest payments for first-time native-born homebuyers.
00:32:00.000 States can add additional property tax rebates for first-time homebuyers born in their state.
00:32:05.000 Married couples buying for their first home should also receive additional interest rate discount.
00:32:10.000 I love all the creativity.
00:32:11.000 Some of these probably have negative side effects that we haven't fully fleshed out.
00:32:15.000 But when you say, oh, you're married, you would probably get marriage fraud at that point.
00:32:21.000 You already have plenty of that.
00:32:22.000 Right, exactly.
00:32:22.000 I mean, Ilhan Omar would be a first example.
00:32:24.000 But no, I mean, you know, incentivizing good behavior, though, and then disincentivizing foreigners, straight up banning institutional money from being able to purchase these homes.
00:32:36.000 Private equity is another area of debate.
00:32:41.000 You just have to think, like, what is our goal here?
00:32:43.000 And it's as Charlie pointed out, the goal is to create an ownership society where people feel they have a stake in it.
00:32:49.000 And that might mean we need to arrange things with mortgages where it's not an endlessly growing investment vehicle.
00:32:57.000 So, Blake, we have just so many emails.
00:32:59.000 We wanted to make more time in the show to get through them.
00:33:02.000 Go ahead.
00:33:02.000 Oh, yeah, yeah.
00:33:04.000 Also, I want to apologize because someone said they went to the same high school as BoysTwo Men, and I am too much of a young person, unlike our older co-hosts.
00:33:14.000 So I thought Boys Two Men was like a 90s movie.
00:33:17.000 It is a band.
00:33:18.000 It is a band I have never listened to.
00:33:20.000 Motown Philly, baby.
00:33:22.000 Motown Philly.
00:33:23.000 Yeah, not this is.
00:33:25.000 This is beyond my ken.
00:33:27.000 I just want to apologize on that before I get dunked on massively by everyone.
00:33:31.000 Here.
00:33:32.000 Oh, do you have one?
00:33:32.000 Because I got one that defends you.
00:33:34.000 Yeah.
00:33:34.000 Well, I got, we have one where M. Roberts says, you guys are insane.
00:33:41.000 Boomer here. 0.61
00:33:42.000 You guys are insane advising young listeners that a 50-year mortgage is any kind of solution, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
00:33:48.000 I don't believe it.
00:33:51.000 I've been quite skeptical of it.
00:33:53.000 We are extremely skeptical.
00:33:54.000 My idea is to build 10 million new homes, deport illegals, lower illegal immigration, which is going to take some doing, lower the regulatory burden to build new homes, and then play with other financial incentives, like writing off your entire mortgage up until the age of 35, prioritizing first-time homebuyers, banning institutional money, banning foreign investors, or as Lomez suggested, maybe put a tax on that because they are buyers. 0.81
00:34:24.000 I mean, people want to sell their homes.
00:34:26.000 They want to make more money.
00:34:27.000 I get the incentive there.
00:34:28.000 By the way, Williams says, guys, Blake was right about not giving the money away like the crazy, stupid money blown by Biden, which spiked inflation and has stayed up because of the budget deficit.
00:34:38.000 The tariff money could be put in a sovereign wealth fund, and when it gets to a trillion, start to draw from it monthly for government expenses instead of borrowing that amount from the Fed.
00:34:48.000 Matt, the sad thing is, is that that's something we could have easily done decades ago.
00:34:54.000 And that's what Norway, for example, Norway has done that.
00:34:57.000 Norway has a sovereign wealth fund from their oil business.
00:35:00.000 And they're a country of five, six million people, and it's in the trillions of dollars.
00:35:04.000 So it's actually a quite large amount of money per Norwegian citizen.
00:35:08.000 And America could have, now we're broke, but America had a long run where we were a very rich country that could have been pumping resources into that.
00:35:16.000 And the sad thing is, I've read about that.
00:35:19.000 Remember when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security in about 2005?
00:35:23.000 And of course, it went nowhere.
00:35:24.000 Everyone was like, oh, don't let Wall Street get its hands on my Social Security.
00:35:28.000 If we'd done that, it would have been insanely, spectacularly successful given what the stock market has done since 2005.
00:35:38.000 Oh, yeah.
00:35:38.000 Would have just massively problem with Social Security we have now.
00:35:42.000 I think it's a main reserve fund that they're trying to build.
00:35:46.000 I don't that feel.
00:35:49.000 I would be very worried of that.
00:35:50.000 I mean, it's like, okay, if you want to have it as a thing, I wouldn't have like as a thing.
00:35:55.000 of this stuff is a silver bullet it would just i would worry that that would basically just be it would feel like a giveaway to people who already have bitcoin to me And it's this hugely volatile asset.
00:36:05.000 It's very volatile.
00:36:06.000 It's volatile.
00:36:07.000 But it's probably going to go to a massive.
00:36:09.000 And it's an asset that gets hacked and stuff.
00:36:12.000 Yeah, I mean, like, I would like to hope that the good people, but maybe that's hoping for too much competency.
00:36:19.000 Can you imagine if our sovereign wealth fund got hacked?
00:36:21.000 You can put them in cold storage and things like that.
00:36:23.000 There's ways you can address that.
00:36:26.000 Can you guys help us say, this is from Steve, the difference in approximate 30 to 50 mortgage payment?
00:36:32.000 It will be lower.
00:36:34.000 The payment would be lower.
00:36:35.000 Yeah, but the overall cost of the loan would be much higher.
00:36:39.000 It would be about looking at its when I, you know, the AI generated summary when I just asked for a plug-in difference.
00:36:45.000 It said if you took a $500,000 loan at a 6.22% interest rate, you would pay 87% more total interest.
00:36:53.000 Instead of $600,000 in interest, it'd be $1.1 million in interest.
00:36:57.000 What would the monthly payment be?
00:36:58.000 Do you think that's a good thing?
00:36:59.000 It doesn't say here.
00:37:01.000 Yeah, it will be much lower.
00:37:03.000 I will tell you, the first home I bought was probably against the rules.
00:37:06.000 Dave Ramsey would have been so mad at me, but I made out like a bandit on it.
00:37:09.000 I did an interest-only loan on a home I otherwise couldn't afford, sold it after two and a half years, and we did well with it because we bought in a really good neighborhood.
00:37:18.000 So some of this stuff is like, you know, there's a general rule of thumb and then there's reality, you know?
00:37:23.000 I'm not saying I was in the majority, but it worked.