The Charlie Kirk Show - December 11, 2023


Ask Charlie Anything 170: Free Speech for Hamas-Lovers? Trump 2.0 Cabinet? Santos Unleashed?

Topics
speech restrictions PhD weight loss Trump 2.0 cabinet
Hosted by
Charlie Kirk
Mentioned
Charlie Kirk Exclusive Trump White House George Santos Tucker Carlson Andrew Kolvet Amy Wax Penn Taylor Swift Blake Nath Amfest Glenn Greenwald Stephen Miller Ashley Lucas Bill Ackman Blake Neff Whitey Turning Point USA Vladimir Zelensky Elise Stefanik Melania Trump and 19 more
We Only Lose if We Despair: My Speech LIVE at FlashPoint Pasadena The Campus Speech Code Threat

Episode Stats


Length

35 minutes

Words per minute

187.59

Word count

6,694

Sentence count

507

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Toxicity

19

sentences flagged

Hate speech

9

sentences flagged


Summary

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

In this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, Andrew Colvet and Blake Neff discuss the Harvard, MIT, and Penn firings, the Axios report on Trump 2.0, and the Taylor Swift/Time magazine debate.

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 .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, and ask me anything with yours truly, Andrew Colvet, producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, and Blake Neth, another producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, and Ivy League Greg, but don't hold that against him.
00:00:12.000 We talk about three things in this discussion.
00:00:15.000 All three are extremely controversial.
00:00:17.000 One, is it right to be kicking out people that say from the river to the sea and into FADA at Harvard, Penn, and MIT?
00:00:26.000 Or is there a better way?
00:00:27.000 Are we going too far with speech restrictions that will then be used to attack conservatives?
00:00:32.000 Very interesting conversation.
00:00:34.000 And then we talk about Trump 2.0, an Axios article that shows who he might pick for his cabinet.
00:00:41.000 It's a really fascinating discussion.
00:00:43.000 Is he going to be more based?
00:00:44.000 Is he going to be more effective in the second term in 2025 if re-elected?
00:00:50.000 What do we have to go off of?
00:00:51.000 Very, very fascinating.
00:00:52.000 And then I had to weigh in.
00:00:53.000 Is Taylor Swift deserving of person of the year from Time magazine or not?
00:00:58.000 If you have not gotten your tickets to Amfest yet, go to Amfest.com, the largest multi-day conference in the movement.
00:00:58.000 Okay.
00:01:05.000 You're not going to want to miss it.
00:01:07.000 Starts on December 16th, just days away.
00:01:09.000 And also consider becoming a member of Charlie Kirk Exclusive, where we put members-only content just for you there.
00:01:17.000 And by the way, if you are a member and you show proof of it and you're going to Amfest, you get to watch Charlie record his interviews with people like Tucker Carlson live and in person.
00:01:26.000 We're only letting members into those settings.
00:01:29.000 So you definitely want to do both.
00:01:30.000 All right, folks, you're not going to want to miss this discussion with me and Blake Neff.
00:01:34.000 Buckle up.
00:01:35.000 Here we go.
00:01:36.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
00:01:38.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
00:01:40.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
00:01:43.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
00:01:47.000 I want to thank Charlie.
00:01:48.000 He's an incredible guy.
00:01:49.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
00:01:57.000 We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
00:02:06.000 That's why we are here.
00:02:09.000 Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
00:02:18.000 Andrew Colvet filling in for the one and only Charlie Kirk.
00:02:22.000 Honored to be behind the microphone.
00:02:24.000 Love having the guest host gig.
00:02:27.000 And to join me, Blake Neff, one of the other producers on the show, joining me actually from In Studio.
00:02:32.000 Welcome to the show, Blake.
00:02:34.000 Hey, Andrew, good to be here.
00:02:35.000 Yeah.
00:02:36.000 So our inbox is full with people.
00:02:38.000 I mean, Charlie had a couple viral tweets about this, about the Harvard, MIT, Penn, congressional testimony.
00:02:46.000 Very explosive, probably, if not the biggest story, top three stories of the week.
00:02:50.000 We've talked about Bill Ackman, but one of the things we haven't really talked about is this question of are we going too far?
00:02:57.000 Are we sort of saying, well, all of a sudden now free speech is outlawed, right?
00:03:02.000 So is that what we are demanding of these university presidents by saying, hey, you have to condemn this speech by saying from the river to the sea or into FADA?
00:03:13.000 You have to condemn that so much to the extent that you have to kick these students out and you have to remove from the student organizations, you know, their official register of organizations, any groups that endorse or repeated these statements.
00:03:27.000 I think you have an interesting perspective on this because you've been, I've been noticing in our conversations, you've been hitting the brakes a little bit saying, is this the right way to go?
00:03:35.000 What's your take, Blake?
00:03:37.000 Yeah, so there's really like two major outcomes we can have here.
00:03:41.000 We can have the outcome of, and you kind of see both paths even in the statements we're getting from like Bill Ackman.
00:03:48.000 You have the outcome of, okay, we've realized that universities have become toxic places and we're seeing, yeah, there's a lot of anti-Semitism on campus and that is a manifestation of a bunch of other antis they also have on campus, you know, anti-white, anti-everything else.
00:04:05.000 And what we should do is we should try to get away from that and we should make it so campuses aren't places that are indulging a lot of like, you know, racial hate or, you know, anti-male hate or whatever else have you.
00:04:19.000 Or we can go the other way and sort of make it so we'll just carve it out where we'll be, okay, you can't say bad, like you can't say bad things about Israel.
00:04:28.000 You can't say bad things about Jewish people.
00:04:30.000 And we'll kind of just slot this aside as its own thing.
00:04:34.000 And then we'll just go back to the way things were before.
00:04:36.000 And what we want is we want this to give us momentum for things to get better across the board.
00:04:40.000 And I think one of the ways that universities are terrible is they'll claim that they support free speech, but they really don't.
00:04:46.000 You have absolute freedom to say whatever you want as long as it's bashing white people or something. 0.75
00:04:52.000 But you can't say something that essentially offends liberal sensibilities, whether it's on racial stuff or LGBT stuff, any of that.
00:04:59.000 And the good outcome of this would be we use this to get momentum for total free speech, like the kind that would be advocated by fire.
00:05:10.000 And the bad outcome is, yeah, we just use this and we increase speech restrictions.
00:05:14.000 And I'm a little worried that's what we might get.
00:05:16.000 Like the other day, we had the presidents of Harvard and Penn and I think MIT were on Capitol Hill testifying about this.
00:05:24.000 And one of the things that happened was Elise Stefanik was browbeating, I think, the Harvard president, about whether they would revoke admissions offers from students based on what they said.
00:05:34.000 And I think my position and the position of a lot of people would be we shouldn't revoke admission offers from people based on what they say unless it's really genuinely criminal.
00:05:45.000 And that means literally advocating specific violence.
00:05:47.000 Oh, yeah, yeah.
00:05:48.000 Let's go ahead and play CUP 41.
00:05:50.000 You mentioned it, this hearing on Capitol Hill 41.
00:05:54.000 Well, let me ask you this.
00:05:55.000 Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, from the river to the sea or into FADA, advocating for the murder of Jews?
00:06:08.000 As I've said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me.
00:06:16.000 Today that no action will be taken, what action will be taken when speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against bullying, harassment, or intimidation, we take action. 0.97
00:06:30.000 All right, so this is the crux here is, is the statement from the river to the sea or into FADA inherently calling for the death of Jews, right?
00:06:41.000 And we've sort of debated this.
00:06:43.000 I think it's very clear that it can be meant that way.
00:06:46.000 But in popular sort of jargon of this protest movement on the left, is that what they're calling for?
00:06:52.000 I think we're parsing words a little bit here. 0.98
00:06:53.000 If we were saying, you know, death to all black people, I'm pretty sure the admission would be rescinded from that Harvard person if somebody said that. 0.98
00:07:02.000 Your take, like, on the flip side, you know, we have things like kill the boar, and we'll get New York Times articles that will explain how kill the boar is actually part of this rich protest history. 0.98
00:07:13.000 It's very complex.
00:07:14.000 It's very complex what kill the boar means. 1.00
00:07:16.000 Which means kill the whites. 1.00
00:07:18.000 It means kill the farmer, literally. 1.00
00:07:19.000 But yeah, it means kill white South Africans. 1.00
00:07:21.000 And the lyrics of the song are literally just like, kill the boar, shoot, shoot, shoot, kill the boar, shoot. 1.00
00:07:26.000 And that's all it is. 0.99
00:07:28.000 And you will get, you know, you can get really deranged rhetoric against white people on campus.
00:07:34.000 If you've been on campus in the last decade, you've definitely seen it or you're not paying attention.
00:07:39.000 And, you know, I think my overall position is it is better for campuses to have absolute free speech rules.
00:07:47.000 I kind of go back to, you know, like maybe the Chesterton principle.
00:07:51.000 He had a line where he says like rules are generally better than just sort of informal drift.
00:07:57.000 And if you have an absolute rule of everyone gets free speech, that will sometimes allow bad things, but it'll allow a lot of good things that might otherwise get suppressed.
00:08:06.000 And when you instead have this norm of we'll kind of ad hoc figure it out and sometimes you just don't have free speech, then what will happen is powerful people and powerful groups will use that to deny speech for things that are totally legitimate.
00:08:21.000 And so, you know, things like intifada.
00:08:23.000 Intifada means uprising.
00:08:24.000 It does mean it is calling essentially for a violent uprising against Israel.
00:08:28.000 Do we agree with that?
00:08:29.000 No, neither of us agree with that.
00:08:31.000 Is it inherently genocidal?
00:08:33.000 I don't necessarily think so.
00:08:36.000 And I think you could say that if you were going to ban that, you are giving a lot of ammunition to people who would say, well, any number of conservative things are actually calling for violence.
00:08:47.000 The people who say Trump, when he says, we need to fight, that's calling for violence.
00:08:51.000 We need to put him in prison.
00:08:52.000 I agree with 50% of what you're saying.
00:08:54.000 I agree with the fact that we have to acknowledge that for the foreseeable future, conservatives will have less power institutionally in the university systems that we are now sort of clamping down on, right?
00:09:08.000 So these will be any rules we create right now will be used against us, so help you, God, right?
00:09:14.000 You bring up Amy Wax, who's been on this show, prominent, very controversial at UPenn, that is a conservative, one of the few, and they are trying to remove her tenure, right?
00:09:25.000 For really basic stuff that we say on this show all the time.
00:09:29.000 But I do believe that when you say intifada or from the river to the sea, you are inherently calling for the genocide of Jews. 0.98
00:09:37.000 So I do believe in the destruction of the state of Israel, which is inherently, you got to kill Jews if you're going to destroy Israel, right? 1.00
00:09:43.000 Well, they would deny that. 0.92
00:09:44.000 They would say, of course, to devil's advocate here, what they would say is they're essentially calling for Israel to become like America, not a sectarian state, not a racially premised state.
00:09:56.000 And so they say like, you know, for Palestine to be free, it would mean that Palestinians have the right of return.
00:10:01.000 They have the right to vote.
00:10:02.000 They have all these things that they currently can't do within the greater state of Israel.
00:10:06.000 That is what they would say.
00:10:07.000 Well, I think they want to abolish Israel. 0.98
00:10:09.000 I think they want to call it.
00:10:11.000 A lot of them want to do that.
00:10:12.000 And a lot of them do glory in all this violence.
00:10:15.000 I mean, they really wallowed in all of this disgusting stuff after October. 0.88
00:10:18.000 That's very disgusting.
00:10:19.000 But nevertheless, like, the tradition in the United States is you literally can go out and say Hitler was right. 0.98
00:10:25.000 You can say that, and that is freedom of speech.
00:10:27.000 And, you know, actual violence, actual calls for violence have been narrowly defined as you have to kind of have two out of three of specific person, specific time, specific place.
00:10:38.000 If you have two out of three things, that's kind of enough, and you're calling for violence.
00:10:41.000 That is enough to say that this quality has a real violent threat.
00:10:45.000 Specific person, Jews, specific place, Israel.
00:10:49.000 I think that's getting pretty broad.
00:10:51.000 That's getting pretty broad.
00:10:53.000 It literally has to be much more narrow. 0.99
00:10:55.000 Like, we're going to go to, you know, this specific square, this specific street corner in Tel Aviv and shoot all of the Jews there. 1.00
00:11:03.000 That would qualify in traditional U.S. stuff. 0.95
00:11:06.000 But even saying, you know, like kill Whitey, kill Whitey now, that wouldn't be a violation of speech rules traditionally in the U.S.
00:11:15.000 And I think the period we regard as the best of America followed those rules.
00:11:20.000 And I think we should try to keep them.
00:11:23.000 All right, you've probably heard me.
00:11:24.000 It's actually now 25 pounds that I have lost.
00:11:28.000 And I'm sure some of you say, oh, Charlie, I've tried everything.
00:11:31.000 That was me.
00:11:32.000 You know, my first Zoom call with my PhD weight loss.
00:11:36.000 I was kind of skeptical.
00:11:37.000 I was like, come on, guys.
00:11:39.000 All right.
00:11:39.000 I've heard this whole thing before.
00:11:42.000 And boy, was I wrong.
00:11:44.000 They know what they're doing.
00:11:45.000 My PhD weight loss.
00:11:46.000 Look, this is 100% legit.
00:11:48.000 And people say, Well, Charlie, you've lost so much weight.
00:11:50.000 And I say, Yeah, my PhD weight loss.
00:11:52.000 Hello.
00:11:54.000 But look, they have a different approach.
00:11:56.000 And it's Dr. Ashley Lucas.
00:11:57.000 She's great.
00:11:58.000 I text with her.
00:11:58.000 She does a really, really good job.
00:12:00.000 25 pounds, I'll tell you.
00:12:02.000 And I have more energy and I'm healthier than ever before.
00:12:06.000 Here's why.
00:12:07.000 The program rids your body of the inflammation that is causing so many health problems.
00:12:13.000 If you look around today, America is the fattest it has ever been.
00:12:16.000 Our families, friends, and neighbors are dying of diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's, now called T3 diabetes.
00:12:25.000 PhD has helped so many people who want to have a good active life, play with their grandkids, travel, hike to a waterfall, go for a bike ride, but their weight was holding them hostage.
00:12:35.000 They don't want any of you on experimental drugs for your brain degeneration from Alzheimer's or homebound with an oxygen tank for heart failure.
00:12:42.000 My PhD weight loss knows that losing weight is the best thing for overall health.
00:12:48.000 We are way too fat as a society.
00:12:50.000 And here's the thing: if you're listening to this and you say, Boy, I'm a little overweight, it's perfectly fine.
00:12:56.000 Do something about it.
00:12:57.000 Use your free will, your agency.
00:12:59.000 Say, you know what?
00:13:00.000 I'm just not where I want to be.
00:13:02.000 This is an empowerment tool for you.
00:13:05.000 All of these things can be prevented.
00:13:07.000 You look at heart disease, the beast, you know, what they now call diabetes.
00:13:11.000 By the way, there's a great new book by Dr. Peter Atia about longevity.
00:13:15.000 You want to live long, lose weight.
00:13:18.000 Look, Dr. Ashley Lucas, she is the master of this, and she is the genius behind my PhD weight loss.
00:13:25.000 So you can call them today at 864-644-1900.
00:13:30.000 That is 864-644-1900.
00:13:33.000 By the way, this is not like a sign up and you're automatically going to lose weight.
00:13:37.000 You got to do some work.
00:13:38.000 You got to apply yourself.
00:13:39.000 It's not a too good to be true thing.
00:13:41.000 But if you have motivation, they will channel that motivation towards a very positive, measurable, and real outcome.
00:13:51.000 Find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
00:13:56.000 Tell them Charlie Kirk sent you.
00:13:58.000 That is myphdweightloss.com.
00:14:01.000 PhD weight loss and nutrition, physician and dietician developed, individually delivered.
00:14:07.000 Again, I lost 25 pounds and I feel great.
00:14:10.000 If you think you've tried everything, you're wrong until you say you've tried my PhD weight loss.
00:14:15.000 They map you as a whole person.
00:14:17.000 It's not like, hey, just read this book.
00:14:18.000 No, no, no, no.
00:14:19.000 It's a deep dive.
00:14:20.000 It's personalized.
00:14:22.000 It's going to get results for you.
00:14:23.000 Myphdweightloss.com.
00:14:27.000 I was not focused on, but I should have been the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate.
00:14:41.000 I want to be clear.
00:14:43.000 A call for genocide of Jewish people is threatening, deeply so.
00:14:49.000 It is intentionally meant to terrify a people who have been subjected to pogroms and hatred for centuries and were the victims of mass genocide in the Holocaust.
00:15:02.000 In my view, it would be harassment or intimidation.
00:15:06.000 All right.
00:15:06.000 So that is Penn's President Liz McGill basically.
00:15:11.000 Suzy, soon-to-be ex-president.
00:15:13.000 Yeah, so this is another story.
00:15:15.000 So, and I want to give some credence to what you're saying here, Blake.
00:15:19.000 I definitely believe that many of these people are calling for genocide.
00:15:22.000 I think, you know, you're a two out of three standard that's been used for, you know, violent speech or sort of where you have a, what was it, a specific person, a specific location, a specific time.
00:15:35.000 I don't see how any of that applies to genocide because genocide is by its very nature not a specific person.
00:15:41.000 It's a specific people group, right?
00:15:43.000 And that's why calling for genocide is legal in America, actually.
00:15:47.000 That's what's crazy about it.
00:15:50.000 Well, and I do want to give some credence because there are other levers we can pull.
00:15:54.000 And I think Charlie has been one of the loudest voices on the internet saying, defund, defund, defund, pull your donations, pull your donations.
00:16:01.000 And we have news breaking.
00:16:03.000 I think this was yesterday that we had a $100 million donation to UPenn withdrawn by Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management Group.
00:16:15.000 He's now written a letter saying that UPenn is in violation of his December 2017 gift.
00:16:21.000 It was actually limited partnership units in Stone Ridge.
00:16:25.000 And he's saying you're in breach of our contract.
00:16:28.000 I want my money back.
00:16:29.000 So that's essentially what's happening there.
00:16:31.000 So that is another lever and perhaps the more appropriate way to approach this.
00:16:35.000 Well, for sure.
00:16:35.000 But you want us to look at what are they demanding.
00:16:38.000 And I have no problem with defunding any Ivy League school.
00:16:41.000 They have too much power.
00:16:42.000 They have too much influence in American life.
00:16:44.000 They promote countless toxic things, including the loss of free speech over time.
00:16:49.000 But you do want to look at what we are demanding.
00:16:51.000 And I think a thing with free speech that it's very easy to fall into, and the left did this all the time when they were justifying censorship with big tech or through deplatforming, is they're like, well, the First Amendment only governs the government and it doesn't govern anything else.
00:17:05.000 So any company can fire you for your speech.
00:17:08.000 Anyone can de-platform you over speech.
00:17:09.000 Your bank can de-bank you if they don't like your speech.
00:17:11.000 And that's all okay because it's not the government.
00:17:14.000 And I would say, why do we have the First Amendment?
00:17:16.000 We have the First Amendment because we think speech is a good thing.
00:17:19.000 We think freedom of speech is valuable.
00:17:21.000 That it is tyrannical to say people cannot say what they really believe, that they have to lie about their beliefs because they fear retribution for it.
00:17:29.000 That when you have a more free exchange of ideas, you generally get better ideas, just like the same way that by having free markets, you get better access to goods than you do under something that's rigidly controlled.
00:17:42.000 And again, I think it would be a tragedy if what we get from this is that UPenn comes out and says, okay, our bad.
00:17:49.000 We have a new speech standard that says that a very broad definition of harassment is no longer allowed.
00:17:56.000 As we mentioned, Amy Wax.
00:17:58.000 Amy Wax is a professor at UPenn Law. 0.72
00:18:00.000 She has controversial opinions on America's racial issues, on crime, stuff like that. 0.70
00:18:06.000 She's made very critical statements about affirmative action.
00:18:10.000 And in response, UPenn is using this bureaucratic process to try to fire her.
00:18:13.000 And it's a big, big long fight.
00:18:16.000 And as long as they have rules that say, actually, our school follows the First Amendment standard of speech, then the rules are on her side.
00:18:23.000 And she has a very strong case that they're trying to fire her for bad reason. 0.58
00:18:26.000 But if they have a restrictive rule that says, well, if you say something that offends a lot of people or we decide is harmful to them and that's not allowed, we're going to classify that as harassment, then they'll be able to fire Amy Wax. 0.93
00:18:38.000 And they will use this on conservatives.
00:18:41.000 They already do this to conservatives with the more liberal speech rules that they nominally have.
00:18:46.000 And if they end up adopting more anti-speech rules because we're calling for it, I think that would be a big mistake.
00:18:53.000 Yeah, I definitely agree.
00:18:55.000 I go back to the saying is that any rules that we have to see this clear-eyed.
00:19:00.000 Any rules that are created now will be used against us in the future.
00:19:04.000 And mark my words, the university systems are not turning over overnight.
00:19:08.000 They're still going to have the power.
00:19:10.000 What we really need is more reforms, more ideological diversity.
00:19:15.000 I don't know how you get there unless you start mass defunding these people and you start basically saying you lose your protections at the, you know, we're going to start taxing your endowments.
00:19:25.000 Instead of taking out speech, you say this was caused by DEI.
00:19:28.000 This is caused by whackadoodle stuff getting money from the school.
00:19:31.000 And you say, okay, no more DEI, no more anti-white discrimination, no more anti-anyone discrimination.
00:19:37.000 You have freedom of speech.
00:19:38.000 You have a clear standard.
00:19:39.000 You don't rig the system for people.
00:19:42.000 So, Blake, I want to just put one button on this to just add some credence that this is a debate.
00:19:42.000 All right.
00:19:49.000 I think a lot of our audience is probably like, yeah, like calls for genocide, like these kids should be kicked out of school.
00:19:54.000 This is Glenn Greenwald, and then we can move on to Trump 2.0, as I like to say.
00:19:59.000 So, Glenn's tweeting about this right now. 0.96
00:20:01.000 He says, There are, by all appearances, millions of people who now believe that there's an epidemic of students marching around chanting gas the Jews and kill all Jews.
00:20:09.000 I've asked around 100 people in the last week for examples.
00:20:11.000 Nobody can give one, let alone show an epidemic.
00:20:14.000 It's scary how easily the public can be convinced that there's a new crisis that requires massive speech restrictions.
00:20:21.000 What's really being done is that Israel supporters have taken longtime pro-Palestinian slogans and declared them genocidal and demanded censorship of them.
00:20:30.000 And I think that is the crux here: if you're saying from the river to the sea and into FADA, is that inherently calling for the death and destruction of millions of Jews living in Israel?
00:20:44.000 And then what do you do about it if they are saying that?
00:20:47.000 It's a fascinating debate, nevertheless, and it's one that I think is branching out more widely.
00:20:51.000 If you want to add anything to that, Blake, if not, we can.
00:20:54.000 You know, I would advise people, we have seen this happen in our own world.
00:20:58.000 They'll say, you know, Trump runs on America first.
00:21:00.000 And they're like, well, America First was also a slogan that was anti-Semitic in the 30s, and so you can't say that.
00:21:04.000 Or, you know, Reagan runs on states' rights.
00:21:06.000 And they're like, states' rights is code for segregation and bring back slavery.
00:21:10.000 And they've done this in our own politics to slogans that we ourselves have used.
00:21:16.000 So you should always be careful when they're using that towards anyone else.
00:21:20.000 But yeah, we spent a lot of time on this.
00:21:22.000 So let's go into this Axios article that came out in the middle of the week, and we've both been talking about it a ton.
00:21:29.000 It's Behind the Curtain, How Trump Would Build His Loyalty First Cabinet.
00:21:35.000 And it's kind of just great, like wish casting.
00:21:37.000 You know, we can look ahead, 2025.
00:21:39.000 We don't have to worry about winning the election.
00:21:41.000 That's already been done.
00:21:42.000 And then what do we actually get?
00:21:44.000 And it's a very upbeat article.
00:21:45.000 I think you'd agree.
00:21:46.000 Just because it's names we would definitely like to see in a Trump White House again.
00:21:51.000 We'd love to see Stephen Miller doing immigration stuff.
00:21:54.000 We'd love to see JD Vance.
00:21:55.000 We'd love to see Tucker Carlson involved somehow.
00:21:58.000 Maybe he'll just be on air.
00:21:59.000 But this son says the CIA.
00:22:02.000 Yeah.
00:22:03.000 This says that Melania Trump wants Tucker to be the vice president, which, and for the same reason we've said on this show, which is he really is like a force multiplier for Trump.
00:22:14.000 He's not, he doesn't outshine Trump, which is what a lot of people would say.
00:22:17.000 It's more like he amplifies Trump.
00:22:20.000 And he's a surrogate for Trump.
00:22:21.000 If Trump is just in a courtroom for half of 2024, Tucker's really the only guy who can do a Trump-style rally without Trump being there.
00:22:29.000 And that would be a huge asset if Trump is absent a lot of the time.
00:22:33.000 So it's a very exciting thing.
00:22:35.000 I do think it probably overplays things.
00:22:37.000 It says right here in the article, you know, Trump is heavily influenced by whoever he last spoke to.
00:22:42.000 He doesn't like making really detailed plans really far in advance.
00:22:45.000 He's very adaptive.
00:22:46.000 So famous last words.
00:22:47.000 It could be that literally none of these people have a job in a future Trump administration.
00:22:51.000 Well, I think the more interesting question is, and we've debated this privately, Blake, is Trump so set in his ways that, in a sense, that was Trump 1.0 basically what you're going to get with Trump 2.0, or can he fundamentally adapt, change, and actually surround himself with better people so that he can achieve his policy goals?
00:23:17.000 I believe 100% yes.
00:23:19.000 I believe that if you get a Trump 2.0, this is going to be the retribution candidate.
00:23:24.000 I think completely.
00:23:25.000 I think he's going to do everything he possibly can to deport 10 million people.
00:23:30.000 I totally believe that.
00:23:31.000 I know that you have raised certain, I mean, valid skepticism about that even being possible legally, financially.
00:23:40.000 Is there going to be resources?
00:23:42.000 The bureaucracy going to get in the way.
00:23:44.000 But I think that many of his goals, he is now more very clear-eyed about achieving them.
00:23:49.000 And frankly, he's got four years, so he's like, I'm not running for re-election.
00:23:52.000 Let's do this.
00:23:54.000 Yeah, well, so it's just, you can see the ways it can go both ways right from the start.
00:23:59.000 You know, the fact that he's considering Stephen Miller for either attorney general, despite not having a law degree, attorney general, or at some sort of immigration deportations art, that's really promising as long as he's able to stick around.
00:24:11.000 But on the other hand, it also says he's considering a Democrat, Jamie Dimon, at J.P. Morgan, for a Treasury pick.
00:24:18.000 And I think a lot of people will consider that pretty frustrating if he just literally picks a Democrat to be Secretary of the Treasury.
00:24:24.000 That is Trump 1.0 vibes.
00:24:26.000 Exactly.
00:24:27.000 That is very Trump 1.0.
00:24:28.000 So I think the best argument for Trump 2.0 would be better is Trump is extremely, he's still extremely angry about 2020.
00:24:37.000 And it sort of says in this article that sort of the basic qualification for any appointees going to make is they have to affirm that 2020 was stolen.
00:24:47.000 And, you know, a natural caveat I can imagine is if he wins in 2024, he won't be nearly as angry about 2020 anymore because he's sort of, he's undone it.
00:24:57.000 He is, he's fixed it now.
00:24:58.000 So will he be as obsessed with people who denied him in 2020?
00:25:02.000 I'm not sure.
00:25:03.000 We'll have to see.
00:25:04.000 The other good argument is, you know, a lot of the people who he was, you know, he might just start as a default with the people who are with him in 2020.
00:25:14.000 And I think we'd both agree the people he had in position by late 2020 were better than who he started with.
00:25:20.000 So if he brings back John McIntye to run personnel again, they were making a lot of great appointees with McIntyre in 2020.
00:25:26.000 If they're doing that right away in 2025, we're going to be way better positioned for the next four years.
00:25:34.000 So I see both elements even in the list of this Axios article.
00:25:38.000 Yeah, maybe the right way to think about it is almost like Trump 1.5.
00:25:41.000 Like aspects of this are certainly going to be better because I think, you know, Heritage has his Project 2025, Turning Point Action has contributed to that.
00:25:50.000 Saurabh, blanket on his last name.
00:25:53.000 This is a whole crew.
00:25:55.000 Russ Vogt has been involved in vetting and creating lists of possible personnel to staff out.
00:26:02.000 We're not just talking cabinet-level positions.
00:26:04.000 We're talking well on down the line.
00:26:06.000 You've got another thing that's been floated, Schedule F, right, Blake, which is essentially how do you get rid of this bureaucratic monstrosity that has formed over decades and centuries inside of Washington?
00:26:19.000 I mean, the fact that our seat of government is in a place geographically that has basically a 90-95% Democrat voters, I mean, it is, it makes San Francisco look like a conservative voting block.
00:26:34.000 That's how bad conservative.
00:26:36.000 Yes, 100%.
00:26:38.000 This is how bad the nation's capital has become and how partisan and how just entrenched.
00:26:44.000 This is why we see these juries and anything that's brought against Trump in D.C., you're just like, it doesn't even matter if they're claiming, you know, that he picked up a quarter, but he said it was a dime.
00:26:56.000 Like, the grand jury will convict him.
00:26:59.000 It doesn't matter in D.C.
00:27:00.000 It doesn't matter in New York.
00:27:01.000 Fulton County is increasingly.
00:27:03.000 I mean, Fulton County is like 80-20 now.
00:27:05.000 I will say, so maybe a good way of thinking of it is maybe it's not Trump 2.0 versus 1.0, but maybe Trump World 2.0, which is you have people who are in Trump's orbit, who have been in his orbit the whole time, but now they understand, okay, if we come in, you know, the Office of Personnel, these different groups are going to be obstacles.
00:27:27.000 And we figured out in 2020 how to solve these obstacles, but we couldn't implement them in time before we had to leave office.
00:27:33.000 But now you can go into it day one.
00:27:35.000 You don't need to spend three years figuring out what you need to do.
00:27:38.000 But one caveat I will say is, you know, you've mentioned it.
00:27:41.000 A lot of people have mentioned it.
00:27:42.000 They're really hyped up, you know, this idea of Trump as the retribution presidency.
00:27:48.000 And even if that's very fun to say, I do think it is harmful to frame it this way, both in terms of, I don't think it's electorally useful.
00:27:56.000 I don't think most Americans like the idea of this guy running when he's like, I'm running to get revenge on all of my personal enemies.
00:28:05.000 I don't think that'll play well.
00:28:06.000 So I would step away from it for that reason.
00:28:08.000 But also, again, we have to think in practical terms.
00:28:11.000 If you're going to have to do these things, you are going to have to get them past judges.
00:28:14.000 And a kind of conventional thing is it is difficult for you to judges and the Supreme Court have thrown out measures before by basically saying this law you passed or this policy you did is not actually a normal product of lawmaking, but you just intended to single somebody out.
00:28:32.000 And, you know, we can't pass bills of attainder.
00:28:34.000 You can't have Congress pass a bill that is just like punishing somebody, one specific name.
00:28:39.000 You could also, judges have also referenced statements made on the campaign trail to then overturn because they looked into the integrity of the people.
00:28:49.000 A lot of these are bogus.
00:28:50.000 They would do this with Trump's immigration thing.
00:28:52.000 They would say like, well, Trump's statements on immigration prove that this bill to close our border, this measure to close our border is driven by hate.
00:28:59.000 And so you can't do it.
00:29:00.000 Normally you could do it, but Trump can't because he's hateful.
00:29:03.000 He's doing it with a bad motive.
00:29:05.000 And I think this is often bogus, but it is something to worry about.
00:29:09.000 No, I think what you're making a fair point in the sense that you don't think a retribution candidate would sell to the general public.
00:29:16.000 I think people listening to this show would probably be like, yeah, we want justice.
00:29:20.000 Yeah, MAGA will love it.
00:29:22.000 MAGA is something bigger than that.
00:29:24.000 MAGA's 25, 30% of the population, like true MAGAs. 0.60
00:29:28.000 And then, you know, to win, maybe Trump needs 45% of the vote to win if you have all these third-party people.
00:29:33.000 So you got to get what is the 45th percent person going to be won over by.
00:29:39.000 And we've seen that.
00:29:40.000 You know, we were just talking about the polling in Arizona, how like older voters are less associated less with Trump and more with the Republican Party.
00:29:48.000 They want a return to sort of some of that more genteel political tone.
00:29:56.000 Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk.
00:29:57.000 You're exciting news to share about saving babies by providing ultrasounds.
00:30:00.000 Right now, there is a dollar-for-dollar match, doubling the number of babies you'll save with pre-born.
00:30:04.000 There are babies alive today about to celebrate their first Christmas because of what we did together a year ago at this time providing ultrasounds.
00:30:11.000 And right now, you could save twice as many babies.
00:30:14.000 Maybe you're already wondering about end of the year giving and want to give every dollar, get the most results.
00:30:19.000 Or maybe you just want to know that a girl making this decision deserves the truth.
00:30:22.000 So that next year at this time, she's picking out a Christmas stocking for her baby's first Christmas.
00:30:26.000 It's beautiful to think about.
00:30:27.000 Your gift of $15,000, somebody out there can do it.
00:30:30.000 I'm sure will provide not one, but two ultrasound machines.
00:30:33.000 $280 saves 10 babies.
00:30:35.000 $28 a month saves a baby a month for less than a dollar a day.
00:30:38.000 And right now, any gift saves twice as many babies with pre-born.
00:30:42.000 I'm a donor to this organization.
00:30:43.000 We love this organization with the Kirk family.
00:30:45.000 Call 833-850-2229.
00:30:48.000 Full endorsement.
00:30:49.000 Amazing people.
00:30:50.000 Click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
00:30:52.000 Go to charliekirk.com right now and click on the pre-born banner.
00:30:58.000 I want to wrap up by essentially making my case for T. Swift as person of the year.
00:31:05.000 Okay.
00:31:06.000 I have been left out of this debate.
00:31:08.000 Charlie is very adamant about it.
00:31:10.000 Jack Posobic is very adamant about it.
00:31:13.000 I have an unpopular opinion.
00:31:15.000 And I think that, you know, if you didn't realize how big Taylor Swift's tour was this year, you're living under a rock.
00:31:23.000 And I don't think she's as bad as some others.
00:31:25.000 I do think that she's a powerful voice that we're like poking.
00:31:28.000 And we're like, come on, get political, get political, get your army out to the polls.
00:31:32.000 I dare you. 0.99
00:31:33.000 Which I think was a tactical mistake because she is left of center. 1.00
00:31:37.000 I don't think she's nearly as political as some. 1.00
00:31:39.000 But that being said, you know, she feels like such an easy target because she's just, I don't know, she's obviously not that sophisticated when it comes to politics.
00:31:49.000 And she's, of course, going to side with the liberal Democrats, even though they're destroying our country.
00:31:55.000 You are a little muted on this as well.
00:31:58.000 Am I wrong?
00:31:59.000 Do you agree?
00:32:00.000 Like, I mean, I think she deserves it.
00:32:03.000 We can't get it again.
00:32:04.000 Okay, let's lay it out.
00:32:05.000 Like, what?
00:32:06.000 How does she represent the themes of this year or this age?
00:32:10.000 Like, that is what they go for.
00:32:11.000 Like, who is the person who either is the most important person that year or who sort of captures what the dominant story of the year was?
00:32:20.000 So, yeah, it's like last year they gave it to Vladimir Zelensky.
00:32:23.000 Even if we disagree with funding Ukraine, made sense that he was picked.
00:32:26.000 Like, the invasion of Ukraine was by far the biggest thing of 2022.
00:32:31.000 You know, 2020, you have, you know, Joe Biden.
00:32:34.000 You have, they almost always give it to whoever wins the presidential election.
00:32:39.000 You know, they didn't have to.
00:32:40.000 Elon Musk has gotten it, right?
00:32:41.000 Yeah, he has two years ago, 21.
00:32:43.000 You know, in the 1960s, they didn't give it to the Beatles.
00:32:47.000 And to give it to Taylor Swift, because she's just a really popular celebrity who's made a lot of money is weird to me, especially because celebrities overall are less important than they've been in a long time.
00:32:58.000 It's way more decentralized.
00:33:00.000 I totally agree.
00:33:01.000 Like, we have more sources of entertainment with more options.
00:33:05.000 So, even if she's the most popular singer, songwriter in the world, she's not nearly as big a deal as the biggest singer-songwriter in the world would have been 50 years ago, 40 years ago, even 20 years ago, I'd say.
00:33:19.000 And especially when you already have just sitting there being enormous, like the most obvious pick for some sort of person of the year.
00:33:28.000 It's what's the biggest story of the year?
00:33:29.000 It's AI.
00:33:30.000 So, you either pick Sam Altman because he has Open AI, or you pick literally Chat GPT as the, you know, intelligence of the year.
00:33:38.000 Totally, I totally agree.
00:33:39.000 All right, so one of, you talked about intelligence.
00:33:42.000 I couldn't help but throw this one up.
00:33:44.000 Uh, let's play 144 just real quick here at the end.
00:33:48.000 144.
00:33:50.000 Hey, hey, George Santos here.
00:33:53.000 I'm so proud of you for coming out as a furry.
00:33:56.000 And I just wanted to tell you that your friends and family all accept you.
00:34:02.000 And they're all excited about your persona, which is awesome to be a Beavapus, a beaver, and a platter puss.
00:34:11.000 So let me tell you, they all love you, Beavapus.
00:34:16.000 Don't you ever get your head down.
00:34:21.000 Okay, so this is the newly expelled George Santos now doing, you know, pay for video here.
00:34:28.000 He's getting paid per video, and then he'll just read a script.
00:34:31.000 Yeah.
00:34:32.000 And now he's celebrating a furry.
00:34:33.000 Blake, you have something to say.
00:34:35.000 Well, it's just this is so avoidable.
00:34:37.000 All like, okay, George Santos is an embarrassment.
00:34:40.000 Really funny, but yeah, he probably shouldn't be in Congress.
00:34:44.000 All you had to do was wait 10 months.
00:34:47.000 He'd lose a primary, and then, you know, he'd lose.
00:34:50.000 He wasn't going to run again.
00:34:51.000 Yeah, he wasn't.
00:34:51.000 He wasn't going to run.
00:34:52.000 And then he'd leave, and he's under indictment for a million things.
00:34:54.000 Okay, just leave.
00:34:55.000 And they're like, no, we have to show a principle.
00:34:57.000 We have to expel him.
00:34:58.000 We don't expel people for anything.
00:35:01.000 I don't, he's the first one we've done in ages.
00:35:03.000 We've had congressmen get caught with money in their fridge and they didn't get expelled.
00:35:07.000 And we've had really horrifying affairs.
00:35:11.000 Barney Frank ran a Bordello out of his apartment.
00:35:14.000 No, I totally.
00:35:15.000 Well, but this shows that we will now get the full George Santos. 0.94
00:35:19.000 We're getting the full, America is now forced to get the full George Santos, like completely unleashed, unfettered, and we are all going to be dumber and worse off for it.
00:35:28.000 Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
00:35:30.000 If you have not gotten your tickets to Amfest yet, go to Amfest.com.
00:35:33.000 Until next time, talk to you soon.
00:35:37.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.