The Attack of Judge Sparkle + Debating the Iran Deal

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. 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. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is, noblegoldinvestments.com. All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is, what is today? It's the 23rd, June 23rd, 26. We're here in Phoenix, Arizona at the Y-ReFi Studios. How are we doing, Blake? We're doing lovely. Great, great to hear. Despite a lot of annoying things, which we're going to dive into. Yeah, well, I mean, which bucket, which bucket of annoying things? Oh, man. Where do you want me to start? I could start with Snap. I could start with the... Left-loving criminals. Well, there was a great press conference that just aired, and we're going to get some clips to that at some point in this hour where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and some of the other members of the administration, they are staying on the fraud beat, and they've got billions accounted for. And over 455, 455, exactly. potential indictments. Maybe they are indictments. We'll get you all caught up on that in just a second. But we want to talk about elections. There's a lot of talk about how America does its elections. Kamala Harris is coming out against the electoral college, Jamil Hill, saying it's rooted in slavery. These are lies. They are stupid. That's okay. But it's also... Democrat judges, and they're blocking common sense reforms to make our elections more secure. Now, our elections are basically a joke the way they are currently run. It's based on the honor system. And a country with millions and millions of immigrants, both illegal and illegal, that is a dumb thing to do. Now, this most recent example comes from, and I'm not making this name up, District Judge Sparkle Suknananan. Yes. Judge Sparkle. Just how the founders envisioned it. District Judge Sparkle Suknananan in a point of former president Joe Biden.

said officials across numerous government agencies haphazardly, quote, combined and repurpose the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable, end quote, in order to comply with President Trump's March executive order attempting to overhaul federal elections. So once again, we have a district judge appointed by a Democrat, in this case Joe Biden, blocking a foreigner. A foreigner, no, that's from Trinidad. Judge Sparkle from Trinidad. a country known to be the most wonderful representative of democracy in the world. So it's, again, a Biden appointee. She didn't fully strike down the order, but she issued a 75-page ruling that blocked and set aside Trump administration's overhaul of the save system, which is a systemic alien verification for entitlement. Well, yeah, so what it is is, first of all, a part of what's at the root of this is you need to be a citizen to vote, and yet bafflingly enough, we don't have a central database. in the U.S. that just says, here is everyone who's a citizen of the United States. Which you would go check it. You think we should. And so the Trump administration has been trying to build this. So save that system originally existed to check if you're eligible for various federal benefits, because if you're Fortbornborn and all of that, you shouldn't. And they're trying to repurpose this so that they can detect likely ineligible people. They don't just flag you and ping it and say, you have to take this person off the voter rolls. They'd ping it and say, this person might not be a citizen because they're registering is not eligible for these programs. And they've run millions of people through these. And I think they found about 20, 21,000 potential non-citizens through this. And some people are saying, well, I'm a citizen, and they caught me with this. And so this judge is saying it's intruding on your property, on your privacy rights, on your privacy rights for the federal government to use your federal information, your social security number, your eligibility for federal programs. It's illegal for the federal government to use that to check if you can be a voter. It gets at the root of this insanity here. We have this foreign judge Sparkle come in and say, Suknan. Suknan. Say it violates the law, probably the Constitution for the federal government to use your information that you use to interact with the government to see if you can vote for who runs the government and makes the government's laws. And the deeper truth here, which we all have to highlight is, ultimately they will always find this excuse because the Democrats, they can't articulate. a justified reason to check whether someone's a citizen. They want it to run on the honor system, and they want it to run on the honor system to enable dishonorable behavior. Because they have no honor, actually. So let's just like... Lay out the facts of what this March executive order that President Trump signed does. So it creates state citizenship lists, directs the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and the Social Security Administration to compile and send each state a list of confirmed U.S. citizens. All right. Then it has restrictions on mail-in and absentee ballot restrictions. So it instructs the Postal Service.

The USPS to create a mail-in and absentee participation list of verified eligible voters. Okay? That's it. Now, you might say, well, Andrew, the Constitution dictates that the states run their elections and how and the manner of which, well, yes, that's true. But the federal government gets to dictate how the federal elections are run. So they are pushing back on this based on notions of federalism and separation of federal and state authority. But that's garbage, actually. Now, on some level, you need the states to administer a federal election because we have a federal system. But the state's answer to the federal government, all right? It's the supremacy clause. So I completely disagree with this. And to Blake's point, they will always find a legal rationale to block it if they want to block it, not because the law instructs them to, but because they are fundamentally against this. Now, consider the irony of a foreigner telling Americans. how to do their elections. Out of that. And that we can't enforce citizenship tests. We had another foreign judge whose ruling was upheld yesterday that Trump administration can't block snap benefits from being spent on junk food. That was, I believe, a Korean board judge ruled on that one. And that makes approximately zero sets. We elected our representatives and they have made a decision about how do you snap benefits and they should be. Given that authority. That's the way the system works. We have a representative government. And the deeper thing here is if they're not going to allow the federal government to check this, they're essentially saying states should have the exclusive authority to decide if someone's a citizen. And one of the problems here is not just that Democrat-run states don't want to check this, but they're willing to do more sinister behavior. A lot of these states, they want to create a system, for example, where your driver's license can be a presumptive proof of citizenship. And yet, blue states... We'll just give a full driver's license to an illegal immigrant. We're getting very close to the point where I think a sufficiently gutsy person could just go out and say, I am a citizen. And here's all the proof that I got this from the California state government. And they basically just make themselves a citizen without ever actually being naturalized properly. Well, and here's where this ties into a current debate that's ongoing now that Kamala Harris. of all people, sparked by saying it's time to get rid of the electoral college. Now, we'll play the clip and we'll continue on explaining why this is a really terrible idea. But here it is, in her own words, 39. I think that there is some real shaking up that we have to do of the rules and the structure. And is that get rid of the electoral college? I think that should be a discussion that we should have. I don't think we should eliminate that as a point of discussion for potential action. She was like, such a misdirect. I don't think we should eliminate that. I was like, wait, is the clip wrong? And then she goes, as a point of discussion after her brain cooked for a few more seconds there. She's a very articulate woman. That's why she was the completely natural and organic choice for the party to run in 2024.

To Blake's point, you've got states like California that are basically going, hey, just trust us, bro. These are all citizens. And they want to get rid of the electoral college, which actually limits the ability of that state to impact a national election. Because if they all get equal votes and illegal aliens can vote just the same as a citizen, well, guess what? California could swing the entire nation. Thankfully, the electoral college has it somewhat limited. All right. So we have outlined a foreign judge. has blocked a common sense reform to running federal elections. It's an EO that President Trump signed in March, and it creates a database of known citizens. You would think a country, a first world country, would know it's who its citizens are. But this foreign-born judge, Judge Sparkle, has said, no, no, no, can't do that. And so here we are. Now, Also running simultaneously is this debate that is happening on the left about abolishing the electoral college. So what is that debate and where did it come from? Well, Jamil Hill thinks it came from slavery, which is insane. Clip 28. Anybody who studied any small bit of history knows the electoral college is rooted in slavery. That was the entire reason that it was. invented essentially and we should have gotten from up under it a long time ago and not just because you have two women quite capable who lose the election well two two women quite capable I would say Hillary Clinton was at least formidable like I could have seen her becoming a politician Even if she probably didn't marry Bill. Kamala Harris? Not quite capable, not formidable. I can explain Kamala Harris's rise really simple. They thought she was the female Obama because she's mixed race and kind of, you know, from California. Kamala Harris. That was it. Kamala Harris was candidate by committee where they go, what would the ideal presidential candidate be like? She's like the AI candidate. We want, yeah, AI generated candidate. Problem is she couldn't talk. Big blue state, the right demographic boxes. Yeah, we can make anyone a good candidate with enough money and effort and advisors. Oops. Oops, that didn't work out. It didn't work. So this is garbage, though, from Jamil Hill. Okay, there is a vague connection in the sense that the electoral college, the allotment of electoral votes per state is based on congressional representation. And I guess she's going back to the three-fits compromise to do that. That's not at all what it was. This was a protection mechanism that spread power out. across the country. Remember, the Constitution spreads power out over time, over geography, and over different institutions within the government. Okay. Now, the states are protected. Like the power of Iowa is protected against California because Iowa is its own state. So it's a compact amongst the states. Go ahead. In fact, it specifically protects us from what the left has been doing in recent history because the left has, first of all, they've imported a gigantic number of foreigners to prop up their populations. And they've made their states increasingly intolerable to any ordinary middle class person, which is why they leave.

New York, which is why the census is reflecting that and will continue to that people are voting with their feet. New York, New York, in California, they have high populations, but extremely heavily foreign populations. Native-born people keep moving out, and they just keep propping out their population with endless importation of more foreigners, more foreigners, more foreigners. And so we're getting a situation where their ratio of people who can vote to overall population is all askew. They have a higher number of illegal immigrants, a higher number of non-citizen legal immigrants there. And they just have these states that they're intolerable. So they're basically one-party states. So we're getting these states. California is going to have a 70-30 result in every election because they've made it intolerable to anyone in the middle. New York is going to have these 70-30 elections. 65-35 elections. And then what's basically saving the country is the broader base, all these other states, where we're able to just have. 55-45 results all across the board, more spread out across the country. And we're able to check. They would love to get a raw popular vote where they say we can run our sketchy election system. We can extend the vote to 16-year-olds or 14-year-olds or 10-year-olds. It doesn't matter because none of our elections are competitive. And ballot harvesting on all-ballot. Ballot harvest everything. Tell everybody your citizen. Have every... homeless person who is not even aware of what's going on vote, have every drug addict vote, have every person who's in a nursing home and with Alzheimer's and actually not aware of what's going on, have them vote. Hoover at all up and it actually decides every national election. That's what they want and that's what they'll get if they kill the electoral college. Exactly. Well, and so they want California and New York to determine in Chicago to determine the national popular vote and choose the president. The electoral college is a safeguard against the excesses of the left in those blue states. And it's just interesting, right? So the Supreme Court just ruled this is breaking news. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rules that DHS can strip green card holders and lawful permanent residents of their legal status if they leave the country and travel abroad while they are facing criminal charges, even if they are just pending and not convicted yet. Liberals dissent. So here's a great example of a good... ruling of obvious common sense ruling from a majority conservative supreme court contrast that with judge sparkle so not only do they want to give non-citizens the right to vote they want to do it on the honor system trust me bro they don't want us to be able to verify their citizenship then they want to pack the supreme court this is what camela harris is calling for she's calling for a no bad ideas meeting okay let's just play this clip and remind you that she said this too stop 40 say look this is a moment where there are no bad ideas a no bad idea brainstorm is what i'd like to call it and in that no bad ideas brainstorm we talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the electoral college We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. Let's talk about statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. These are the things I think that we've got to do. We've got to neutralize these red states from cheating, including blue states, expanding their maps. And all of this, I think, is...

Look, we gotta fight fire with fire. These folks are playing to win. We gotta play the win. First of all, I think that's Kamala Harris accent mark three, mark four, maybe. It seems a little different. Second, I mean, the crazy thing, I'm just checking the polling because I would have thought they always say the person who lost. They're the favorite for the next time around. It takes while to get it. And I thought they'll move on from Kamala Harris. I'm checking the polls. Kamala Harris's having kind of an Indian summer of polling. She was diving. She was below Gavin Newsom. She's rallying. She's the number one person in the poll stuff for Democrats. She's done her whole career. She puts her finger to the air and says, which way is the wind blowing? I'm going to go that way. But this is what we're talking about. They want to reduce all the checks and balances against their cheating. And then they have the gall to say that it's red stage cheating. This is a bad ideas brainstorm. And that's the whole point. Something that's on everyone's mind right now is the housing market. Whether you're looking to buy your first home, purchase your dream home, wondering if your current mortgage is still the best fit for you, or you're considering using your equity to pay off other high interest debt with double-digit rates, the wait-and-see approach may actually be costing you money. That's where Andrew and Todd with union home mortgage come in. These guys aren't just lenders, they're strategists. The market shifts every single day, and there are more opportunities than ever to make your mortgage work for you instead of against you. Right now, Andrew and Todd are offering a completely free mortgage review. No pressure. No obligation. You can do it and review it and say, hey, not right now. Or they can help you. Just a professional review of your current situation to see whether you may be able to lower your payment, improve cash flow, consolidate debt, or better leverage your home equity. Don't leave your biggest investment to chance. Go to andrewandtod.com. That's Andrew and Todd.com or call AAA-3-8-1172. That's AAA-1-172. Get your plan in motion. Go to Andrew and Todd.com today. Thank you. Without further ado, Senator Mike Lee, welcome back to the show, sir. It's great to have you. Thanks so much, Andrew. Good to be with you. It's great to be with you. So we started the whole show. We talked about Judge Sparkle, you know, the district judge. She's getting in the way of Trump's March executive order trying to ensure that only citizens are voting, creating this list. She says it violates federalism, I guess statutes and privacy laws. Okay, whatever. Now you've got.

this save act that we the save america act that we have been pushing so hard and it's been the whole buildup this show about why it is the critical piece of legislation for this country. So let's just start there, Senator, because this debate has been going on so long. I want people to remember how we got here. Why is this so important? And why have you been like a dog with a bone? Right. We need to Save America Act for a few independent reasons. First, because of the National Voter Registration Act 1993, known as the Motor Voter Law, and the way it was interpreted it a couple decades after its enactment. It's now far too easy for non-citizens to register to vote and subsequently to vote in federal elections, even though federal law prohibits it. Because the Supreme Court wrongly but conclusively interpreted that statute is prohibiting the states from doing any citizenship verification when somebody registers to vote at a DMV, which is how most people register to vote these days. So we need it for that reason. We also accelerated the need for it with more and more states issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens and in many cases even to known illegal aliens. With the border being open for four years under President Biden with the fact that we've got now 30 million plus non-citizens in the United States. And we've got threats to our election security all over the place. As you noted, Judge Sparkle yesterday in that order, notice what she did. She didn't just say, let's make sure that non-citizens aren't being removed. She said, no, this whole database that's maintained in the Department of Homeland Security, known as the Save Database. which could be used by the states to help clean out their voter registration files, to cross-check to see if they're citizens. She ordered the whole thing shut down, rather than just trying to make sure that there were safeguards in place to protect citizens from being removed. Now, there's an all-out assault. Meanwhile, the election system in place in California, as evidenced in the last couple weeks by the L.A. mayor's election. California still has it certified its final outcome there. There's very few people who I know who look at that and say that bodes well for election security in America. We've got to get this done. Meanwhile, I really appreciate President Trump's ongoing efforts to keep attention focused on the Save America Act because it would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. It would require proof of citizenship to register and photo ID to vote in federal elections. These are common sense requirements that every other modern society has. And in fact, many societies that we would regard as less modern. My friend and colleague, Bernie Sanders, a senator from Ohio, just got back from Columbia. In Colombia, they have their elections over the weekend. In Colombia, they have election security measures in place that really put ours to shame.

They make sure that everybody's got a voter ID, that they've got conclusive proof of citizenship. They've really got clean elections. And the great thing is they knew within an hour of the polls closing. who had won the election. And they were also able to certify with a high degree of confidence that non-citizens were not voting. So I love all of that. I think it's so important to just get back to the basics and the 101 here, why we're pushing this so hard. And a big reason why is Joe Biden was president and just let in millions of these people. And we're just supposed to trust me, bro. Honor system, everything's going to be fine. There's no voter fraud. Well, if there's no voter fraud, why do you guys care? Why are you trying to block this? All right. Now, here's the next piece in this saga. So there's a piece here. It looks like Punch Bowl. You know, there's going to be a president is going to be at this meeting, a steering meeting in the Senate tomorrow, meeting with GOP senators. And he's going to be pushing this issue. You and he are aligned on this issue. What can we expect to happen tomorrow? Ultimately, that's up to my colleagues. But what I hope comes out of it in the case I continue. to make is that we need to do this. We need to do everything we possibly can to try to get this past. You know, we, it's part of a late night photorama about two weeks ago. We put the Save America Act onto that bill as an amendment. It got 50 Republican votes. We had 51 before Thom Tillis changed his vote. But regardless, even with 50, that means that JD Vance, as Vice President of the United States, could supply a tie-breaking vote in a simple majority passage scenario. But meanwhile, we're stuck with Democrats refusing to give us the votes for cloture. That takes 60 votes to get to cloture. Simple majority passage, but 60 votes to force debate to a close. And that leaves us with two options if we want to pursue this, which I think we should. The first option would be to nuke the filibuster, which involves changing the Senate precedent so that we could immediately pass it by a simple majority. It does not appear that we've got support for that, even though I would support that option. But the other one. would be to keep the Save America Act on the floor, keep debating it, and promise to stay on it until it passes, taking away Democrats' weekends and long-scheduled recesses until enough of them are willing to negotiate. That's how filibusters used to be broken in the past, separate and apart from the cloture process, which used to be rare. And it's also how the Civil Rights Act got passed. We can do it again, especially whereas here we've got a bill that's a lot more popular with the American people. Bennett is among Democrats in Congress, the only group of people for whom this is controversial. Yeah, well, listen, I mean, I love both these options, and we're told that it can't pass the reconciliation process because it's not budget related. That, I mean, that's very in the weeds for the average voter out there. But, okay, let's assume it can't pass the birdbath. Okay. The question then becomes,

This issue with John Thune, I'm seeing in Punchball, you quote tweeted it. He's saying, I hope that people on that issue speak up, John Thune told us, read the filibuster Save Act, because I'm not saying anything that isn't a view that wouldn't be shared or articulated by a lot of my colleagues. It's always helpful if others speak up and it's not just me. I think what a lot of Americans want, and I actually do believe that John Thune, if he had the votes, he would, he would. do what he had to do because he knows the pressures on him he knows the pressures on the president but i think what the american people want senator is we want to know who's who who are the other senators that are fighting us on this and i is there going to be an opportunity you know president trump has threatened to name names are we going to find out in any of these you know different processes that are about to play out that they put their name on this because I think that's important. The voters want to know who's blocking this. Yeah. I would imagine that those who speak out one way or another of this tomorrow in that meeting with President Trump and Senate Republicans will self-identify. That's often how it ends up working. But look, regardless of who speaks in which direction, I do think it's important to recognize a couple of things. First of all, as you point out, it's not an easy situation. I grasp the fact that we don't have 60 votes. I fully get that. I also get that in many circumstances, that signals that it's not something that we're likely to get past. This is a rather unique opportunity, where, number one, our election security requires us to take aggressive action. Number two, we've got a bill that is really popular among Americans, like three out of four American voters, Democrats and Republicans combined. support measures like this one. And they want that done. Number three, it gets more popular over time, more popular as it's debated, especially because the Democrats' arguments against it don't land. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against them. They're so empty. It's so empty. And so I'm not I'm not purporting to claim that this would be easy. I'm not purporting even to claim that I know exactly how this would turn out. What I am saying is in this rare moment, I think it would benefit all of us, particularly Senate Republicans. to stand up for the American people and to use some unconventional tactics to try to get this path. Sometimes this is what you have to do in order to continue the fight on something rather than just taking a knee and saying, well, we don't have 60 votes now, so let's not even try. It's a very different thing for people to say, I'm filibustering it as in I would vote against cloture. It's very different for them to do just that than it is to say, okay, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'm willing to go back to the Senate floor day after day and continue making.

arguments against a bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans along political lines across this great country support this. Those are very different things. And I think we could all benefit from that robust debate, which also has some potential for resulting in passage just as it did in the case of the Civil Rights Act. Where at the end of that long process, it took weeks, but they started realizing this wasn't going to go away. You had a Senate Majority Leader in Senator Mike Mansfield at the time who said, we're going to keep debating this till it passes and it worked. They were 30 votes shy of cloture, Andrew, when they took that up. When they came over from the House. And they closed that gap. It took weeks, but they did close it. I'm not saying I know exactly how this would turn out, but it could turn out that way, and we really should try. Well, and I think everybody has your back, Senator. I don't know anybody. I haven't talked to anybody who's like in real America who's like Senator Lee is out, you know, out over his skis here. No, we all want what you want and you are, you are our voice right now. So thank you for continuing to beat this drum. And I just want to, you know, we played a clip of Kamala Harris talking about no bad ideas brainstorm in the previous segment. And they are talking about. abolishing the electoral college. They're talking about adding Puerto Rico in DC estates. They're talking about packing the Supreme Court. So I don't know what Senate Republicans are waiting for here because if they get power, they're going to absolutely destroy so many of the safeguards that have protected Americans like you and I. They're going to get rid of them. We know that because they've told us where they're going to go. They will nuke the filibuster. They will blow up the Supreme Court by packing it. They will add states that they know, believe will be consistently democratic. And they'll make a bunch of other changes because what they want to do, they want to form an institutional party, one that can be in power without interruption for decades. We can't let that happen. Asking the Save America Act is part of that. Absolutely. It's a huge, huge piece of that. Thank you for fighting for it. Thank you for being our voice, Senator Mike Lee. Great state of Utah. Thank you. Alliance defending freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it. Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years, and now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere, from classrooms to counselors' offices, and even online. Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide. Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June 30th will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Kineppa.

a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith. Rosalie Markizich, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take male order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby, 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. So go to join adf.com slash Charlie. That's join ADF for Alliance Defending Freedom. Join ADF.com slash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848. That's Charlie to 83848. Please give your best gift now to defend the next 250 years of freedom. That's join ADF.com slash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848. Blake, tell us about the New York Times and Father's Day. So we're a day late on this, but we wanted to hit it. We wanted to hit it because Sunday, of course, was Father's Day. America's Father's Father's, actually we talked with Alex Berenson while you were out. Fatherhood's under attack. It's undermined. It's not appreciated. And the New York Times decided they should show appreciation for Father's Day. So they published a comic guest essay by Zach Elums. To my daughter, my gender was never complicated. And it is a comic by a trans parent. So actually, it seems the child's mother. I've been living as a trans man since I was 18 years old. I guess I don't know if they're the biological mother or not. When my wife and I had Elliot, I had to learn how to be a trans dad. I'm not sure who the real dad is versus the fake dad. But how do you grow a mustache if you were a lady? I wasn't out to everyone as trans, but with Elliot, I had to learn how to talk about it. And it goes on for this whole comic about being a dad, but not a dad, it's a mom. And that's the New York Times big piece for Father's Day. Yeah, I mean, you can't make it up that the New York Times would choose a tranny to be the representative on Father's Day. Literally. That's what it's come to. And meanwhile, you had Alex Berenson on about his new book on fatherhood. And, you know, I actually think, I don't know if you guys talked about this, but Alex has told me that Charlie helped inspire the fact that he was writing that. But it's crazy. So I'm looking at his, his, so the New York Times opinion. has had four recent pieces about fatherhood. This is not a joke, by the way. They've had four pieces about fatherhood and masculinity with six authors. Three women, a trans man, and two childless men. Really? On fatherhood. So this is straight from Alex Barence. Let me tell you that again, because this is not a joke. Four recent pieces about fatherhood with six authors, because some of them had two authors. Three women. A trans man and two childless men. Not one father. The New York Times couldn't find one father to opine on fatherhood and masculinity. And...

There you go. All the problems in the liberal elite establishment, why they have such contempt for masculinity, why they hated UFC 250 at the White House, why they can't stand warrior culture, why they were trying to transition the freaking military and the LGBTQI plus and gay poem reading and all of that stuff. This is why, because ultimately they have contempt for strength, for strong men. This is why they call us toxic. This is why they paint us as villains in the culture. This is why popular media went from seeing stand-up dads that were strong and stable and wise, transitioning that to comic dads like Homer Simpson. This is it. It's a long purge of that which makes the country actually strong. And that's what we're rejecting. And this New York Times, I mean, they just walked right into it. I just genuinely cannot believe that they couldn't find one actual father to write about fatherhood. I can believe it. I think that's, well. They didn't mean to do this. First of all, they probably have to be like, well, so you need to find someone who's a dad. So we can't find anyone at the New York Times. No, I joke. It's a big organization. But like what it really is is the New York Times, it's when I talk about the New York Times to people, it's not that the New York Times publishes lies. We'll talk about the media and they publish untrue things or whatever. The New York Times is much more subtle. The New York Times, their power derives from being the organization that. if your establishment in America, especially if you're kind of the left establishment, you decide what everyone is talking about. You decide what people are thinking about. And the New York Times does this. They run their articles on being a trans dad. They run their articles on polyamory. One of the most sinister things the New York Times does is they're running this endless, low-key pressure campaign to undermine conventional, functional marriages and families. And... I think it's the most sinister thing they've done. And they've done it for years at this point. They were writing about why polyamory is the future of relationships a decade ago. And that's messed up a lot of people who read this and they get a worm in their brain and think that this is normal. And they've done it with the trans thing as well. Well. I think this is why what Charlie was doing was so important. It's why what we do at Turning Point is so important because there is a whole part of the country that has been left out of this conversation, completely sidelined by elite institutions like the New York Times. And that's why we have to keep pushing back at it. And that's why you have to keep being audacious and bold confronting it. Because they hate strong men. They hate strong men because ultimately they know that that is what's going to defeat them. This is why young men swung so powerfully in Trump's direction in 2024. They know that they can't win men. Who do they have for men? They got James Talarico. Yep. The tofu man. They've got tofu James Talarico. That's their vision of a modern, strong beta male. That's what they want. They want every man in America to be James Talarico. Or.

In Maine, like, you know, a former, you know, I don't know what he is exactly, but he's got like the, they use masculinity as like as a mask. So, you know, this guy, Graham Platner in Maine, he's got like a mustache. It looks like a walrus. And that's like all it takes to be, oh, look, he's a strong man. And he's a weirdo. He's got his weird Nazi tattoos. He's got his weird relationship history. He's a bit of a con man. He's a liar, but it's also they're trying to get a guy who can pass as a normal American man. And they inevitably end up with these weird freaks. Yeah, well, and this is what they did with Tim Walz. Tim Walz in Minnesota, they had him. you know i guess shooting a shotgun loading it wrong shooting it wrong and you know cosplay as some like hicklib it didn't work and it's not going to work because ultimately and this is what's really funny about i think the new york times did this accidentally i don't think there was like some committee where they were like we are going to only do this what it does is it reveals the bias of the editors that they can't even help themselves, that this is so ingrained deeply within the editorial discretion of the New York Times staff that they just accidentally did this. And it's obscene and it's comical, but it's true. Hey everyone, I'm genuinely excited to share something that has made a significant difference in my own life. And if you experience brain fog, low energy, frequent illnesses, or wake up feeling stiff and achy, you've got to try strong self. This was Charlie's favorite supplement and he took it every single day. He would talk about it on the show and even travel the country with it. which is what I do. So for me, strong cell helps keep my mind sharp and focused. It provides clean, natural energy without jitters, weird spikes, or afternoon crashes. I genuinely feel like a younger version of myself, like high school version. energy. I'm not even kidding. People would ask Charlie, what is Strong Cell exactly? Strong Cell is a nutritional supplement that leverages a remarkable enzyme called NADH. Think of it as the power source for every living cell in your body. With over 30 trillion cells working for you, imagine how great you could feel when they're all functioning at their best. Unfortunately, as we age, our body's NADH levels naturally decline, leading to various ailments and health issues linked to poor cellular health. Unlike many supplements, that simply mix ingredients and hope for the best, StrongSell employs a proprietary delivery system designed to ensure those ingredients effectively get into your bloodstream, where they can make a difference. This is crucial. As many supplements on the market are just pretty packaging without real benefits. Here's the exciting part, though. You can try StrongSill completely risk-free.

That's right. Thanks to Strong Cell's 90-day money-back guarantee, you can experience this revolutionary product without any hassles. If it's not for you, no problem, they'll refund your money. With approximately 2 million units sold, it's no wonder that NADH has become a highly sought-after remedy. Remember, what you put in your body matters, and you truly get what you pay for. Strong Cell doesn't cut corners. They only use the finest ingredients and adhere to the highest manufacturing standards. So if you're tired of feeling tired, battling brain fog or simply not feeling like yourself check out strong cell today visit strongsell.com and use code charlie for 20% off your order that's strong cell.com promo code charlie always recommended giving strong cell six to eight weeks to experience its full benefits so do yourself a favor get strong cell today and give it the time it needs to work its magic We have Ben Leo. He's the chief U.S. correspondent at G.B. News and host of the late show live on G.B. News. So he has become a bit of a UK expert for us because he is British, of course. But Charlie also loved having him on. So he's a great guest. Ben, welcome back to the show. Good to see you, my friend. You are in Boston. Am I right? Yes, I'm in Boston. Hello, boys. Good to see you. And the viewers and listeners, England are playing Garner in the World Cup. So I'm doing my patriotic juicy and reporting on all things football or soccer, as you guys call it, from Boston. Ben, you know that the English team is just going to end up disappointing you and breaking your hearts again, right? I mean, you see where this is going. It's coming home. 60 years of her is coming to an end. I'll tell you now, we play very well in the first match. By the way, you guys are playing awesome as well. Two really good wins under your belt. So maybe we'll see you in the final. I heard that there is a potential. I don't know, you probably know more than this. I heard this in passing that we could end up playing. the Brits, well, the English, on July 4th in Philadelphia. I am told that as a realistic possibility. It's not anymore. We could play in Philadelphia on July 4th. I don't think we can play England with the way things have shaken out. That would have just been too, too beautiful. But you guys could play Iran, actually, which would be very funny. That would be explosive, to say the least. It would be explosive. It would be. They have to come up. They have to stay in Mexico, by the way. The rules that we've put it, they can only come up the day before the match, and then they have to go straight back. Wow. So. They were complaining about it. They were saying, why can't we just stay in California and rest? And the State Department saying that you guys are going. Did you know, by the way, the IRGC, they tried to import two or three IRC members with the soccer team. And that's why their visas. All the leftist media was saying, oh, my God, isn't it so abhorrent that they're banning Iranian football staff? The fact of the matter is, there were two or three IRGC members. Well, of course. I mean, naturally. Can't trust the Iranians. I mean, that's the second half of this hour. We're going to have a debate about the MOU with somebody who does not support it, and I support it. So anyways, Ben, that's not why we have you on. We have you on to talk about Keir Starmer, who has stepped down.

He announced his resignation. He hasn't stepped down yet, I guess, because he's going to remain on as a caretaker, Prime Minister. What forced this? What caused this? He got emotional in his press conference announcing it. Tell us all about it, please. Yeah, do you know what? He got more emotional. He showed more humanity and emotion in his wo is me resignation speech on the steps of Downing Street than he did over the past two years of his premiership. This is a guy who is authoritarian. He's robotic. And it's testament to the fact that when he was a young sort of university student, he was the editor of a Marxist magazine at uni. And then he went for some reason, mysteriously, he's never explained why, to visit a Soviet... training camp in Czechoslovakia. So look, he is definitely of a Marxist persuasion. But the problem with Keir Starmer is that he is a man with no ideology, really, no agenda, no intent. He doesn't really believe in anything. His government was basically founded on the concepts of U-turns. He did something like 24 different U-turns over the course of two years. For example, amongst the litany of people he'd thrown under the bus during his premiership. Farmers, he tried to introduce a inheritance tax on farmer states over a certain limit. Farmers already, as they are in the United States, you know, struggling to make ends meet. There was a massive U-turn on that. They tried to throw pensioners under the bus by taking away some of their pension credit and welfare benefits, all sorts of things. But he's also a man who actually is quite chilling in a way because... He cared more about the international order and his human rights mates on the world stage than he did about Great Britain and the British people. And he doesn't actually care about the British people. But more importantly, he doesn't understand the British people. For example, he wanted away the Chegos Islands, Diego Garcia, where we share the joint UK-US military base. He wanted to give away the Chagall Islands because an international court with no jurisdiction chaired by a bunch of Chinese judges said that we should do so. So he was giving it away to Chinese ally, Mauritius. I won't bore you with the deed sales. Giving it away to Chinese ally Mauritius and charging British taxpayers about 40 billion quid for the process. Let me just remind you, this is sovereign British territory. That's one example of how he doesn't care about the country. He doesn't understand the nation. And also the Muslim rape gangs. A massive, massive scandal here in the United Kingdom. worse, arguably, in terms of victims and just the horrors of it than the Epstein scandal. He called anybody who wanted an inquiry into Pakistani Muslim rape gangs far right. He thinks that we're just some sort of far-right racists who want to demonise Pakistani Muslims. One of the truth of the matter is, there is an over-representation of Pakistani Muslim rapists who have been abusing young working-class British white girls for decades and decades. So that's just two examples. And thank God he's gone. The question is now, boys, is his replacement, which looks like maybe Andy Burnham, who is already having tweets on Earth from 2021, 2022 slagging off President Trump.

he'll probably be his replacement. And he is arguably even more left than Keir Starmer. Andy Burnham. Yeah, and his wife is getting a lot of press as well. She looks like a bit of a... She looks like a Bond villain. She's the director or some other position for Octopus Energy, which definitely sounds sinister. But Ben, so bigger picture, I think this is what, your sixth prime minister in seven years, or maybe it's seven and six, whatever it is, Britain's had a lot of instability since the Brexit vote. They keep churning through prime ministers who... lose popularity very rapidly or never really possess it at all. Can you speak to what's driving this crisis of the British political system? And we keep hoping they can turn it around. Are we getting closer to that? And what, in your view, needs to be done to create that turnabout to get a prime minister who can win a second election? Yeah, sadly, it's going to be seven prime ministers when Burnham takes control. If he does, he will, seven prime ministers in 10 years. And how can you expect to get anything done? when you're changing prime ministers, administrations, ideologies so much, you should be building things with a 10-year vision for two terms. You can't get anything done, seven in 10 years. And the problem is, The electorate, our politicians have forgotten who they serve. They think they are now better than the ordinary people, the plebs, you and I back home. They embark on mad policies such as net zero. President Trump talks about it a lot. He says the problem with the United Kingdom is a immigration. We've got open borders. We've got a bunch of third world sub-Saharan's flooding the English Channel and roaming the streets of Britain. And most of them, well, not most of them, a good proportion of them committing crimes against the British natives. And then also this obsession with what we call. net zero, which is we are pledging to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030. So despite having an abundance of oil under the North Sea, liquid oil under our feet, natural gas, we can also frat shale gas in the UK. We've got an abundance of energy, but we choose to deliberately harm ourselves, harm our energy prospects. And then what we do is go and import it from other nations. Our energy builds are some of the height of the world. I pay something like £400 a month for my energy bill back home. I when I spoke to President Trump in the Oval Office a few months ago when I had the pleasure of meeting him, he said, what do you like most about America, about D.C.? I said, Mr. President, your energy bills. I'm paying like... I don't know, 20 bucks a month or something. And he was surprised. So energy is the big one. Immigration is probably the priority. And that's what the Brexit vote was all about. By the way, it's the 10 year anniversary of the Brexit vote today. We voted to leave the European Union. And the number one issue for that was migration. We wanted to close our borders. And all politicians have done, prime ministers after prime ministers, is continue flooding our country with illegal and legal migration. They've not listened. I argue they've done it on purpose.

Yeah, I mean, we have the same problem here. I mean, we, we, I mean, listen, President Trump's had a great job on the border, handling illegal immigration, certainly. We want more deportations, but we still, we still have 1.2 million green cards issued a year in the United States. So when we talk about this, it has to be a both legal and illegal immigration. conversation. So, all right, breaking news just really quick. The D.C. Court of Appeals has just ruled in President Trump's favor and the admin's favor. The appeal court cleared the way for the Trump administration to expand a fast-track deportation process that would allow for the expedited removal of migrants who are living far from the border. Now, this has been used for decades, apparently, at the border, but then President Trump expanded it to cover the entire United States in the interior. Back in August of 2025, a judge blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's move to expand who qualifies for expedited removal. And that has just been overturned. So President Trump can now expand expedited removal for non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the U.S. who could not show that they had been in the country for two years. That sounds splendid. That sounds great. I'm into it. There's so many of these. We like to flag it because so many people complain about the big headline, which again, I would remind you, is often just chosen by the New York Times to push a preferred narrative, and that's what everyone talks about because the New York Times is talking about it. But going on constantly, there's, yeah, sometimes the federal judge is saying, can't spend snap this way, can't use your database this way, but sometimes that federal judges... You can deport these people faster. These people you've been trying to get rid of for ages, you can finally send them back. Deportations have gone from 500 today to 1,000 a day to 2,000 a day. It keeps going up. There's all these little things happening that are white pills. Which is why we're not doomers. And it's often not... This stuff, and it's often done without getting a lot of attention. Ben Leo joins us from G.B. News, Chief U.S. correspondent, but he is a Brit. He is a proud Brit supporting their soccer team, football team, however you want to say. Now, Ben, we have a picture. Yeah, there it is. There it is. We have a picture of the incoming new, potentially, we think, the new prime minister, right there. Just with a little hairdye added on one. I can't tell the difference, Ben, but that's. Maybe you can't come. He's on the red. He's on. Yeah, who is that on the left? It looks like Andy Burnham. The team thinks that Rosie O'Donnell and Andy Burnham share a striking resemblance. It's his sister from another Mr. Rosie O'Donnell. She's a resident of the UK now. We just figured maybe this is what's really going on here. The Cotswolds, which is probably the most untouched part of the UK because there's no migrants there. Who would have thought? The likes of Ellen DeGeneres are there as well. Tom Cruise is played. So all you, most of the left, the Americans are flooding the English potswolds. And isn't it, actually, it's a great point. Isn't that ironic and hypocritical that they flood to the one part of England, which is untouched by migrants, by societal decay, of course, because it's beautiful. They're not sort of setting up camp in central London or Birmingham.

Well, this is exactly right. I mean, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have a nice quaint estate and Martha's Vineyard, one of the widest places in the country, which I just always have found ironic. Yeah, I mean, so, but listen, let's get into this. So I feel like we're on this countdown watch for Nigel and restore, or reform, rather, and then you get the restored conversation happening. But there was an election last week. It didn't go so great. Tell us about that and what the takeaways. from that election were. Well, so let me just give you some context about the political scene as a wider picture first. So the UK, Reform UK, which is headed by Nigel Farage, President Trump's good friend from yesterday year. They are leading all polls by some margin. They're on about 30 to 35 percent depending on the poll, and that's for the last year and a half. So they are leading every poll going. However, there was what you call a special election in the UK last week near Manchester. We call it a by-election. And Andy Burnham. who wasn't an MP, a member of Parliament at the time. He was the mayor of Manchester. He ran in that special election to become an MP with the intent of kicking out Keir Starmer, the current prime minister, because he would have triggered a leadership contest. Keir Starmer, in his indignity, did another U-turn. And despite saying previously, he contested a leadership contest, saying, I'm not going anywhere. He U-turned again like a flip-flop and said, okay, I'm just going to resign. He packed it in. He saw the writing on the wall. So in that special election... Burnham was standing for Labour, Reform UK, which is Nigel Farage's party. They also stood. So really, there was other parties running, but it was Reform UK, Nigel's party against Labour. And Labour won, because it's a very specific area of Manchester. Andy Burnham was the mayor of Manchester. He's loved by all the locals. He's called the so-called King of the North. That's his nickname, the North of England. So, yes, it wasn't an awful result for reform. They got 15,000 votes compared to Labor's, Andy Burnham's, 25,000. But it really, you would have argued it would have been, or should have been a lot closer. But you can't really apply a special election, as you would in the US, to the wider United States. It was a bad result, I guess, for reform. Nigel Farage said he was disappointed. Labor won it, but reform are still leading all the nationwide polls. Well, that's good. We do have an image of the UGov-Westminster voting intention reform UK at 25% conservative. See, that's interesting. Conservative 20. I mean, I'm assuming that's Tory, right? Is this poll accurate? It says it's from the 21st, 22nd of June. That doesn't look right to me. Tories, if there was a general election held tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Well, I mean, the Tories, that's a pretty amazing comeback for the conservatives, if that is true. That doesn't look right. Maybe that's, I don't know, maybe that's just sort of lumped in all the, all the conservative parties and what. All right. So here's the question of, it's the million dollar question, always when it comes to the UK. When do we get an actual election to replace? Labor as the ruling party. So there's rumours that Andy Burnham, when he becomes Prime Minister in maybe three to four weeks, he could call a snap election. So the political thinking there is, well, look, I just absolutely smashed it in Makerfield. We dealt with reform. We blew them out the water. Let's call a snap election and reset the term clock. And I'll have a mandate to govern without any criticism. Everybody's saying,

It's only democratic if you call a snap election. Reform UK wants a snap election. They're ready to go. They're ready to fight for number 10. However, I don't think there will be. I think Andy Burnham probably realizes that Makerfield, the special election we had, isn't representative of the wider country. So I think he'll hang on for the next three years in his premiership in number 10 as Prime Minister. So the election will come in August 2029. So really, I hope you feel for us, Brits, we have another three odd years or so of... lunacy of open borders, of pandering to migrants, of migrants killing and raping native Brits, of high energy bills, of cost of living spiraling out of control, of being labelled far right racist Nazis. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. But do you know what? I think sometimes that needs to happen. I think you need a mass awakening in order for people, maybe normies, as we call them, who don't really follow the news or follow politics to really step up and say, Hang on a minute. Something doesn't feel quite right about the UK anymore. This isn't the great Britain I grew up with. So maybe I think it needs to get worse, unfortunately, before it gets better. So three years. Is there anything that could cause this to happen sooner than three years? Because three years, a lot can happen in three years. We certainly saw that with Biden on our end. Is there anything that could make it happen faster? Only if Andy Burnham calls a snap election or his party turned against him with a vote of no confidence, which is going to be extremely rare. He's just coming to the job. So no, it's down to Andy Burnham. If he's got the balls for it, he'll call a snap election. I don't think he will. Ben Leo, G.B. News, English football fan and hooligan. Enjoy yourself out there. Stay safe, Ben. We'll talk to you soon. If you could go back in time and buy oil before the world relied on it, would you? Of course you would. Anybody would. So why aren't you buying silver right now? The people who recognized oil early didn't just make money. They got ahead of one of the biggest economic shifts in history. And today, a similar opportunity is unfolding with silver. Silver is more than a precious metal. It's a critical resource used in solar panels, electric vehicles, defense systems, AI infrastructure, and the massive data centers powering that digital world. While demand keeps growing, it's still affordable enough that the average American can start accumulating it right now. That's why investors are turning to silver to protect against inflation and to own one of the world's most important strategic resources. Don't be the person who looks back in 10 years and says, I saw it coming, I just didn't act. Visit noblegoldinvestments.com slash kirk and learn how easy it is to own physical silver. That's noblegoldinvestments.com slash kirk. Own the metal. The future depends on. We have a great guest in store for you right now. That's David Hirsani. He's the senior writer at the Washington Examiner and co-host of Your Wrong with Molly Hemingway, who's one of our all-time favorites. David, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. Yeah. So to catch our audience up.

Yesterday we had Steve Dase on. I had tweeted out basically a question, you know, for those who are not supportive of the MOU, what are the alternatives, you know? And you were one of the people that responded back. I brought it up on air with Steve Dase, and he was very complimentary of you. And I'm assuming you're a great guy if Molly Hemingway is hanging out with you all the time. We haven't had a chance to meet. But you disagreed. You said that was a false choice that I was presenting. It was two binary between... either the MOU or boots on the ground and regime changed. There you have your tweet there. You said, these aren't the choices, not even close, but even if we wanted to disengage from the war, we could leave its status quo, which would be better than a deal not only enriching and propping up the regime, but restraining Israel and Gulf states from fighting. So I am supportive of pursuing peace with this MOU, and I'm supportive of Vice President JD Vance. You have a different take. What is it? Well, I wouldn't be tweeting like that if I knew it would be shown on a show. I have to be a little more careful what I say out there. Well, yeah, I think that is a false binary choice. There are an array of ways that, in an array of deals that could be, for instance, made other than what we've done, which I think, frankly, listen. Maybe tomorrow goes in a different direction, but right now I think it's trending in the direction of being worse than the Obama deal in many ways. And for instance, we could pick up and leave and strike a very narrow deal just on the straight rather than giving them, you know, full access to all their oil money, opening up funding for them, you know, in other ways. And... in dealing with Pakistan and the Qataris, it just seems like it's far too much for a nation that won the military part of this war. Of course, we all want peace. Do we want to go back? I think that's the question we should ask. And Donald Trump launched this war. Once we do that, we don't want to undermine our deterrence. We don't want to undermine... undermind the future for the nation and our military. I mean, it's clear to me that we could have made a better deal here. I think that's the first way to look at it. So you say we clearly could make a better deal. I suppose the natural question is, why don't we have that deal right now and what are the immediate obstacles to getting it? Is it that we just need to resume strikes and we would be able to get it? How do you see it playing out? I mean, I think that the Iranians are in terrible economic shape, and clearly they were in trouble. I just want to also mention, I mean, oil prices have been going down for the last three weeks. I'm not going to pretend here that there isn't a price to war and that there isn't a domestic political price to war. That's clear that there is, and it's clear that there is very little support generally for this war. But OPEC nations were increasing their output. Other nations were making it up. There are, I think, a lot of... technologies and ideas in place to try to make the Strait of Hormuz less important as far as oil goes. So rather than having this, I don't know, how long was this kind of ceasefire before the ceasefire going on? It's been going on for months. We could have been hitting...

Revolutionary Guard installations. We could have been hitting more of their politicians. I mean, we're at war and we want to win that war. No one wins at war, but you know what I mean. So we should have been doing that. How does a deal look like? I'm not sure, but I guess it looks like not releasing funding. to Iran, which is fungible dollars no matter how you track it or don't track it, that lets them continue to arm proxies, for instance. I mean, Donald Trump made three demands when this war started, and I don't think maybe one of them is met. We're not getting there in rich uranium. We're not doing anything about their ballistic missile program. So why are we there? It would have been better never to go. We're in the worst place now than we were before. I don't necessarily disagree with that last statement that you just made. Blake and I, I think, should share the skepticism of going in to begin with. But I think what my point here is that... The main objective was always nuclear for President Trump. If you play the clips back from decades, it's nuclear, right? If you go back far enough, he was embarrassed by the hostage crisis in 79, and he thought that we should smack him around and show him who's boss. I get that. But the main real goal was nuclear. If you could get regime change, if the regime fell, you know, the Israelis wanted that. They pitched Trump on that. Marco Rubio apparently in the situation room said, I think that Intel is bunk, but if you want goals number one and number two, which is, you know, basically beat back their military and get the nuclear, then... You should go in. All right. So that's kind of where I net out on this, is that President Trump has been consistent. You know, a lot of people in the Trump coalition, the anti-interventionist crowd, which I tend towards much more so than, you know, foreign adventurism. They are wrong that Trump has not been consistent on this issue. He's been very consistent about getting the nuclear. So if you get the nuclear and the straight is back opened and we have damaged significantly the ballistic missile program. then what else, what other outcomes do we want? And people keep comparing this to the JCPOA. You made that comment yourself. My contention to that is that because President Trump has used force, because the force is a credible threat against the Iranian regime, this deal is fundamentally different, that the leverage that we have on them is fundamentally different than what Obama and Kerry and Hillary Clinton applied in the JCPOA because the Iranians read them like a book. They knew. that they didn't want to strike. They knew that it was sort of a weak, limp-risted threat against them. And so they would tell the inspectors, you know, they would give them three weeks heads up that we're going to come in and then they'd move things. They would, you know, play games with the inspection regime. So to me, this is fundamentally different and the Iranians are compelled to play ball. Why do you think that they're not going to do that to the inspectors now? I mean, I just want to quickly say that the uranium.

we're not getting it, we're helping them get it, and then we're diluting it, which is a completely reversible process. It doesn't make any sense to me that if we're going to go help them get it, that we can't just take it. Why can't we just take it? Is that completely off the top of the board? I mean, why can't we just take it? I want to push on that a bit. The reason we can't just take it is if we would have to go in and do it, that would mean boots on the ground. And I guess the bigger picture here that I think we have to confront is I don't think there's any popular enthusiasm in the United States for U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. And setting aside the whatever the geopolitical stakes are, I think we all have to confront. We have a domestic political movement, and I think it would be suicidal. for us to launch a bigger war in Iran at this point. And are you incorporating that into your analysis? Are you focusing strictly on the military angle, or do you think there's a political winner here to continue the war in a longer-term way? I just want to say, I'm not saying that we should put boots on the ground to get the uranium. I'm saying in the deal itself, in the framework of the deal, we're helping them from what I've seen in reporting, and it could be changed or could be wrong, is that we're going to help them get this uranium and then help them dilute it. By we, I mean the West in some way. I don't mean that we should drop boots on the ground in any sort of law or have any kind of. No, no, that's okay. I probably wasn't clear enough. I don't think there's political will for that at all. That's why I don't think this is a good, you know, I don't think that binary choice is real. A regime change, I think people are jumping the gun. Like, I don't know that there'll be regime change now. Obviously. the regime's going to be strengthened with what's happening. But I think in the long term, you've hurt them in a way that maybe there is a chance for regime change. I don't know what the Israelis told. I don't know what the Israelis told the president or not. But in the long term, the Iranian regime was in trouble already. So now it's a weekend. And I also want to give Donald Trump credit for what we did do. And he should make this case to the American people. We did set their nuclear program back at the very least. We did destroy their military in the short term. And we did take out a whole strata of their leadership. That's not nothing. It was an incredibly impressive military campaign. What I'm saying is that we haven't taken that victory. We're not acting like we won. I mean, if we dropped someone in who knew nothing about geopolitics into what happened the other, you know, in Switzerland with Pakistan and the Qataris and the Iranians making a deal, you wouldn't know. Would you even know who won that war? I don't know. Is that too tough for me to say? I feel like I think that's the basic gist of the pushback that I'm getting is that we could have got better terms.

President Trump has made the point that when you freeze assets, we have the dollar, right, is the dominant currency in the country or in the world. It's being challenged, of course, by BRICS nations. But if you don't unfreeze assets, then you're essentially stealing money. Eventually, you have to play ball and unfreeze those assets. Now, their negotiations are ongoing about how best to unfreeze those assets. And admittedly, there's a... disagreement currently. President Trump's saying they're going to buy U.S. produce with that and feed the Iranian people. We're going to make sure that it's not used in terror to fund terror proxies. Admittedly, I'm skeptical about the ability to do that. And money is fungible. Money is fungible, but that is one of the ideas that's on the table, but ultimately you have to, you can't just steal people's assets, right? They're frozen, they're kept in a different account. So the question is, you know, what better terms are you looking for? Well, let me just say this. The idea, if the Iranians wanted to be a rich country, they could be. They're oil rich. They should be a really successful economic nation. They choose not to be because they're run by an Islamic. a fundamentalist cult, basically. So if they wanted to be rich, they could be. They have no real geopolitical reason to be at war with us, to be a war with Israel, to be at war with anyone other than Sunni Arabs, actually, even theologically. It makes no real sense. So they could be rich. And the sanction regime has been there for a long time. It could continue. We have sanctions on Cuba for a very long time. I don't know, 50 years or more. So it's not as we couldn't do that if we wanted to. But if you're saying, hey, it's better to try to pursue, or Donald Trump's saying it's better to pursue peace, let's see if we can, you know, help them or at least allow them to economically thrive and they'll be more peaceful, I'd be incredibly skeptical about that. So. When in the framework, we give them Lebanon. We essentially allow them to dictate what's happening in a country where there's a militia that they have that is not the army of that nation. And we allow them to use it as a lever. So whenever they feel like they can attack Israel and get more extract more stuff. So here's, I want to show you this. I think this is a really fascinating poll here. Okay. CBS did a poll. The conflict with Iran, what should the U.S. do now? 78% said end the conflict now. Only 22% said continue the conflict until Iran gives up more. Then this other part of the poll was very interesting too. Has the U.S. permanently stopped Iran's nuclear program? 31% said yes, done. 69% said, no, not done. So that's 47% of people say we are not getting rid of their nuclear deal, but they also. But they still want us out of there. And so this is my underlying point here, David, is sometimes, you know, yes, militarily, we had all this leverage. We destroyed them. We were absolutely victorious.

But politically, this has always been kind of a dog. It's always not been that popular. And I can tell you with Turning Point students, it's extremely unpopular. So the point is, I think some of what's happening here is just a manifestation of a political reality domestically here at home that we do have a compelling interest in getting peace and peace sooner. If we can achieve the objectives of dealing with the nuclear and getting that straight back to open for energy prices, which does have a political downstream effect. Then there is a compelling interest to get this deal done, do it in good faith. And the other point I would make is because you brought up the Qataris and the Pakistanis. I mean, they've been the mediators because at first we weren't sure who to even connect with, who to communicate with. We're gaining an understanding of who the leadership structure is and what they believe in Iran. But the command and control has been completely wiped out in some ways. So the point is... Trump is going for a regional deal, right? He believes that countries that do business together are less prone to go to war with each other. And that is part of the incentive structure here. It's a carrot and a stick approach. But I would say that president has been very consistent. He has maintained that he can just start dropping bombs on their heads again if they renege and they back out on this deal. And the credible use of force remains. They know he means it. It's disconcerting how often I find myself in the 22% in these polls these days, I have to say, but of course it's not popular. I agree. I think this was a political decision. I think it was taking too long, and the president sees the midterms coming, and he made a political decision. I will say, though, I do think that this has already baked into polls for him. He's the one who went there, and if... I forgot what the number was. A number of people don't believe it achieved its goals. I don't think that's helpful for him, even if we come back and strike some kind of deal. As for the dealing itself, you mentioned a regional deal where people have economies that rely on each other. Yeah, I love that idea. The problem is that... if you have the Pakistanis at the table and you don't have the Israelis or even the Lebanese or even the Saudis, I think that's a problem. You're not having true representation of the conflict itself or what happened or what needs to happen moving forward. So it seems to me like it wreaks a little bit of desperation on our part, which we didn't really need to do. I guess my, when I really just boil it down, my argument is we could have done better on, you know, at this deal. I guess every sports fan thinks that when there's a trade or whatever, but I mean, I feel like we've given them a lot. Well, so here's what I would push back on that with is that JD Vance, the president, the whole team has been very clear that this is a milestone approach, right? They have to. do X, Y, and Z in good faith has to be verified for any of these sanctions reliefs or the assets to get unfrozen. So they have to display good faith actions for any of that to happen. And if they roll back on it, if they renege on the deal, then we go back to square one.

So I would say- But do you think that that's happened? I mean, think about the oil waiver. We're still in the, in what sense, I guess? Well, they waive the oil, they waived the oil for, you know, allowing them to trade at will, which will go to the chikoms mostly for 60 days. And there was no, no, nothing really connected to that as far as improving behavior. Even the Obama deal, they had them signed the waiver. They only released the waivers once the deal was signed and all the, you know, eyes had been dotted and so on. Well, this MOU was signed. This MOU was signed. No, no, not the, yeah. Yeah, I know. But it's a good faith effort. Listen, these, the particulars here and there, like I might agree with you directionally. But to be clear, this is a, this is an MOU that establishes a good faith 60 day debate. I don't think, or negotiation, I don't think that we know all the details of how it's going to be debated yet. I mean, I've talked to some people who think that the toll, that, you know, the Iranians have been approved to, you know, apply a toll in the Strait of Hormuz. I can't gather that from anything. But by the way, did you know that shipping containers that go through the Panama Canal often are charged about between $150,000 and $400,000? So sometimes there are. Costs of doing business. I don't know what's going to ultimately happen. Oman and Qatar are saying that maybe they will charge fees just because it costs them something to monitor and keep the straight open. I don't know exactly how everything's going to pan out, but the president has been very clear that he doesn't want to have any tolls, especially from the Iranians in the strait. I'm just, I'm trying to find out what if I'm putting a straw man argument out there, which you essentially said in not so many words, you did it nicely, but. But the point is, what is the alternative besides $5 gas and a dismal political reality for conservatives here at home? And I will tell you, we had a poster Rich Barrison yesterday. He said he's already seeing a bit of a bounce back in some of the polling. He's live polling it right now. So I don't necessarily buy that it's baked into the cake, at least not completely, for the midterms. Well. I guess we have, you know, directionally speaking, we're in, yeah, I just think it's more important to finish the job there in the way that the president promised when we first started. I know that he's a mercurial guy and he says a lot of things and we're just kind of brush it off. But he did make very specific promises about what we were doing. And if we don't do those things, I'm not a pollster, but I speak to a bunch of, you know, conservatives more like on the boomer side, probably of the equation. And there are. pretty unhappy. It feels like we went there and we kind of lost in a way, or we didn't gain anything, or we're in the worst place. And I think that matters as well for perception's sake. And as far as tolls go, listen, I didn't even mention that because I don't know. The Iranians say things. We say things. You know, and the Iranians can't be trusted. But when we talk about the sanction waivers, that did happen. So I know that the Iranians are saved by that money. It's like $10 billion for 60 days of oil trade. And I think that's the mistake until we get verifiable concessions from them, which we didn't do.

I don't want to have boots on the ground. I don't think that's a realistic thing. I don't think anyone wants that. That's why I would have called it a straw man because I don't think that's the argument. The argument is there's an array of other possible outcomes here in the sense of negotiating. Why haven't we explored those? But if you're saying for politics, we have to end it, then we need to end it. Yeah, I mean, it's uncomfortable to say, David, but maybe we have to confront. If we don't have the political will for boots on the ground, we fired, I think, four years of Tomahawk missiles in the roughly month where this was an intense hot war. We might have to confront. There's just limits to what we can actually do in the Middle East, and that's uncomfortable. Especially after Afghanistan, after Iraq. Yeah, I mean, that's my fair argument. Yep. We say that again? I'm just saying that's a fair argument. If that's the argument, I accept that. But to say that we couldn't do other things is a little, you know, I can't accept that. David, it's been a fascinating conversation. I appreciate you taking me up on the invitation to come on. It's been great to talk with you. Thank you so much. Nice meeting you guys. Thank you. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.