The Charlie Kirk Show - Andrew Burkhart Explains The Tyler Robinson Case + AMA 276

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

Tyler Robinson's defense briefs have focused entirely on attacking the death penalty, rather than demonstrating his innocence. Andrea Burkhart explains whether this is just temporary or a sign his attorneys know he is guilty. Evita Duffy-Alfonso discusses her dad's Great American Road Trip "controversy." Steve Deace and Savanah Hernandez join for the AMA, which answers questions about Charlie's feelings on the death penalty, Trump's EO on birth tourism, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 nobelgoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. All right, welcome back, everybody. It is Friday. That means hour two is going to be our ask us anything. I guess we have a huge treat in store. Steve Dase is going to be joining us for the entirety of hour two. So if you're a member at members. charliecirk.com, you can join us and ask questions live on air in hour two. So get ready for that. I'm all pumped up about that.

We love that hour. And hour one is packed, too. We have Andrea Burkart right at the start, and we're going to get started with her in just two seconds. But we also have Evita Duffy to talk about all the craze that's going on with the Duffy clan as they come out with their Great American Road Trip documentary, and people are losing their minds. About road trips? They're losing their minds about road trips. You know, he's a transportation secretary. So it's like they think you're not supposed to do these sorts of things.

I think it's great. Great celebration of America. But let's get into it. Andrea Burckhart, legal commentator, experience trial, and appellate litigator. You can follow her on Substack, and we recommend you do that. Also, YouTube on X. She's very active. Andrea, berkart.com. Andrea, welcome back to the show.

You know that we crave your analysis because you don't let us down gently. You tell us terrible news, like we have to wait until 2028, and then you post those clips or respond to them online and you break our heart further. Just kidding. You're just kind of a straight show. shooter. You don't pick sides. You just call balls and strikes. And so we get what we get with you, all right? So we got a bunch of questions post this debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson. And there's just kind of a lot of controversy swirling because each new defense or state brief,

it raises new questions. Okay. I think key among those, and you got, you saw this from the debate, certainly, was this idea that, oh, hey, Candace's position was that the parents, they don't believe that Tyler is guilty, but they won't talk yet because of strategy, because of strategy. So the question is sort of a larger one. If there is exculpatory evidence at the preliminary hearing stage of this whole ordeal, would they bring it up? If they're sitting on something like the parents actually don't think he did it, would they bring that up in the preliminary hearing? Sure. So in almost 20 years practicing as a criminal defense attorney. I cannot imagine having exculpatory evidence and not bringing it up at the probable cause stage, particularly in a context like this. The whole point of the

preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is justification to believe that this particular person may be involved with this particular crime so as to justify moving forward and requiring the full trial process. So if you have evidence that your defendant didn't do it, you know, isn't guilty, then the probable cause determination is absolutely the time when you would be bringing that up because if you can win that issue at this stage, you don't have to take the case any further and assume any risk of a bad trial outcome. Right. So just to be clear, you're saying it's not some 5D chess it's not 70 chess there's not like some grand plan here that they're going to like drop the hammer at the actual trial and be like see we told you this shouldn't

have gone to trial they would have brought this up now you would see it in the briefings you would have sought in the preliminary hearing july 6 to the 10th those things would have come out so other buckets yeah go ahead it's extraordinarily unlikely that there is some kind of 5D chess going on here And part of the reason why is because especially in a high profile case like this, there are two things going on. One, you're fighting the case itself. You're dealing with the court standards, what they're actually there to accomplish, the scope of your right to present evidence that tends to negate probable cause in order to try to get your client out of this process and out of jail at the earliest opportunity. but this is a very high profile case and these attorneys are extremely aware that there's also a lot of public attention on it. And so to not strategically use information to benefit your client's position in the court of public opinion in a high profile case like this, it just also strikes me as extremely unlikely. All right, Blake, I know you got a question, but I also want to just say, send us your emails, freedom at charliekirk.com,

Freedom at Charliekirk.com. If you have questions for Andrea, send them in. We're going to do a rapid fire quick. I know we all are very verbose around here, but we're going to try and do a rapid fire audience question. So send them in, freedom at charliekirk.com. We want to answer your questions with Andrea. I have another question.

Do you have questions? You can go. So the other claim here that seen, and you saw this in the state's last 19 page brief, which was that, you know, they're kind of going through inferences versus speculation, informed inferences versus speculation. And it kind of made me think of some of the other themes of that debate where they're talking about hearsay, right? So at a preliminary hearing, reliable hearsay is admissible. And there was claims that it was all reliable hearsay, that there was nothing that was not hearsay. Why don't you explain the difference between hearsay, reliable hearsay, and a preliminary hearing, what's admissible? And what does that really indicate?

Sure. So Utah has this very specific definition of what reliable hearsay is. Their constitution, their statutes allow reliable hearsay to be used at this stage of the proceeding. The Utah Supreme Court has upheld that in past challenges. But reliable hearsay, it's technical. It's not just anything somebody says can come into court. It has to meet certain minimum qualifications to fit this definition. So there were several things that were presented at the preliminary hearing that were not reliable hearsay. And the best example of that was the very first witness who testified was a law enforcement officer who was present. I'm not sure formal law enforcement or just the university police, but was present for the events and testified about his personal perceptions of what he observed, how that led him to. the rooftop and discover the sniper pad and basically all of the investigation that unfolded from that.

So no, it's not all reliable hearsay. What this rule essentially does is it allows them to, because this is a preliminary proceeding, this is a screening process to decide if the case should go forward to trial or not. It's not itself a full trial where all of this evidence is going to be tested. So what it does is it simply allows them to use materials that are pretty commonly relied on by the attorneys and all the participants in the course of the case, things like the police reports, forensic evaluations and evidence of that nature, to use that in lieu of requiring the person who wrote the report to fly into Utah, arrange their day, et cetera, and be present to give live testimony in the courtroom.

So it's not an indication particularly of the quality of this evidence, nor does that preclude the defense from being able to use their rights to present evidence and their rights to cross-examination to raise points that tend to negate probable cause. Does the not challenge the substance, okay? This is that they're saying that the defense is not challenging the substance. is it a deliberate, you know, meaning like their silence on some of the central claims, are they admitting guilt? Yeah. So I think part of the challenge here is that there is a lot of language being used, a lot of equivocation about language that's being used and a lot of conflation of different things. So in their filings, the defense has not admitted anything. The defense has not made any kind of formal admission of guilt or any particular facts.

They did admit that he was in the stairwell, right? Andrea? I'm sorry? They did admit that it was him on the surveillance video. I would not count that as an admission. I would call that careless wording on the part of the defense, but I wouldn't necessarily call that an admission. That I think is different from a concession, which is refusing to argue a position that you might otherwise be expected to argue. And so in the context of this case, what you have is the state arguing. There's sufficient evidence here to believe that Tyler Robin is the perpetrator. and therefore he should be bound over for trial. The defense has raised only the argument that hearsay evidence should not be allowed to decide whether or not he should be bound over on murder charges. But they aren't arguing that there's any substantive problem with that evidence.

So essentially, they are not taking a position contrary to the state's argument that assuming the court's going to allow him. the reliable hearsay to be used, as the Utah Constitution says, as the Utah Supreme Court says, that there is, in fact, going to be probable cause to bind him over on these charges. So they're not contesting that substantive position. They are making a procedural argument. That's what I think is fairly characterized as a concession. Okay, fair enough.

And so that's why so much of it is fixated on the aggravating factors. Okay, let's go to the emails here. All right. Well, we've got several here. So let's try to get through a few. The first one. From Charlene, why isn't there a ruling to stop all the talking about this case online before the trial? I think fake news hurts justice.

We're doing rapid fire. Because of the First Amendment, we have a strong preference against what they call prior restraints in the United States. So gag orders generally, the circumstances in which those are allowed are extremely limited. You can't back gag the public. You can't gag the media. All right. Fair enough. And notably much better than the UK, where it's very common for.

them to gag almost all discussion and we've seen problems with that all right we got this from hc what would be the expected timeline for a trial you think at this point uh and if convicted a potential execution if the death penalty is imposed great questions um trial i had previously said early 2028 since we're approaching september without bind over i'm going to probably have to extend that out now to more like the end of 2028 uh in terms of uh if there were a conviction, the timeline for execution. That can be decades. Utah is not known for being quick with its death row. They have inmates currently on death row that have spent more than three decades there and are still actively litigating their cases. So I would not expect a rapid execution,

meaning like earlier than 20 years. Andrea, I have a tack on to that. How do they determine the mode of execution in Utah? Because it's one of the few states that, notably has like firing squads and things like that. How do they figure out how they're going to do it? Yeah. So these are decisions that are made legislatively. They have to approve methods of execution. And so the primary method of execution in Utah remains a lethal injection. However, in the event that the lethal injection drugs are not able to be secured or for some other reason, they aren't able to carry it out by by that method, then Utah does allow the firing squad as an alternative. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Kind of morbid to think about.

All right. So we have another one from Katie. Can Andrea please go over the DNA and the degradation of DNA on what they mean by that? Wasn't it like also fingerprints, though? I actually legitimately got confused. Were they talking about fingerprint degradation or DNA? The floor is yours, Andrew. Yeah, yeah.

Dive into that. Well, so DNA degradation is such a massive topic. I've actually been very much thinking I probably need to do a video on. this to spell some of it out. But when you're talking about touch DNA in particular, meaning when you swab areas, not because there's a blood stain there or something like that, a biological fluid, but just because you believe somebody may have physically contacted a particular item, you're dealing with touch DNA. And what you get from touch DNA is highly variable. Sometimes it's very high quality. Sometimes it's very low quality. We are only like still in the early stages of

understanding how humans transfer their own DNA into the environment. So the fact of degradation is pretty easy to observe in a DNA sample. There's literally a shape in the graph that is produced of the results that tells you that degradation is happening. What you cannot infer from the fact of degradation is what it means, how it happened, why it happened, whether the DNA was already degraded before it was deposited, which can happen with certain skin cells are already degraded, or whether it's the result of different environmental factors that were present at the time of the deposition. So there's a great amount of variability in these samples, and that's why, as we heard in the preliminary hearing, the federal, the Department of Justice analysts, people who work for

the Department of Justice, they are not allowed to testify in court about, any opinions that would relate to the timing of samples being deposited. It doesn't tell you when it was deposited. Absolutely not. Okay. Yes, no, that would be a very unscientific claim. Okay. All right.

This one, I'll admit it's getting more into the conspiracy direction, but let's engage with it in good faith. This is from Nellie. Why were items that belonged to Charlie and were part of the crime scene, his necklace, his microphone, a jacket of his, given to Erica. also why dig up the crime scene 10 inches down and then speedily pour concrete there? Got a minute and a half left here, Andrew. Yeah, so we are, first off, what we actually know about the investigation is very much in evolving question.

Because a lot of this information is, we only know about it because of search warrants. It hasn't come up in case yet, in the case yet. And search warrants are often sealed for a certain length of time. They're also a little bit hard to track day. down given Utah's filing system. So we have learned that personal property of Charlie was the subject of one of the very earliest search warrants that was issued in the case. That would include things like his phone, his clothing. So we know that that was at least initially in the possession of law enforcement for them to do what they needed to do with it. With respect to the crime scene,

it's normal for police to hold the crime scene and secure it for as long as they need to do their physical investigation. There are steps that they can take. A very common one these days is called pharaoh scanning. It's a 3D scan that allows them to create a digital copy of like the measurements and where things were located and stuff like that to be able to recreate the crime scene later. But the general idea is that that initial period of the crime scene being secured is as long as it needs to be for police to get what they want. And once they're once they're done, with what they need, they return it to the property owner. Yeah, exactly. Perfect. Andrea Burckhard. Thank you so much. You got through a lot of questions. A lot of questions.

Thank you. God bless you. We'll talk to you soon. Midterm elections are coming up and control of Congress is on the line. If there's one thing financial markets hate, it's uncertainty. And uncertainty is exactly what the next few months are going to bring. In 2024, if it taught us anything, it's that uncertainty breeds volatility. Between now and November could be one of the next few months. It's of the most volatile stretches for the stock market and the economy. So you owe it to yourself to have a plan. Here's the good part. There's a simple way to protect what you've built, and that's gold. Physical gold and silver let you hedge against that volatility. And there's no better partner for it than noble gold investments. For over a decade, noble gold has helped everyday Americans

protect their wealth with precious metals. They make it simple. They make it easy and they make it safe. if you can trust them. Give them a call 877-646-5347. That's 877-6-446-5347 or visit them online at nobelgoldinvestments.com slash kirk and find out how to protect yourself, your wealth and your family. Noblegoldinvestments.com slash Kirk. Election day is coming. Don't let it arrive without a plan.

And here's the best part. To celebrate America's 250th, just mention the Charlie Kirk show when you call Noble Gold and they'll send you a free 10-ounce silver bar when you. you open a new qualified account. Mention the Charlie Kirk Show, that's all you got to do, and they'll do the rest. All right, joining us now is Avida Duffy Alonzo. She is, you've probably seen her all over the place, actually. And obviously, she's the daughter of Rachel, who we love, and Sean, who we love. Avita, welcome to the show.

It's good to have you. I got to say, you guys just have a knack for being in the conversation as a family, as an entire family. Yeah, we're in the news all the time. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad. But, you know, I'm, I'm always here for it. Right. Our family is, I think, a symbol of really positive, conservative values. And when you, when you show that to the world, you're always going to have people hating on you. Well, and we had your husband on the show a couple of times right before his big primary win. So congratulations there. You guys are a lovely family. And we're just total, I mean, it's like straight out of central casting of kind of what, Charlie would envision for the future leaders of America and you guys are doing great. So no longer future, we're looking at current, current leaders of America. Okay. So you guys are doing this thing as a family. It's like the Great American Road Trip, which I think is perfect. Your mom and your dad both have a

reality TV past and that kind of helped launch them into some stuff. So they're doing kind of a big documentary. You guys are a part of it. And a lot of people have a problem with it, but he's the transportation secretary and he's celebrating road tripping across america explain to me what the real problem is here well so so the the the road trip really it's it's it's this idea that to love america you have to see america and this is something that our family has been talking about for a long time you know i'm a i'm a jensier i grew up in a country where i was taught to hate my nation that christopher columbus is the greatest villain of all time that i can't be be proud of of where i come from that I have to apologize and be ashamed of being an American.

And I think what a road trip does is subvert what we're being told in a classroom or through your phone screen, because it allows you to actually go and see America firsthand, to be inspired by it in the way that Alexis de Tocqueville was when he toured America. He's a French philosopher who famously wrote this book called Democracy in America that has really inspired people around the world to become Americans or to emulate American ideals for a, for now a couple centuries. So the road trip is promoting travel, yes, from my dad's purview as the transportation secretary, but it's also about rediscovering who we are at a time when so many people, so many forces in our culture are trying to lie about what America is and make you hate your country. You should love America because it's worth loving. It's also about family, too. I mean, like, you guys have like, there's like 48 of you running around. I mean, it's wonderful

in the best way. I mean, that is the largest compliment possible. It is, We need to be fruitful and multiply, and the Duffy family has led by example. And I love that. And so let's go ahead and play. This is your dad talking about this. Satna. My mom, she had a longer time frame in which she was passing. It was months.

And my whole family had a lot of time to spend with her. And invariably, all the stories that were told by her kids about their favorite memories were the road trips that we went on. And maybe that's why I want to do this. As I thought about the special moments with my own mom, it was about travel. I love it. I love it. And there's this other part where, and I'll just play the clip, your dad, you guys go and visit the Liberty Bell, which is like a fascinating story unto itself about, you know, how the crack came about

and the inscription on the Liberty Bell. So I just love it. So I think this thing is just so well done. And your family's so good on camera. So let's just play it. Side 8. The Liberty Bell is a great symbol of religious and political freedom in America. And so I thought for the kids, that should be the first stop.

This bell, it was first cast in England. So you're exactly right of being two bells. In England? Yeah, Whitechapel Foundry. So this bell arrives, they do a test ring on it, and it cracks. On the test ring? Yeah, yeah, imagine that, right? Refund. Yeah, exactly. And they got a new bell for it.

Are you in that scene? Are you? I am in that scene, yeah. I have like a little black skirt and like a white top on there. Yeah. So I mean, that I love that clip because what we're trying to convey with this road trip is it's a civic experience. Right. When you go and you get in the car and you go and you travel and see America firsthand, that is actually something so profound.

You can't replicate that in a classroom. You can't scroll through TikTok and get the same sense of what America is and who we are as a people. and the history of this nation like you can out on the open road. And yeah, our family's there. We're a big family. And I think that's part of why we've been attacked so viciously for this. This is a beautiful example of a very large, very traditional, very Christian family going out and celebrating our country in a really beautiful way, in a very public-facing way. And I know we haven't really exposed ourselves like this before.

My parents have been asked to do a reality show with our family for 20 years now. And for 20 years, my parents have said no. And instead they said we're going to for free do the Great America Road Trip, almost like a birthday present, America 250 birthday present to this country, because we want to inspire other families to do the same. And I think that's probably where a lot of the vitrials coming from, but I love it. And I think a lot of people who watch it in good faith.

Listen, you may get some vitriol, some controversy, but there's a ton of love, and I can guarantee you if Blake just checks the emails, everybody's going to be like, Evita's so great. We love Rachel. Sean's the best. and so there's a lot of love here too but this is this is where it gets really fun in my opinion so I guess you have a sister Paloma

who's thinking about Harvard uh oh yeah and your dad I just like like so much like my heart swelled with pride that he's my transportation secretary because he's like hold on hold on Harvard I don't know about this we've got an Ivy leager here so he understands but it's the better one

it's a more road trip of all right there you go All right, let's play the clip. SOTS six. I'm nervous about the idea of Paloma going to Harvard. If I send you there, I think what happens is they have professionalized, figuring out how they can take good young girls like you, and I think, corrupt their minds. You don't have to believe what I believe. You don't have to have the political viewpoints that I have,

but I do think it's important that you make those choices for yourself and you have a fair representation of what they're. they are. And I don't think the Harvards of the world give you that kind of well-rounded picture. Based. Based. He's got a point. He's got a point. So this clip is making the rounds right now. I'll just let you react to it. What do you think? Well, I think it's incredible that the left has clipped it and they seem to be genuinely shocked that this conversation is taking place, which is really funny to most conservatives because it's one that's being replicated in kitchens all across America. Oh, right. People are wondering, hmm, should I spend, you know, a quarter of a million dollars sending my kid to a school that hates me and my values?

Because the left is, of course, destroyed our education system by injecting cultural Marxism into literally every aspect of education. And are you guys covering this Lindsay Clancy case? Have you guys been talking about that? Oh, oh, have we ever? Have we ever? Okay. So I think that there's actually a connection here. You know, those women who are outside of the courthouse applauding a child murderer. right they have been they've had their brains melted by radical feminism radical feminism the ideology behind it is coming out of our university system and these universities believe that everything in life can be looked at through the prism of oppressed versus oppressor and systems of oppression so that's why leftists are soft on crime right they don't care they let you know crazy hudums run through the streets and punch people like they were at the wisconsin state fair last week right they just like that's okay because this is a product of of underprivilege or of systemic racism in the The same way you have Lindsay Clancy supporters saying, oh, well, this is a product of the patriarchy, or it's a, it's a product of, you know, gender inequality or the oppression of motherhood itself. Well, no, Avita. Avita, they're looking searching for things to blame other than the actual murder who admitted to the crime. Exactly.

It's Patrick Clancy. It's the system that, by the way, like Patrick Clancy, he worked from home, got her a nanny, literally got her all the best things that money could buy, but the system failed her. Like, what more was the system supposed to do for Lindsay Clancy? Anyways, everything is to blame except the murder. And that's the system of oppression you're talking about. I'm just circling back to, you know, the broad-based negativity and rage. Like, why are they angry? It's not just that they're a nice family going on a road trip. I think a lot of people, the left has gotten to this weird point where I think, like, almost road trips themselves might be coding to them as like a gross thing.

because it means celebrating America. It's like America's icky. You have to drive through all of these counties and small towns. A lot of people have Trump signs in front of their houses in those small towns. And something very messed up, man. I have to pull this. I wasn't going to go here with you, but you brought it up, Evita. This is from Peachie Keenan, who is a friend of the show.

And she says, why are so many women so angry? They won. They got everything they wanted. Men have never been doing this badly, and women have never been doing this well. they make more, they have a majority of the jobs, they're the majority of college graduates, UCLA undergrad is 6% female, they make more money, have much more lower rates

of suicide, addiction, alcoholism, live longer, etc. They won. And so I replied, I was like, you just answers your own question. They're unhappy because they won. They got everything the feminist told them they should want. And it's let them miserable. And yet here you are

pushing a much more traditionalist view. You're always so supportive of your husband who's running for Congress. And you seem extraordinarily happy, Evita. What is this dynamic? So actually, what you're saying is backed up by the data. I've written a couple articles about this. Left-wing women, and particularly left-wing single women, are not only the most unhappy demo in America, though they are also the most mentally ill. So, yeah, they think that they've won in all these realms, right? They're beating the patriarchy at every step of the way, and it's not leaving them fulfilled, and it's not leaving them happy. And it turns out that actually,

some of these systems that we've created in the world, right? So over the centuries, especially ones informed by Christian civilization building, are actually good for people. They actually make people happy. They're there for a reason. The left wants to dismantle all these things on purpose. They say they're terrible and wrong, they're not.

They're there for a reason. Imagine. Maybe we've had things right all along and we've been raging against good things. Maybe. I don't want an institution to undo what I think is the great upbringing. we've given them. I think it depends on the kid, whether or not they're sort of coming with the virtues necessary to live out that life well. But I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. You come here because it's the best opportunity. And if someone has, like, a sense of

themselves and a sense of God before coming, I think that will only flower. So you'd say there's a culture that she could seek out that would match the way she's been raised? Yes. And not only just a culture. I think it's a very strong, flourishing Catholic culture around. campus. The students are wonderful. And you can see like the faith growing in students during their time here. All right. So we just had to play the other side of it. That's the Harvard priest encouraging the Duffy family to send Paloma there and that she will be well careful. So Evita, uh, tell us about that seed because we're just talking about faith values. I believe that I believe two things. I think feminism, if people dive into like the roots of feminism, you know they actually, there was like this

women's Bible that they came up with. They kept they were going around the country trying to encourage women to, you know, with the vote and suffrage. And the women kept voting it down. It was very, like, women didn't want suffrage. But then they, they, they, this woman's Bible was actually, like, devoted to Satan. I kid you not. This is like a real story. Look it up. It's actually true. But my point is that there's two sort of interconnected themes here. Church and faith in Jesus Christ will bring you joy and purpose. And feminism is one of the most destructive radical feminism was the most destructive, I think, veins of ideological movements in the country, in our history. And then here you go, you got this priest at Harvard, very liberal

place telling you there's a vibrant culture there. What was that moment like? Well, it was actually kind of vindicating for me personally. So I actually disagree with my parents a little bit on this Harvard debate. Do I believe that Harvard is woken and, you know, not what it used to be, is not living up to its legacy? Yeah, of course, I agree with all of those things. However, I don't believe that we should abandon our institutions to the left. In the same way, I don't want the media to be run by the left or our government to be run by the left. I don't want our elite academic institutions to be overrun by the left. And I think that there are some kids who will do very poorly at a place like Harvard, and they will lose their faith.

And there are some people who are, I think, very grounded already, who have a strong sense of character and could end up leaving those universities more conservative than they entered them. That happened to me. I went to the University of Chicago. I was canceled for opposing socialism. I received death threats by my peers. They said that they didn't like the way I looked, that I didn't deserve to vote, that they were going to remove me from campus. Actually, David Axelrod, who at the time was in charge of the Institute of Politics at UChicago, had to step in and tell the students to stop bullying me. David Axelrod, Obama's former chief advisor. So what I'm trying to say is some kids can come out of this okay, maybe some can't. And it's the job of a parent to decide whether that's good for them or not.

But ultimately, I don't want to see all conservatives check out from these institutions because if we do, we see them to the left. And that's not good for it. I totally agree, by the way. I, you know, the left talks about the long march through the institutions. We need to reclaim these ourselves. We need to march right back through them and clean house. That's why I love, by the way, what Scott Besson's doing with like the Smithsonian and stuff. The guy's doing a great job. All right. So I got to throw this graph up here. This is 212. It's making the rounds here, Avita. The number of unmarried men is surging. Okay. Now it basically doubles married men. And this is from the ages of 20 to 39. This is a big problem because you will get radicalized politics

if people are a nation of renters. And if they don't get married and have kids, what's driving this in your opinion, especially when you're talking about Gen Z. I know there's a lot of consternation and friction between the sexes. What do you see when you see this graph? Yeah, I mean, it makes a lot of sense to me, even interpersonally, as I look at the men and women that I know in my own life, men are dramatically more right-wing than their female counterparts. I think that, you know, actually women are 11 percentage points more likely to graduate with a four-year degree than men. men are kind of checking out of that system and women are being fully, I think,

indoctrinated by it and brought into it. The one thing that I will say, and I'm actually happy that men are doing so well, they're going towards the political right, I'm not happy that they can't reconcile that with their female counterparts. I will say as a note of maybe some hope, there is a growing trad movement among young women. I think women are especially attracted to aesthetics, to beauty, to truth reflected through beauty.

And you're seeing female influencers like, Nara Smith and Ballerina Farm really, I think, make those lifestyles attractive, make motherhood and womanhood attractive. You know, when I first had my baby, I had her May 27, so I'm a very new mom of this year. And thank you. And I, when I posted some really beautiful photos when I, like right after I had her, because I wanted, and I had curled my hair and I did my makeup before I actually gave birth. And people are like, that's crazy. But I didn't want to feel ugly as I was going to this beautiful, you know, a world of motherhood, as I was going to meet my baby for the first time. And I think showing women that these things can be beautiful and wonderful

and aspirational is going to be really helpful as we try to bring them back from left wing, I think, indoctrination. And so there is positive things happening, especially in the social media world and bringing females back into the fold. Yeah, I mean, it all feels really interconnected because Even some of the pushback that you're seeing online about this Lindsay Clancy thing, they're saying conservatives, you're doing it wrong, you're turning women away and postpartum psychosis is real. And it's like, I don't feel like we're talking past each other actually because I don't see people making the argument that postpartum depression isn't a real thing. Of course it's a real thing. But it doesn't excuse killing your three kids. And so I don't know. Hot take. Hot take there, Andrew. Hot take of no real controversial. But it does feel like we're talking past each other. many things. And, you know, we just need to get back to the biblical roots that, like, yes, husbands, you are supposed to serve your wife. And I understand no fault divorce. And these things have hollowed out the institution. But like, opting out is so cringe and so weak.

Like, don't opt out. Don't opt out. Like, final 90 seconds to you, Evita, your message to Gen Z women. Like, what do you hope that they see? What do you hope that they do with their lives? I don't think we're promoting the positive sides of motherhood enough. You know, when I had my baby, first of all, it was an amazing experience. It was not, it was painless. I took all the drugs, right? That helps. But I, but it was, I had postpartum euphoria.

You don't, not everybody has postpartum depression. You can have postpartum euphoria. And I'll also say, you know, if you want a good example of a wonderful, loving family, discovering America, you can watch the Great America Road Trip for free on YouTube. It's at the U.S. Department of Transportation's YouTube channel. You can see all the episodes, some mini series. That's great. And I think he'll be inspired.

by it. No, I love that because you guys are, I mean, really that's what you're doing. You're lifting up a positive example because I agree. I have three beautiful kids, beautiful wife. I love it. It's the best thing in the world. It's hard. Sometimes it's stressful. Sometimes you don't get enough sleep. But, but like you can't imagine your life any other way once you go down this road. And it's, by the way, it's grounding. You all of a sudden really care about your country. You care about your local politics. You care about the laws that are getting passed. And you opt in. So get married, have babies, be like the Duffy family that is doing their part. Avita's so good to have you on the show.

It was really too long and coming, actually, wasn't it? Avita, God bless you. We'll talk to you soon. So I don't know what the last year of your life has brought you, but for me, I can tell you it has been a season of monumental change, change where my family lives, change how we're doing basic things in our life. and I will tell you it has made me appreciate the need to make sure your family's protected should something happen. I can't say that enough. Can't underscore that point enough.

Policy Genius is a way for you to make sure you have life insurance and the best life insurance at the best price. You've got to prioritize peace of mind. Lock in your life insurance today. Policy Genius is an online insurance marketplace that allows you to compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free. Their license team helps you get what you're. need fast so you can get on with your life. Easily find what you need. Coverage amounts, prices, terms, there's no guesswork, just clarity. Policy Genius helps you find your most affordable policy that meets your needs. They have thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trust Pilot from customers just like you who found the best policy fit for them. So with Policy Genius, you can find

a 20-year life insurance policy starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage. That's a great deal. So head to policy genius.com to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save. That's policy genius.com. Be prepared. Put your family first. Go to policy genius.com. We have such a treat for you in our two. Oh, with the wide shot, you see part of, yeah, exactly. Savannah Hernandez, TPSA Frontlines reporter and resident-based female for the hour. We appreciate her. She's been very good on Lindsay Clancy. Very, very good. You know, Andrew, I was actually just here visiting, and then I got scooped up, and now I'm on the show. Yeah, but we wouldn't do that with just any run-of-the-mill female, just the base resident females.

And we also have the great Steve Dase joining us remotely for the entire hour. Steve, welcome, my friend. Good to see you. Good to see you guys as well. Always a pleasure to be a part of the show. Well, we've got a bunch of questions lining up in the queue, and we are going to get to them, Steve. But you had a great take this morning on this graph. We just covered it with Evita Duffy,

actually. Evita Duffy Alfonza. I want to make sure I get that right. Her husband is likely the next congressman from northwest Wisconsin. So you threw up, you have this reaction to the graph, and I want to make sure we put it up there.

It's whatever the graph is, guys, I don't have the number this one. But it's showing the, yet that's the one. This number of unmarried men is surging. And I think it's so fundamental. Before we get to the questions from the audience. Steve, your take was spot on, I think. Explain why you think this is critically

important to understand. Well, just to show a rare moment of me saying something profound is Joel Barry and Oron McIntyre both told me today. They really like this post. And if you guys know anything about those two, getting them to agree on anything is not easy to do. Wow. That's amazing. So, there you go. Blind squirrel finds acorn. Yes. But, you know, there's an argument right now. And let me use those two guys as kind of the archetype, frankly, since I know them both. I mean, Joel would make the argument, hey, what's going on with the young men? We're overreacting. We don't have to reordinate society for this. It's just a phase of rebellion. And all young men kind of go through this, particularly throughout, you know, the modern West. And Oron would say that

we're at an existential cliff here, which requires a massive paradigm shift and a complete reevaluation of how we are doing politics and what we're going to proceed and do in the next generation. And so the reason why there's an argument for this is because they're, and they're arguing so vehemently, they're both smart guys and there's ample evidence for both. But I think this chart really is the thing in which you'll catch the conscience of the next generation, guys. Because, you know, I think of myself as a Gen Xer. So in this last election, the only generation that overwhelmingly voted Trump was the, was mine. Gen Xers voted for Trump by 10 points. Boomers were the next closest. They were a tie.

All right. And so, but we were also the generation. Many of the pathologies were concerned about with young men right now. we kind of started many of these, right? People are kind of concerned about sort of nihilistic, iconoclastic commentary of the Nick Fuentes of the world. Well, I mean, that's essentially what gangster rap was back in the day. I don't think Nick wants to be compared to black eyes,

but that's essentially what it was, okay? I might still, years later, I might still know many. If you popped in straight at a Compton, don't. But if you did, my subconscious might still remember many of those lyrics, frankly, out the top of my head, right? I think we might have a ban on, gangster rap. I don't know if Caboos is even willing. I'm asking. We'd better. I'm asking you. Keep going though.

If you don't. It starts now. It starts now if you don't. Yes. Then you look at a lot of the things we're concerned about. You know, Only fans kind of slut-caused celeb. Well, we started that. I mean, porn stars became household names in my generation when you could go into the back of a video store first privately and then at home on your computer privately. And without, you know, the stigma of going to the red light. district be able to acquire this stuff. A lot of it started with us. Yeah, you were ground zero for all these pathologies in our culture and yet, you voted right. What's the key? Right. We got married and

had kids and we grew up. We were afforded the luxury of growing up and then the responsibility of it, right? And so it's natural within young men. We were the latchkey kids, so really the first single parent household or no parents when you came home household generation. And so it's natural in all young men to want to rebel against authority to test boundaries. We want men to do that, which required our fathers and pastors who then say, here's where you properly and constructively direct that energy. And we don't really have too many of those in this generation, which is why Charlie's voice was so vital and carries on, you know, without him, into immortality, because it still resonates almost a year after his assassination because he was filling a void left by a

generation of a lack of masculine leadership. And so without the hope of marriage and that chart is just devastating. Without that hope being as acute as it was in my time, this means that it's more likely Oron's going to win the argument than say, you know, then the other guy will, then Joel will. And that's what we have to fix. So Steve, we have a resident-based female here in Savannah Hernandez. Like when you see a chart like that and there's this surge of unmarried men, what did you instantly think? Well, based off of what we saw this week with the Lindsay Clancy trial and women's subsequent response to it on TikTok, I understand why this chart looks the way it does. And we have multiple issues in society right now, right? We have women who are girl bosses who, quite frankly, don't want to be married. We have the concept of the family that is so degraded and the average person is told that having a child is going to ruin your life when in reality having children is what like Steve talked about, wakes you up to reality and wakes you up to reality. Wakes you. up to how degraded our modern day society is. So again, when I see this chart, I see it as an example of the propaganda war that has

been waged on women and essentially men's response to that. I mean, you have had women on TikTok this week throwing ice cubes in their bathtub because they are so enraged about the fact that they're... That's what Blake does when he's frustrated. Yeah. How's for the best of us, Blake? What Andrew does is a mix passive... He who has not done the same cast the first stone.

But anyway, it's AMA. So if you guys have special questions about for Steve or for especially Savannah about working front lines, because we don't usually have one of you guys on for it. Definitely send one in. But our first question today is from Abby. And Abby, unmute yourself. And what's your question? Hi, guys.

Can you hear me good? Oh, good. I don't hear myself. Okay, I have a question and then I had something that's been on my heart to say to you guys. So the question is. how does TPSA go about choosing candidates to endorse, as in how do you gather actual, like factual information about them and what credentials do you look for? Okay.

First of all, we should always be precise because Turning Point USA does not endorse. We have an endorsement process where it's evaluated by our, we have a whole team, and there's a whole questionnaire, and then it's approved by a leadership, and then the board. So of Turning Point Action. So there's a whole step-by-step process. It involves interviews. So if you're a candidate running and you seek out our endorsement, we'll interview, we'll do a questionnaire, and then you'll have to, you know, approve by leadership in our board. Which is funny because I just, I love Charlie's story about endorsing J.D. Vance.

Well, that was much more gut. That was really, yeah. Basically, he meets with Charlie and Tyler and they're like, oh, he seems great. We should endorse him. And then they accidentally like jumped the gun on it before Charlie had talked to stakeholders. And it worked out a little bit, but I always got a kick out of that story. We got a minute left. So what's your, what's been on your heart to tell us?

I wanted to thank you guys for picking up the baton that Charlie left to you guys and continuing this race. Thanks to you guys continuing the show, you've helped me grow immensely in my knowledge and in my faith and as a person. And I've even entered like the political scene and I know what things are going on now. And I didn't know that before. So thanks to Charlie and all of you guys continuing it, including. Steve and Savannah, just thank you so much for growing my knowledge. And it's the highlight of my day

to watch the show. Oh, man, that blesses us like you can't imagine. And it is very fitting to have Savannah and Steve here because both of them knew Charlie, both of them were inspired to do what they do because of Charlie. And we're all, you know, people always ask the silliest question, is who's going to replace Charlie? And the answer is nobody ever can. Nobody ever will. He's one of one and it takes all of us to do our small little part and so for sure god bless you that was very sweet thank you it means a lot um i want to tell you guys about oh go ahead what was that you guys are very loved oh thank you thank you thank you so much genuinely because we hear a lot of the other stuff too so this is great john is next john please unmute yourself welcome to our ask us anything

Hey, hope you guys are having a great day. I have a question and then a related comment. So first, I just want to know what was Charlie's stance on the death penalty? And then Andrew and Blake, would you think your stance is any different than his given the pro-wife stance? Yeah, so I would say my understanding of it, because Charlie was against the death penalty for a long time, actually. He was, he didn't think, yeah, it just, it was an evolving issue. It was an evolving issue. I'm, I'm 95% sure by the time we lost him.

I think he had come full, I think he was support. I don't think he was vocally. Like, I don't think it was like his top issue. I don't think he had bloodlust or something. No, but I think he had basically become convinced that it was something that was acceptable. So we have a clip on this. I don't know when exactly it's from. So it could be at any point in this evolution.

But let's just play it. It's a minute long. Let's play. clip 17. When you take another person's life, you already took your own life. I want you to think about that. If someone were to murder Alex or murder me, they already murdered themselves in that action.

They already bestowed the punishment upon themselves. We are simply completing the task. And think about it. Some people will say, but Charlie, you know, it's not fair because of whatever sob story liberal reason. How is it, you know, what it was. And honestly, no, and I'll just close with it. I'll kind of finish with this.

But you know who it's not fair to? It's not fair to the victims. You are cheapening the lives of the victims. You are basically saying the victims die and you get to live. So you get to continue to live, even though you took the lives of others. In order to say that those people's lives mattered, the only just thing that we can reason ourselves to is to take that person's life. And that is not murder that is killing and it's societal self-defense. So that's crazy because that was a couple of weeks.

I was actually in the room when that happened. I forgot that he said that, but it came back to me just watching it. So that was a couple weeks before he was murdered. Yes. And it kind of hits you really hard when you think about that. Yes. And so it's a complicated one. You asked about our own views.

And it's a tough one because, you know, for example, the Catholic Church historically has said the state, State authorities have the right to execute people. That is a valid punishment. And I would note, even in the Bible, when the good thief and the bad thief are on the sides of Jesus, the good thief, what he says is that we have been justly condemned. He, you know, Jesus doesn't come in and say,

actually like all, you know, all executions are bad. He actually does, he just says, because you recognize your guilt and repent, you will be with me in paradise. And historically, certainly in the Catholic Church, that was the view that authorities can justly impose the death penalty for punishment and that that is different from abortion or murder or any of these other things. They've started to go, I'll be frank, Francis and Leo has done this as well.

They've gone in a much more lib direction on this of saying we should abolish the death penalty. And I think this is abandoning a historic teaching of the church. And it bothers me that they've done this. I think they're kind of buying into libt hard reasons for doing it especially. Steve, what's your take on death penalty? Well, if you look at the Hebrew word that is used by Moses there in the Pentateuch, it means an unjustified, premeditated taking of human life is what thou shalt not murder means. It doesn't mean, as Charlie rightly points out in his distinction, thou shall not kill. And so there are extreme circumstances that justify it.

There were, in the Levitical law, you had to have multiple witnesses and things of that nature before we had things like forensics thousands of years ago that we have today. So if anything, I think it ought to be expanded to crimes. I think rape ought to be a capital crime. I think severe sexual traumas inflicted upon children as well ought to be capital crimes. I'm the son of a former prosecutor who put, I believe, three men on death row. My dad, Catholic. I was a cradle Catholic, became evangelical in college. So my dad had to kind of reconcile with that stuff, but he had no moral objection to it.

Savannah, you got a POV? I do, Andrew, because it was that clip from Charlie that helped me solidify my own view on the death penalty debate. And I truly do feel like you can't be pro-life while refusing to protect life, right? The most innocent among us. So many of us sort of got a little bit sci-opt, I feel, where people will go, it's like, oh, you oppose abortion, but you support the death penalty. Well, okay, like, so you equate an unborn, innocent human being with a person who's committed a heinous crime. And that's what it is, right? being pro-life means that we are protecting the most innocent lives. And so if we are allowing

rapists and murderers and people who will routinely go back and commit crimes again and again and again, which we do see in our modern-day society, that in itself is not a pro-life perspective to take by allowing these people to continue attacking others. And the thing that shaped my perspective to, I think, favoring it is just that what we've seen is in a society that doesn't have the death penalty at all, they pretty quickly start having, lacking any moral confidence in anything. And so we start not even imprisoning murderers for life. We start not imprisoning them for that long. We start, in some cases, not imprisoning them at all. There's like a total, there's a society that doesn't think any crimes exist that can merit death. It seems, it's like it's a society that doesn't believe

in itself. Well, in this, you see this with Lindsay Clancy where it's total moral inversion. I've become convinced, by the way. I said this on thought crime last night that there is, there is an op, whether it's foreign or domestic, to take these true crime trends that are fraying the social fabric and then pour gasoline on them, amplify them. Because what does it make us do? The rest of us that are looking at this like, hey, she admitted to murdering her three kids. It drives us crazy. It's like, are we taking crazy pills here? What's happening to our culture? And then next thing you know, everybody's doubting each other, distrust. Society is falling apart, right? It's, it's, So if I'm a bad actor, I want to pour fuel on this fire.

So I think they understand, to Blake's point, that once a society loses its moral compass, all hell breaks loose, cats and dogs living together. It's a Gen X reference there for Steve Day. I got it. Okay. All right. Yeah, actually, his dogs and cats living together. Yeah.

Ghostbusters. So thank you for that. Yeah. Oh, awesome. So, yeah, the input that I had, and this kind of goes to the mode of the death penalty, which primarily is lethal injection. And you got a lot of the anti-death penalty. They're saying, oh, it's not humane.

It's not effective. And I was in the medical field for 30 years and talked daily with anesthesiologists. And they were like, you know, if they want someone to co-do the death penalty, lethal injection, humanely and effectively, just hired anesthesiologists because we do this every, you know, every day, many times a day putting people to sleep. You know, we can give them the right cocktail to, you know, take them out. Yeah. Well, and it was interesting you heard from Andrea Burkart earlier, if you were watching Our 1, where she basically says like Utah, if they can't get the drugs that are for lethal

injections, they've tried to choke them off. What's that? They've tried to choke them off. Yeah, they've tried to choke them off. Yeah, they, so they try and make it so you can't get the death penalty drugs, the cocktail. So that's why states like Utah have firing squad as a backup. If you want an interesting fact, I know at least in some places that have assisted suicide, the assistant suicide cocktail is basically just lethal injection drugs. Yeah. Like very similar overlap. Hi folks, Andrew Colvette here.

I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y-Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about Y-Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in the...

this nightmare anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com. That's the letter why then refi.com and remember why refi doesn't care what you're credit score is just go to whyrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. Elizabeth is our next question and I think she's she's expressing some paranoia that people have out there.

All right. Elizabeth, unmute yourself. Yes. Hi guys. How are you today? Great. You're doing great. All right. So my question is I saw an article and it kind of blew my mind. It was about this company called Median Strategies and they were doing all of these polls for Wisconsin and the Los Angeles mayorial race. And they were like, oh, look, we lied.

We made up everything. We just put this fake information about them being 20 points ahead out there. So, like, how are we? Because I consider myself relatively politically savvy. So how are, because this was all over X, it was all over the news, the polls. How are we discerning? Because now we're getting these polls that like Tom Cotton's behind, having the problems in Iowa.

This is close. That is close. 10 Paxton isn't because 10 Paxson once hit by the election last time by 10 points. So how are we discerning which polls are right and whether they're going to information from? And what's like valid to be worried about. So I just want to refresh people on what happened here because it is a pretty disturbing story. So yeah, median strategies, as you said, there's more information about it. The website that was putting out these fake polls, which showed, I believe it showed the DSA candidate up on Karen Bass or?

Yeah, Nithia Rahman up on Karen Bass. And then it was also showing Francesca Hong Just dominating all the opponents The scene she lost The race, she ultimately lost And it was all run by this 21-year-old guy named Rahil Prakash

Who, as they put out a statement saying It was a short-term experiment Social experiment to examine How fake polling could enter And spread through the information ecosystem Without independent verification. This guy, he told The Guardian Yesterday, I wanted to see a fake

Polls could really penetrate the ecosystem that easily. And as it turned out, they could. Yeah. And a lot of us are thinking, should this be treated as fraudulent behavior? So I totally agree. And I think you could imagine this impact on the betting markets, too. People could lose millions or win millions based on fake polls. Also, could it be suppression polls?

Could you use this to suppress the vote? And, you know, I called some of my friends over in Texas the internal polling that they have, just to let everybody know, they have 10-patch. Axton up, narrowly, but up in Texas. Now, I don't know. What are you hearing in Iowa, by the way, Steve? We got some dog fights there. Well, it's important to have shows like you guys where you can get access to the proprietary polling that is done by people who do this for a living and have to show results so they can get jobs cycle to cycle.

Because what's happening publicly, I mean, you mentioned the betting markets and how much they're manipulated by polling. I mean, the betting markets in the Iowa primary had Randy Feinstrait, 86%. I even call it. We can't bet on politics in Iowa, so I called some people I know out of state. Sorry, I should have called you guys. And I said, listen, I've seen Zach Lane's proprietary polling. I think this thing is way closer to 50-50 than 86%. You'd get pretty good money on odds on your money right now. And then, of course, Zach ended up winning by 1,700 votes. So I do think there's massive ops here. You know, Emerson, I keep track of all this stuff. I'm a nerd. And so Emerson's really been one of the best public. pollsters of the Trump era. And yet they have been way off as well in these primary polls with

these openly socialist candidates way over sampling, how much El Saeed was going to win by way over sampling that Hong was going to win at all and by double digits. And so there's clearly a glitch in the matrix even with an Emerson who's been a pretty reliable public pollster here. And I think ultimately, look, I would urge our audiences to look at gas prices. That's the best poll there is, right? The party in power never wins when prices are really high and has a great chance to win and retain power when prices are really low. So I would trust stuff like that more than I would trust polling. But the biggest problem with the polling guys is a lot of times we decide our Overton windows of what we can even discuss by what the polls say. It's a little bit like if you bet on a

sports on a game and the game didn't happen, but all the ESPN analysts said you were going to lose. So this sports book was like, well, you lose. You're like, well, the game didn't happen yet, right? we bet on opinions and not on elections. And so the amount that this stuff impacts the actual arguments we even get to see at all is profound. And I do think it's time for some kind of fraudulent accountability here for sure. Well, yeah. No, what I was going to say to, Andrew, and I kind of have a different take on this. When I saw this, and I'm glad that, you know, our caller is bringing this up and she's asking about this,

because I thought the same thing, too. I think that it's really sinister that these polls were put out specifically to make socialists look like they were going to win. their polls and I think that this was a really interesting push to see if we could get the average person to think that socialism was exactly a way more normalized and accepted thing and obviously we are seeing DSA start to gain popularity across America so I kind of took an alternate angle with it and it's like okay not only do we know if our polls are real or not but now we are also seeing fraudulent polling being utilized to push socialism as the norm now yeah well so there's a lot of pieces that go into this. As for what you can do, and this will probably emphasize the importance of having a long-term

track record of just being a pollster, like whether Emerson's polls are accurate or not, they are at least probably not outright faking the poll because they will be around this cycle, they will be around next cycle, they have to care about their credibility. But you probably should worry about a brand-new startup company that's just putting out polls, and if you've never heard of them, and I know people like to dunk on Nate Silver sometimes, but actually one of the reasons he's not a bad guy to follow is he does care about long-term track record of pollster. You can use him to check which guys have been around a long time, which guys have a better reputation. He cares about, you know, who's accurate. This election, next election. It's not bad to necessarily look to that as a way

to avoid getting bamboozled. But definitely there are push poles, we'll call them, or, you know, rigged polls. Lots of organizations commissioned polls to make socialism look more popular than it is. to make abortion look more popular than it is. I'm curious your POV on why specifically have so many oversampled DSA. Why specifically are they getting a better shake here? Well, I think there's maybe a spiritual answer here that I think Savannah's kind of alluding to

of something sinister. If we're going to just put it in the material world, if I had to guess, a lot of pollsters, I mean, people aren't picking up phones to answer pollsters anymore or hanging up as soon as they see one. And a lot of the results, UGov was kind of the first mainstream

pollster go pretty much exclusively online. And I think that a lot of now, a lot of this is being done online. And I think you're probably going to get an oversample, particularly in a primary where the electorate is low turnout on both sides. And so just one outlier sample can throw off an entire estimate of what you think is going to occur. And especially if you're doing it online, where I think you see more rabid and open socialism among the left online than you even do in real life. That would be the best case scenario. Everything else gets more increasingly sinister from there. I think you're right on that. I think, you know, we had Mark Halperin on this week and he was talking about this gal that won in Florida over Alexander Vindman. Okay. And he outspent her 16 million to 500,000 or

something. And he had this great line. He said, movements will always beat money. And when you have this rising movement of DSA, they're going to be more apt to get their voice out. They're going to be more motivated to talk to people. They're going to be more excited to share their beliefs and proselytize about it. So I think that probably has something to do with it and why it's getting the waiting's going funky on this. Okay, guys, I got to tell you some news here. I believe the embargo is lifted. We want to play this video.

We are going to honor Charlie Kirk making in the announcement right now. Honor Charlie with a deliberate act of remembrance on September 10th at, UVU play cut 19 I want to honor God and all that I do I want to be a great husband a great father I want to serve this country we honor Charlie now it is up to us

for Christ for country Charlie Kirk is in heaven because his Savior sacrificed himself for Charlie Kirk grace is not earned it is given by a God who loves you and wants to spend eternity with you I want to be remembered for courage for my faith

important thing is my faith in my life. So Turning Point USA will hold the freedom built to last memorial on September 10th, 2026 at UCUCU Center on the campus of Utah Valley University, marking one year since we lost Charlie. The gathering will honor Charlie as a faith-filled husband, father, and defender of free speech with a memorial that serves, as I said, as a deliberate act of remembrance and a call for students and supporters to continue his life life's work. And by the way, this event is going to punctuate an entire week of commemoration. Simultaneously, TPSA Faith is leading a nationwide initiative, inviting Christians of every denomination and tradition to honor Charlie's mission to make heaven crowded by inviting a friend or family member to church beginning on September, September 13th. And throughout the

month of September, always be doing that, by the way. Yeah, and you can, RSVP at Charlie Kirk Legacy.com. Charlie Kirklegacy.com. So we've got Glenn Beck is going to be there. Frank Turrick, Andrew Seifer, who is our chief field officer at TPSA, and Caleb Chilcutt, who is the chapter president of our turning point chapter there when Charlie was assassinated. Now he's our Utah representative for the college department there.

So Caleb's amazing. So a great list of speakers that are going to honor Charlie and what I think is. going to be a really beautiful event. And like I said, a deliberate act of remembering Charlie and his amazing life and his amazing contribution. And again, save a seat for Charlie is this whole initiative to remind you of the importance of inviting people to church with you. Just it's a simple act, but hey, you want to come on Sunday? We're going. We'll save a seat for you. And it's, you know, Charlie's seat continues and will continue to be filled by a whole new generation of faith-filled believers.

So we want to invite you to be a part of that. Can you throw the RSVP graphic up one more time, guys? So Charliekirklegacy.com. Please RSVP, if you want to be a part of that amazing event, Charlie Kirklegacy.com. And the event is called Freedom Built to Last, honoring Charlie Kirk. So one year after, really proud of the team that's put this together.

It's been a lot of work, and there's going to be a lot of other things going on that week. We've got a lot in story. at this show as well. But we miss him every day and we want to remember him right. We want to honor this this year mark the right way. So Charlie Kirklegacy.com. Who's up next? I think we have Josh as our next question. Josh, unmute yourself. And what's your question? Yeah. I was just commenting more on the pro-life and pro-death penalty statement earlier where I think it was R.C. Sprole or D. James Kennedy one said that you can be

pro-life protecting the innocent lives of babies and pro-death penalty for taking the life of those that are guilty of condemned of murder. I totally agree. I think it's a false equivalency to tie those two together. I completely agree. And you think it was R.C. Sprole or D. James Kennedy? Yes, one of those two or both of them. Yeah, could be both. And I know that neither, well, there are arguments they don't contradict being a born-again Christian, pro-life, and pro-death penalty. So neither one of them contradicts any one of them. Yeah, I mean, you can have one view or the other on it.

I think there's arguments both for and against it, whether practically or morally. But if you concede too hard that it's unacceptable, certainly from the Catholic perspective, I would say, St. Augustine, he says executions are a valid tool of the state or act of the state. As a just war theory. Senator, I say, St. Thomas Aquinas, same thing. like long history of Christian thinkers being able to distinguish what the state does, what it does to protect people, enforce the law, preserve, you know, protect, you know, the citizenry and what an individual does because we're not supposed, we're supposed to forgive our enemies. We're supposed to forgive those who persecute us.

We're not supposed to seek revenge. And that is all true. That is, in fact, why we have a state, why the state holds the sword. Because Romans 13. Yes, exactly. Yeah. And it should be acted justly. You have a duty to act justly.

But it is not an act of revenge for the state to punish a criminal. Next up, we have Don. Don, welcome to the show. Please unmute yourself. Hi, guys. Thanks. Thanks for taking my call. Of course.

What's your question? My question is a couple of weeks ago, Trump signed some EOS. about birthright citizenship, and I was just wondering how long it'll take before that gets decided. I know it's going to be a long process, but just wondering, if you have any idea

how long it's going to take. Well, yeah, so to bring everybody up to speed, he did sign some EOs on the birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court struck down the original EO based on 14th Amendment reasons, which they got completely wrong. It's supposed to be more narrowly. tailored and a response based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

So we'll see what it's, it's already being challenged. So this thing could get blocked at the district court level. Then it will be appealed to the circuit court level. And then potentially even up to the Supreme Court level. So if that was decided in June of this year, right? The Supreme Court. June or July. And that was signed basically right at the beginning, I believe, February, right at the

beginning of February. So, you know, however many months that was. And it could be different parts of it because there's several pieces to the EO. And we're optimistic about it. It's trying to define what birth tourism is. So if you're on a boat sailing through our waters, no, you don't get birthright. It's trying to pretty liberally define who a foreign government ambassador is to include anyone who's employed at an embassy, for example, not just the ambassador themselves. So it's just trying to set a pretty broad standard.

Some of these that might be, they'll get challenged only when there's a specific case. The original EO was so broad that it immediately got challenged. But we might only see some of these get pressured when there's specifically maybe a employee at an embassy has a kid and then tries to claim their anchor baby as a citizen. They'll need to litigate that case. So some of this could get there next year. Some of it might be two, three more years out. And that, of course, assumes the EO remains in effect. Yeah.

And the Supreme Court, if it gets struck down at the circuit court level and they appeal it, the Supreme Court can say, hey, we already ruled on it. We're going to send it back down to the circuit. Steve, you have any thoughts on that? You're a nerd on the legalese. Well, I mean, to me, the key phrase, and I know you guys educated your audience on this, but the original attack against that amendment is that it would end up doing exactly what it ended up doing. And Jacob Howard, the Michigan senator who helped craft that amendment, he said in his own testimony during the confirmation battle that, no, I mean, the key phrase here's a subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? And so it was written to stop Southern states from saying, well,

hey, these blacks are not Americans, therefore they don't actually deserve constitutional rights. And so the argument was, well, no, they were brought here under the auspices of the United States government. And so therefore, they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's actually the key phrase in that entire lingo there. And you'll notice the court really didn't deal with it all that much. And instead said, basically, anybody in the world at any potential point now is a potential American. That's essentially what the court said. Don't mind the fact that we didn't automatically make Native Americans citizens either,

because they were considered subject to the jurisdiction of tribal powers. But that's fine. Just ignore all the logic. It's fine. We have another question here getting through him. Is it Jason? Is that who's next? Yes, it looks like that's how I was.

Jason. Please unmute yourself. Welcome. Hello. How are you guys doing today? Doing great. I think it's awesome that Steve Dase is on here too. The first time I actually chat in and I listen to you every day too, Steve.

Oh, thank you, brother. Appreciate it. Thank you. You bet. We're live. We're live. I got you. Well, we're two and a half minutes to go.

So what's your question? Jason, what's your question? My question for you guys is, my son is he's expressed interest in a Club America chapter. So he reached out. He sent something in to Turning Point. He got an email back. And he, this is overwhelming to him. I looked at the forum a little bit, and it looks like there's a little bit more info in there that we need to gather before moving forward.

I'm hoping that there's a local representative that you guys can get us in contact with here in Wisconsin. We're in southern Wisconsin just north of, just north of Madison by about 30 minutes. So I'm sorry about that. I'm hoping they're stuck in the area that. Well, they're north. So yes, Jason, just to answer your question, we, man, by the way, just a couple weeks ago, we had a massive new hiring, especially on the Club America side because there's been such an explosion of chapters. I mean, we had more new staff in our office up here, and I had the honor to talk to them than we did at our first chapter leadership summit.

So now we have more staff than we even had students at our first chapter leadership. It is crazy. These are all new hires. So we have these people going out all over the country, and I guarantee you we have a rep that can contact you guys and get you in touch. I'll work with our team to send an email back to you and make sure you have their contact. So we will be in touch, Jason. And that's a beautiful thing that you have a young, fifth. 15 year old that wants to get involved and start a chapter. We absolutely encourage that.

And by the way, we've seen almost 200% chapter growth on the, on the Club America side, which is phenomenal. 200%. I mean, it's basically bigger than we could have ever dreamed of. And it takes a little while. The process is is pretty, it's pretty exhaustive. It really is. Because you've got to get all these pieces in place and teachers and administrators and all the stuff. Steve Dase, you are the mayor. Thank you for joining us today. And thank you, Savannah, for joining us today. Thanks for having me.

It is flown by. It's never enough time when we have our friends with us. I know. It was fun. It was fun. Steve, you were great. You're one of my favorite people on next. So I spend an honor. Well, thank you. I really admire your work as well, Savannah. So I appreciate that. Thank you. And follow it, by the way, at TPSA Frontlines. They're doing amazing work. You guys have probably seen the viral clips from the Lindsay Clancy stuff. Oh, yeah.

You had meetings here, so you didn't get to go. I know. I have FOMO. I wanted to see the crazy women outside of the trial. She has some good questions for me. I will tell you. Until next week, God bless you all. See you then. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.