The Charlie Kirk Show - Down with the SPLC + The Greatness of Justice Alito

Episode Date: April 22, 2026

The Southern Poverty Law Center is America's top hat group, dedicated to smearing and defaming the American right, including Charlie. Now, the Trump Administration is taking it to court for secretly funding the "right-wing extremists" they claimed to fight. Tyler O'Neil breaks apart the SPLC scam. Mollie Hemingway touts her new book on Justice Alito, the giant of the Supreme Court who brought down Roe v. Wade, and revisits the sinister effort to get the Court's conservatives assassinated. Dr. Stephen Meyer makes the scientific case for the world having an intelligent creator.   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 USA 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 noble goldinvestments.com. All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It's Wednesday, April 22nd. It's a good day. Yes, it is. It is a good day. We have a little bit of setback in Virginia, which we're going to get into in just a little bit. But this SPLC news is phenomenal. It's everything that we sort of wanted out of our Department of Justice. So good for them. Yes. It's good for them. They're good for them. They just

I deserve a massive hat tip. I love seeing them play an offense. For those who didn't hear, this broke kind of in the evening yesterday. Hold on. Hold on. We are about to get to it. We will have a moment to give you everything about the SPLC. But first, I just have to tell you and give a shout out to our teams. We had two massive events on the turning point side last night.

Pack crowds at both the Ohio State University. I got lectured about the the. Danny is somewhere out there clapping that I said it right. The Ohio State University, and then we also had a pastor summit, our largest ever in grapevine. So let's give it SOT 2 here. And plus, turning point USA drawing a packed crowd at Ohio State yesterday. If we could get every young person when they turn 18 to be informed and engaged in our politics, whether or not you agree with me and showing up at the ballot box, that's a good thing.

And we want to bring that to our country. Yeah, massive, massive event. That was the, the Ohio State with Vivek. who's obviously running for governor in Ohio. And then again, the Pastor Summit down in Great Fine, Texas. And Lawrence Jones, who was the commentator right there, actually was one of the gentlemen on stage. So I wanted to give him a little shout there.

But without further ado, we are going to bring in Tyler O'Neill. He's senior editor for The Daily Signal, and he's also the author of a book about the SPLC called Making Hate Pay. Tyler, welcome back to the show. It's good to see you, my friend. Hey, thanks again so much for having me. All right. So Blake prime the pump.

Give us the context. Now I can do it. So for those who didn't hear about this, so the SPLC is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They've been this kind of goblin on the left for a long time. They were especially prominent in President Trump's first term. Their guys that they adopt is, oh, they're policing hate in America. They monitor hate groups across America. They run this site called Hate Watch.

They've been doing it for decades. And what people noticed a while ago when it became glaring. in the first Trump administration is they are a far left group and what they exist to do is to label the right as extremist and to say that all the extremism in America is on the right and that hate groups are always on the rise. They're always warning the clan is coming back. Nazis are coming back. Killer motorcycle gangs are coming back. And so they exist to freak people out about that to get money and they exist to smear people like Charlie as an example as one of those hate figures. I mean, let's be honest

as well. It is, I don't think a stretch to say, and I'll let Tyler agree or disagree with me, it is not a stretch to say that they legitimately hate white people. The SPLC is anti-white. They are America's top hate group, in my opinion. But what we got last night, that's incredible, and is good news, is the

SPLC, according to the federal government, in an indictment, they were, during that period of the first Trump administration, spending literally millions of on informants within the far right groups that they claimed to be monitoring and policing against, including in some cases they were paying the leaders of these groups. In one case, they were paying tens of thousands of dollars to somebody, at the same time they had a page of him on their hate watch page saying,

this is an extremist that we're fighting against, please give us money to fight against him when they were paying him. And so now the federal government has dropped wire fraud, charge, or not dropped, has brought wire fraud charges against the SPLC. And I think whether these charges are successful or not, it's a great opportunity to expose how the organization really works. And I think we're going to find a lot of dirty laundry as our guest, Tyler, is aware of. There's a lot to find. Tyler, the floor is yours. You wrote the book Making Hate Pay. And now we know it's way more insidious and sinister than we knew before.

Yeah, well, we've long expected, we've long suspected that something like this was going on, but we didn't fully know the details of this informant network. And you got to love when the SPLC does damage control by coming out and making known this clandestine informant program that they've been hiding for decades. But, you know, the SPLC, my book title says the corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. because what they do, their stock and trade, is to exaggerate hate. They've cultivated this huge network of donors because the SPLC sued Ku Klux Klan groups into non-existence, into bankruptcy in the 1980s.

And they've taken that, you know, platform and weaponized it to smear conservative groups. And of course, you know, Charlie is Exhibit A really after the horrible thing, you know, after the assassination attempt, but he wasn't the first one to face violence after the SPLC added him to the hate map. They also added the Family Research Council that led to a mass shooting in 2012. And thankfully, that shooting was largely prevented.

But the guy who shot up the Family Research Council told the FBI he did so because of the SPLC map. So the SPLC has this system where they put out this hate map with Klan Chalka and other white nationalist and evil groups that they say are, you know, they call this the infrastructure of white supremacy in America. And this map has gotten ever more insane as I've been covering it. So they used to just have the Family Research Council.

Then they added Alliance Defending Freedom. They have immigration groups like the Federation on American Immigration Reform, groups that worn against radical Islam, like the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. And then they started adding, so first they started with some of those groups. Then in 2023, they added Moms for Liberty to the hate map. And in 2025, they went, you know, that was when they went way off the deep end, putting turning point on there, putting Prager You on there. I mean, this group creates YouTube videos to inform the public, and now they're on a map. with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.

That's how insane this has gotten. But the reason it's gotten so bad is partially because the SPLC has this extremely high demand for hate. They have this big donor base that thinks the SPLC is the number one source for hate. And so we have to fund them because otherwise the hate is going to proliferate.

Well, the SPLC has long worked to increase the supply of hate to match that demand. And now we know it's been funding it. Yeah, exactly. I want to underscore this point. The SPLC, check this graphic out. This is the hate grift in one image.

And we're taking this from our friends over at Fox. But in October of 2016, pre-Charlottesville, their revenue was $51,871,5,5 million. After Charlottesville, 133 million. dollars an 81 million increase almost 82 million increase from Charlottesville which now we find out that one of the leaders in the Charlottesville unite the right rally

was paid $270,000 by the SPLC so just so you see that the ROI on that $270,000 is pretty extreme I mean if you were Nancy Pelosi you would be impressed by those returns that's how this works that's the image right there They're literally putting high school chapters of ours on a hate group next to the KKK and next to neo-Nazi groups.

And, I mean, we can laugh this off. There's an element of this. Remember that there was a shooter that went to the Family Research Council years ago, inspired by the SPLC list. But they can't debate us on our ideas. They cannot have dialogue. They cannot actually go on to the merits of why they are right or why we might be wrong. Instead, they must smear us with the age-old one-liner that you are a racist or that you are a racist or that you are a hater and they're finally realizing the power of turning point USA which is why they put us on when you're

i was charlie um on laura ingram show right after uh turning point was put on the hate map the so-called hate map which was just a giant grift uh we're here at the back at the wifai studio here in phoenix arizona with tyler o'neill senior editor of the uh daily signal and the author of making hate pay which is man uh that aged like fine wine here tyler so congratulations Congratulations on that. You might have to update the book and give a second edition or something here with these new revelations. So again, this is what's wild about it, though. The SBLC after Charlottesville has a huge boon. It's some of the main funders that are being mentioned were George and Amal Clooney, Tim Cook, Tim Apple, MGM, Google. I mean, this is as mainstream as it gets. Your thoughts? No, it was. I mean, Charlottesville is Exhibit A of the graft here because we we often forget you know in the months leading up to charlottesville the spelc had a different hate map they had a confederate monument map that they put up on their website and they had on this map i kid you not they say these monuments are causing turmoil and bloodshed and on that map

they didn't just include you know statues of robert e lee which we can all debate about like i could understand people being frustrated a little bit and then there's are some statues where they actually, the statue actually said white supremacy. As far as I'm concerned, yeah, get rid of that statue. Robert E. Lee represents a lot more than that. And, you know, he was a noble anyway. We don't need to get into, we don't need to relitigate that issue. But the SPLC put on this Confederate hate map. They put middle schools, high schools, elementary schools. They put military bases. And I get that you don't like these things being named after Confederates. It's one thing to say that. It's another thing to have a hate map that's scary

that says oil and bloodshed and then is directing people. And in the midst of this, you had a lot of people going to monuments and knocking them over. So this is early days of Antifa stuff. Yeah, Tyler, to the extent that this work product by the SPLC is influential, it's hard to overstated, right? Because look it, I'm going to show you a clip of Joe Biden talking about why he decided to run for president. Sot 9. When I spoke to the mom who lost her daughter, it's a consequence of those neo-Nazis and white supremacists come out in America with torches, carrying Nazi banners, singing the same sick anti-Semitic bile was sung in Germany in the 30s

and when her daughter was killed they pressed went to the then president Trump and said what do you think he said they're very fine people on both sides and I knew then I knew how to do something and that's how I decided to run ah okay so that's just one clip here so he says he decides to run because of Charlottesville you mentioned that they were tearing down all these statues

in part because of the SBLC's map. So we're starting to see the work product here. Remember this from the inaugural address, Sot 10. The cry for survival comes from planet itself, a cry that can't be any more desperate or any more clear. And now a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism, that we must confront and we will defeat.

So you have to ask the question. Obviously, this is coming after January 6th, right? So at white supremacy, this is the line domestic extremism. Now you have to ask the question when Chris Ray says there's no, you know, FBI informancy does this. He can sort of not, he can sort of technically say that because hey, guess what? They might have outsourced the informants that were in the crowd that day. Do we know anything about that, Tyler? That has not yet been confirmed, but I highly suspect that there might be a connection there. I think it is, we can't go enough on this issue because Biden repeated it over and over again. The left used it. And by the way, right after Biden got inaugurated, according to the SPLC, at least, and now we have documents backing this up, many different agencies in the Biden administration went to the SPLC. asking for advice on how to combat the domestic terrorism threat. So the SPLC was funding and then directing the social media posts of

and then helping this guy bring people to Charlottesville on one side. We talk about very fine people on both sides, which is twisting Trump's words out of context. Yeah, it's a total hoax. But only one of the sides there at Charlottesville was funded by the SPLC. And that's not the one that they claim to be on the side of. Well, and Tyler, I mentioned earlier that the SBLC is absolutely brazenly, not even, this is not even a question. They are anti-white. So when they talk about domestic violence, domestic violence, extremism, that is anti-white.

That is their code for, we don't like white people. And I can prove it to you. This is a flashback to Mark Potock who had a, in an interview, had a handwritten sort of poster on his wall. Just a post-a note. Documenting the decline, celebrating the decline of the white population in the United States. Look at that thing. That's a man who is celebrating who is eager about the coming, you know, minority, majority of white America. Now, if you are, if you, that is racism. That is racism right there. Okay, go ahead, Todd. I don't mean to cut you off. Yeah, well, they didn't hide, like the left has long said, remember that emerging, the new emerging majority, they called it, where they said that because of Obama's victory in 2008, suddenly there's going to be this coalition of the ascendant that's always going to keep America in the thrall of the Democratic Party. And meanwhile, if you say that they're importing people from foreign countries, if you're having a lot of illegal aliens, if you say, you know, what Biden essentially admitted by opening the border in 2021, if you say that they're trying to replace people, you're somehow branded a racist. No, no, no. I'm concerned. Yeah. You're an anti-Semitic conspiracy replacement theorist. Right. And they have to string all those things together to really smear you.

Yeah, the SPLC has been leading that charge in condemning people for this for forever. And it's like, no, I know a lot of people who want to enforce immigration law, who want to make sure that every person who comes here comes here legally for reasons that are honoring our country that have nothing to do with race, frankly. But the way that the left has been pushing this constant like, oh, minorities should take over, we'll have infinite power. I think that has been exacerbating. And part of what we saw with the SPLC is exacerbating racial, you know, racial divisions in the country. It was always by design, Tyler O'Neill, senior editor of the Daily Signal and author of the book, Making Hate Pay. For a lot of Americans, the health care system is reactive. You get sick first, and then you wait for an appointment.

Then insurance decides what you're allowed to have, and suddenly the medication. you need is delayed or it's not available. That is where all family pharmacy is different. This is not a typical pharmacy. It's family owned. I know these guys. They're great guys. Works with licensed doctors and is built around a simple idea. That's the idea that you should have the freedom to make informed choices about your own health and the ability to prepare ahead of time. So you're not reactive anymore. You're already prepared. You do not need insurance. You don't need to beg a doctor, just simple, fast, honest care. This is what health care should look like in America with you control. With all family pharmacy, you can order prescription medications before you get sick.

Keep them at home and have them ready when you need them most. Everything is done online. A licensed doctor reviews a request and your medication ships straight to your door. They offer antibiotics, antivirals, tamiflu, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, mebenzadol, methylene blue, and even your daily maintenance medications. This is about access, preparation, and personal responsibility. Choose freedom, choose the right pharmacy. Go to all family pharmacy.com slash kirk. Use code kirk 10 to save 10% on your next order.

That's all family pharmacy.com slash kirk. All right. Without further ado, I'm so excited to have Molly Hemingway back on the show. She's one of my faves. And she's got a new book out called Alito and the subtitle's really good. The Justice who

reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution so much to get into with Molly. Welcome back to the It was great to be here with you guys. Well, congratulations on your book. I want to get into what happened to Virginia in the second half of this interview, but tell us why this book, why Alito and why now? Well, I previously co-authored with Kerry Severino a book on Kavanaugh,

and when we wrote that, we interviewed a ton of high-level people, and they were all saying, you know, there's this giant on the court and nobody ever talks about him, Alito. And they don't talk about him because he just quietly gets his work done and returns to his suburban home. He does not seek celebrity. He's not flashy. But he's been on the court now for 20 years,

and he's the one who has delivered some of these major landmark opinions, most notably the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, which was an issue that the conservative legal movement had worked on for 50 years. And he has this really interesting approach to originalism that is less theoretical or philosophical than some of his colleagues. like Scalia or Thomas and very practical. And when we're at a moment where people are either saying, you have to be super principled and who cares about the effect of those principles

or we don't care about principles, we just want to win. Alito embodies this blend. He's very principled and he thinks about how to strategize toward a win. He's very prudential in how he approaches things. And I think that's something that the entire country could learn from. it's all very good and it is appreciated I think ever since Scalia died there was a lot of attention on Thomas we have a Clarence Thomas photo behind you I think all of us like Thomas a lot he's definitely has that approach of he's often the only guy on the court who will say we actually we should throw out this thing that's 150 years old because it's not in the constitution but as you say Alito is the one who authored some of the decisions that we wanted most he's the one who actually Dobbs who delivered it I want to ask about something that that really caught my attention.

You were talking about this with Mark Halpern on his show just the other day, and it was specifically about the Dobbs case, which we've never fully resolved who leaked that decision, as you might remember, that it was leaked before it came out. We're not sure who did it, what their motive was. I know you have your own theories about it, but you also mentioned something that really caught my attention,

which was, and Halpern was theorizing about this, that when it dropped, one of the possible motives was they were trying to frankly spark violence against justices because if one of those justices were killed or died, the ruling would be canceled. Before the ruling was issued. If it hadn't come out yet, they'd have to cancel the ruling basically because you wouldn't have the majority anymore. And that there was this incident where the justices on the conservative side were asking,

can we get this ruling out so that this sort of Damocles isn't hanging us over anymore? And you said, one of the liberal justices was on board with it, but another justice. was not, and that seemed very interesting. Could you relay that story for our audience? Yes. Well, to write Alito, I interviewed nearly 100 people, which means I have a lot of great stories from what was happening on the court or near the court. And after the Dobbs decision was leaked, you know, you remember this. People's lives were immediately threatened. The justices had to wear bulletproof vests. They had to go to secure locations. Left-wing groups had published their home addresses where they lived in some cases with spouse and children, like young children,

and people were swarming these places trying to commit violence or otherwise threaten the justices into changing their mind. That is a violation of federal law, by the way. And Merrick Garland wasn't doing anything. The media were flat out celebrating. But when the justices met in conference, they were shocked to learn that the liberal justices said they were nowhere near having their dissent done. So usually to issue an opinion, you have the opinion, but you also have the dissent. They said, oh, we're not done. So some of the justices were like, hey, we're out here dealing with left-wing violence and, you know, attacks. Could you wrap it up? And they said, oh, you know, well, first off, as you alluded to, Justice Breyer, who's a solid liberal on the court,

but was a solid liberal. He left. He was a gentleman. He was beloved by his colleagues. He seemed the most amenable to trying to hurry things. And then according to my sources, Justice Elena Kagan went to his chambers and screamed at him not to accommodate the conservative justices. And this is matched by what happened, which is, even though they'd had many, many, many months to work on this, they said they couldn't possibly get their dissent done until June. And then once the dissent was filed, they included in it a footnote to another case that was nowhere near being you know, done yet, knowing that that would further delay the release. So, so there's a pattern here of behavior among the left-wing justices, including what we've seen this term, where they're

slow-walking a decision that they think will hurt the Democrat Party. But I mean, I think this is like explosive stuff and being able to get in there and tell some of this, some of these behind-the-scenes stories, I think is illuminating and very different from what left-wing media would tell you about what's happening on the court. Man, that is a really damning picture of Elena Kagan. I mean, that is really. So who do you think leaked the Dobbs decision? Do we, do you, your theory of it?

So unlike Mark Halperin, I do not think it was one of the justices. And everyone I spoke with, you know, they might have different theories. Nobody, nobody thinks it's a justice. They view that as too reckless. And it was Halperin's theory that it was. In fact, Elena Kagan. He said she's the most political. She has the closest relationship with the reporter who wrote the piece he was saying.

But I think most people think it's a clerk. It had to be someone who had access to the documents in question that year. It's a fairly small universe of people. There are some clerks who were highlighted in the press as having some particularly strident viewpoints related to abortion and relationships with the reporter in question. but I don't think we'll know until that person admits it. We won't know for sure until that person admits it or unless that person admits it because the investigation that was done was kind of a joke.

Well, and I would, it sort of would follow maybe it was a clerk for Kagan. I mean, you know, if there was already an existing relationship there with the reporter, it kind of makes a lot of sense to me. I'd heard her name. Do you think it would be possible maybe she did not personally do anything, but she strongly signaled she wouldn't mind if it happened? I guess I don't know what range of actions is possible here. I just would first of all say, you know, there were three justices on the,

well, there were four justices who did not want to overturn Roe, and that would be Chief Justice Roberts and then the three liberals, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer. And so they all had hired clerks knowing that the big case of the term would be overturning Roe. So they were hiring some of the most strident people. And I would say probably, you know, they were the ones who stood to benefit from the leak. Those chambers did either. I don't think they actually wished death upon their colleagues.

I think they were hoping that they could peel Kavanaugh or maybe one of the other justices away from overturning row. There were already reports about this in the New York Times that Breyer and Roberts were trying to do that. So that seems the more likely scenario. But I don't think it's hard to do with multiple people. But certainly the climate of the left was do whatever it takes to preserve this so-called right to end the lives of unborn children. I tend to agree with you. It was probably a delay tack to see if you could pull and peel one of the conservative justice as a way. But it's still a very interesting theory. Molly, Alito's name has been brought up a lot with Clarence Thomas about whether or not they're going to retire. Right. We have 53 senators. This would be probably an ideal time, given that the midterms are uncertain at best. What do you make of that? Do you think there's any chance that either of those justices would step down?

Well, I've long been saying I don't think Alito is going to step down at the end of this term. Technically, I don't know. But there was reporting last week that said his chambers or his world is kind of getting the word out that he does not intend to retire. Thomas has openly and long said, I'm going out feet first. So if you believe that, then it's not either of them. I do think, though, that people spend way too much time focusing on these two. And they should not wish either of them to leave the court because they are far and away the most solid, consistent originalists on the court, you know, constitutionalists on the court. But there is a third justice who is also in his 70s, who has served even longer than Justice Alito. And that's Chief Justice John Roberts. So I would say,

if you're trying to pressure, why not go for him? And also, I wouldn't be shocked if he stepped down. Molly, I think that's a really fascinating. I mean, I think we'd all be totally okay if John Roberts stepped down. If he did us a solid and did it sooner than later, I'd be okay with that as well. I'd be curious. Two names that you would like to see replace any of the justices should they step down. Oh, that's one thing that people have a lot that is going for good justices. I think, judge Katzis on the D.C. Circuit is incredible. I think Amulatha Parr, Andy Oldham, Naomi Rao. I mean, there are a lot of really good judges who would be great for this slot. I'm now going to investigate all of those names you just mentioned. Virginia, what is the explanation

that you're hearing around the Beltway for why we spend a hundred, and it's probably going to be like $150 million on the Cornyn race to beat a conservative Republican in a primary, when we can't investments in a Virginia election that determines four house seats? What are you hearing people say? I have no explanation. It's long been known that the Virginia Republican Party could use a lot of assistance, but this was a national issue. This affects who controls the House of Representatives. And still, you didn't see much national interest. There was almost no money going into this. There wasn't the type of ballot chase operation that you need to have in order to actually get the ballots in the box that are going to that are going to matter. And this was

truly a winnable situation. We were, I live in Virginia, deluged with ads and money from the left to try to pass this. And it only passed with like 1%. And 90,000 votes. Yeah. Yeah. So it could have been winnable. And I honestly, it's so frustrating. I don't even know what to say about it. Yeah. Well, and I have stories about this too, Molly. I mean, there was a whole plan that we put together for groups that you would know the names of and nobody wanted to fund it. Yeah. And people, people think that we're like made of money or something like on the turning points. No, turnipoint action C4. It's way harder to raise money there and we already have like huge commitments everywhere. The SPLC who we just profiled one of a million groups and they have 10 times as much money as we've ever had.

It's really depressing. Molly, congratulations on the new book though. And Alito, check it out today, everybody. Get yourself a copy. Molly Hemingway. She's great. Thanks, y'all. All right, Blake. We lose a very winnable race in Virginia. We got outspent, but we only lost by 80,000 to put it in perspective, the no, which is what we were in favor of. We wanted no to keep the old maps, which is a 6-5 map.

It got more votes than winsome Sears for governor last cycle. So that shows kind of that winsome Sears was a weak candidate, but it also shows that this was a winnable race. Yeah, it was so winnable. Every single county, except for like Fairfax in the north and maybe one other, I forget. There were a few. I mean, but went more right. If you look at the map, I think we have the image here.

You can visually see that the entire state of Virginia voted more to the right on this, except for very small little sections of northern Virginia. And then there was one other county there. But Blake, what do you make of this? And what are the takeaways? I mean, the big takeaways, first of all, I feel like I've lived through this four or five times now where Virginia has been written off. And then we end up losing a pretty important race very narrowly. So it happened, I think, I remember, I think it was Ken Cuccinelli.

It was over a decade ago, written off, underfunded, loses by a tiny margin. And it's happened repeatedly. This is the state we have been competitive in. when we have decided to be competitive in it. And then other times they just totally write it off. And it's very upsetting. It's very upsetting that this race wasn't taken super seriously. This was five house races that were effectively up for grabs in a close race.

And I can't help but wonder if Republicans in D.C. liked the idea of not contesting this. I think, remember, the whole push to redraw some of the house seats in other states, in Texas in Florida. I think it was pushed along, it was pushed along by President Trump. I think maybe some of them in D.C. liked the idea of him getting egg on his face

by losing this one and saying, see, we told you so. When this is a lot more extreme than anything they did in Texas or Florida, it's a much more radical mutation of the map. It's a much more aggressive grab in terms of what share of seats they're giving themselves.

And we've seen them do this before. They kind of like the idea of leaving the party hanging the wind. And as you said, we had a plan. People weren't ready to fight it. And we lost this close race. Yeah, it's really frustrating as well when you consider that $100 million was spent to defeat Ken Paxton unsuccessfully. Okay, maybe Cornyn got a few more votes than Ken Pax. But now Ken Paxton's, you know, surging in the polls. It's probably going to win that primary race for Senate in Texas. And that's our on our crime. That's our on our violence.

You're spending $100 million in a Texas Senate. primary in a deep red state that's still a deep red state where ken has by the way been a supporter of the president is totally on board with maga and has proven that he can win statewide races but no a hundred million dollars gets dumped in to texas and by the way here's the here's the dirty little secret when you pour money into these big ad buys in a state like texas guess who's getting paid the media consultants the media buyers they're taking a big chunk right off the top so they love ad buys they love ad buys meanwhile virginia gets 20 million $20 million.

And I think the Democrats, what, spent like $60, $70 million on this Virginia campaign? And they love ad buys, which you can look at the numbers and a lot of ads don't have a big impact. You can spend a ton of money to move things not a lot. And yeah, as you say, they don't like nearly as much the distributed idea, like what turning point action does of get lots of get out the vote people on the ground, have people who know their neighbors are interacting with them. That doesn't go through the same consultant apparatus as everything else. It's a different model of politics. And I will tell you that we, you know, Tyler would tell the story. I'll let him tell it because he was more directly involved.

He put together a whole group of people that are based in Virginia that are based in D.C., conservative groups, and put a proposal together to train those groups to deploy our ballot chase efforts, the way we do it, and the timeframe it would take. And there was a big proposal put forward, and it was turned down. And people didn't want to fund it. So it is what it is. You know, it's, you know, until our side invests the same amount of money and enthusiasm in GOTV, in canvassing, in voter relationships, voter reg.

As it does it with consultants and media buyers, we're going to continue to come up just short. And the country's going to really be damaged as a result. That's just the bottom line. We have to be demanding more ballot chase, more canvassing, because, yeah, you've got to have the media spend. You've got to have the air war and the ground war. They have to come together in the medium, in the middle. Because listen, you can't do one or the other. And by the way, if you're going to continually get outspent when you're sitting on mountains of cash,

which if you kind of tally it together, all these packs and all these groups on the right, we have a lot of cash right now. And you can say, oh, we're keeping our powder dry for the midterms. You just lost four house seats. You lost five house seats. Five house seats. And also, like, if they're not spending, you don't know other things. And we don't see that being spent.

now is the time you do it. Every race that goes badly, you have the people who realize something's wrong two weeks out, and they come in and say, where can we spend the money? And as Charlie could tell you, you spend it now, you spend it early. You can't deploy new ballot chasers in the second half of October. You have them out there meeting people laying the groundwork now. In fact, we've been doing it for months for the races that were involved in. That's why you win these things.

There's an estimated just so people are aware. Now, ballot chasing is not a silver bullet. You can bring the dog food and the dog won't eat the food. Kamala Harris' canvassing organizations ran into that because nobody wanted to vote for it. So it is a both-and. But in this instance, there was a really viable, worthwhile cause to get behind. And people would have. And there was 500,000 low-propensity Republicans across the state of Virginia that we could have chased.

500,000. We just would have needed about 80, 90,000 of them. I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face. and that's health insurance. There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith-based alternative to health insurance. And this is real stuff, folks. Like, you've got to listen in.

With CHM, you're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need because they're not insurance, you get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. If you want to see massive savings in your health care budget,

CHM has four low-cost programs for every stage of life, starting at just $150 a month. Plus, you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith. start today by visiting c h ministries.org slash charlie and use promo code charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month that's c h ministries.org slash charlie and use promo code charlie and missing scientists with access to classified stuff nuclear material aerospace they've all gone missing or turned up dead in the last couple months well i hope it's random but we're going to know in the next week and a half i just left the meeting on that subject so pretty serious stuff, but we're going to be now. Hopefully, I don't know, coincidence if you, whatever you want to call it, but some of them were very important people, and we're going to look at it over the next

time. All right. So this story has been really getting people's attention because it is seemingly very concerning. Here to help us unpack that is House Oversight Chairman, Representative James Comer from the great state of Kentucky. He and Eric Burleson, Representative Burleson, are leading the charge to get answers here. Welcome back to the show, sir. Thanks for having me on. So, of course, it's great to have you back on. It's been too long. I will say, Congressman, you were originally skeptical about this. You thought it was kind of a crazed conspiracy online thing, and then you looked into it. And then now you're sending letters to a lot of agencies at the federal government looking for more details. What can you tell us about this? Well, when it's first described to

you, if you haven't studied it, you think, oh, that's not possible. If that had been happening, we would have learned about it by now. But what happened is there was such a space of nearly three years, you know, something happened about every three months or whatever, and you're up to 10, either missing or deceased, all connected with our nuclear program, all very important scientists and people that contribute to the intellectual property of our superior nuclear program, which is the envy of the world. And then you think, well, I wonder what the government's been doing about it. And I can tell you, just in the week since we started requesting information and announcing our investigation, I'm pretty confident that the government really wasn't even aware that this was

happening. I'm almost positive the FBI wasn't aware. Now, some of the agencies, NASA and Department of Energy will say they've been looking into it. Well, they don't even have a formal team of investigators to look into something like this. So we're concerned that this is just now become realized by our investigative authorities, specifically the FBI. We feel that we can play a role in this investigation because what I found as chairman of the Oversight Committee over the last three years spanning two administrations is a lot of these government agencies never share information with each other. So we're trying to get all that information in from NASA, from the Department of Energy, from the FBI, from the Department of War,

to see if there are some obvious missing links that we can piece this together and try to find a solution. So, Congressman, do you want to lay out what you think is the most alarming or the most interesting connection? Because I'm a little more skeptical compared to a lot of people.

I've been looking at the specific cases, and I guess I'm not quite sold yet. I know, as you said, there's the line. They're all connected to the nuclear program, But I feel like if it's true, it's only true in the most broad-based way. Like, I know one of these 11, he worked at Novartis, a pharmacy company. That's not super nuclear related. Another is not a scientist.

She's missing. It's an interesting case. But she was an administrative assistant at Los Alamos. And her family says she didn't have access to classified information. So give us the strong case for there being something here. And it's not people sort of finding patterns where they don't necessarily. necessarily exist. Well, I hope there's nothing sinister here.

I just don't believe the odds are good enough to have the level of confidence that this is unrelated. And if you look at what the way that our adversaries operate, let's say this is one of the usual suspects. You always have to suspect China, Russia, Iran, North Korea of any type of vicious. Anytime there's a major cyber breach, it's always some small country that most people would have a hard time identifying on the map. So, you know, there are lots of countries that would love to have our intellectual property. There are lots of countries that would love to do things to lead us to think that there's something sinister there,

and people are trying to get our nuclear capabilities and create uncertainty and unrest within the government of the United States. So what I've been concerned about is that no one's really looked into this. Just in the last few days, has this reached the radar of the FBI. We want to look at all the pieces to see. I'm not, you know, there are some members who are going on TV saying, oh, this is sinister. I think a member or two said this could be aliens or something like that. I mean, I did a TMZ interview. I'm confident it's not alien.

But at the end of the day, there are. are countries that have a history of trying to do things like this. And maybe if for no other reason than to spook people end up working in the nuclear program, I don't know. There are lots of reasons why someone could be doing this or a country could be behind this that wasn't just to steal the intellectual property of the nuclear program. I agree that administrative assistant shouldn't have had any classified information or shouldn't have had any type of intellectual property that would be unknown to a foreign country.

However, if that person was an easy target, if your goal is to scare or spook anyone from participating in the nuclear program, then maybe your goal was achieved. So we just want to look at this. A lot of times when the government says they investigate something, I've learned that they don't. And I can give you a lot of examples that are in the news now of former cases that I don't think, thoroughly got bedded and the one at the top of the list would be the Epstein investigation was never thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government. So we've got this situation. We're taking it very seriously. America has reached out to a majority of members of Congress in the last few days in both

parties just with lots of questions. So we're going to do everything we can to get answers. And hopefully this is unrelated. Like President Trump said, he hoped it would be unrelated. But if it's not, then we need to put options in place. We need to protect those workers and we need to protect our intellectual property for our nuclear program. Yeah, I mean, to Blake's point, though, there are specific ones, whether they're not all connected, maybe six of them are connected, maybe four of them are connected. I mean, because some of them are uniquely weird circumstances. I mean, there's no, even you admitted, these are really fascinating cases. They're fascinating cases. I want to highlight one of them. This was Monica Reza, a metallurgist in the Los Angeles area.

She was hiking in Angeles National Forest with two friends who said they were maybe 40, 60 feet in front of her. And they turn around and she's gone. Never been seen again. And there was a thorough search for this woman. They've looked around the area. Have not found her. That is a fascinating old case. And then there's the Nuno Lerero, she was 47, MIT physicist.

This was covered when it happened. She was shot to death at the Brown University shooting, which was like a very mysterious shooting as well. there wasn't a whole lot of details about the motive. We believe we have the perpetrator of that. He was believed to have also conducted another shooting that took place at Brown. It's very darkly fascinating. He seems to have been, he was a classmate of this man 20 years ago. In fact, got better grades than him.

And he might have had this motive that his life hadn't panned out the way he wanted. And this guy who was in his classes, they were both from Portugal. He maybe thought, this guy had the life I should have had, snapped committed a heinous murder. Well, very fascinating, but... I mean, at the bottom line, I think it's really important that you're leading the charge here.

Oversight has a powerful role to play here and to get answers. Because one way or the other, we want to know what this is, and there's no doubt Congressman, that this has completely captured the imagination of people. I mean, we're getting emails from our audience left and right. Final word to you, sir. Well, when NASA says they're investigating this, there's

no agency or department or division within NASA equipped to investigate something like this. Same with the Department of Energy. So we believe that sometimes you can figure things out by getting all the information in one place. And the government has a terrible history of doing that, dating all the way back to September 11th.

Different agencies knew different things about those terrorists. If they had shared the information, then we might have prevented September 11th. So we don't know for sure if something sinister happened here, but we're sure going to do everything in our ability to try to figure it out. Well, again, thank you for leading the charge here. Congressman. It's great to see you again. Come back soon. House Oversight, powerful role. You guys got all kinds of stuff going on this week, by the way. You're voting to kick out congressman left and

right, and I'm kind of here for it. If you have an update on Ilhan Omar, let me know, sir. Well, she's in a lot of trouble, and we're doing everything we came to drain the swamp. Getting rid of three in a week, that's a good week, but we've got a long way to go. Yes, sir. All right, God bless you, sir. Keep up the great work, and we look forward to updates on that one. All right, so we want to get to this story. It's, we call it the creepy gay dad story. And it's just worth highlighting. Shane McAnally is a four-time Grammy award-winning country music songwriter.

He's written hit songs like Seven Summers, Body Like a Back Road, Mama's Broken Heart, and more. He seems to write kind of whatever, wherever the wind's blowing. He writes it. He's written songs like John Cougar. John Deere and John 316 kind of evoking this Southern Christian traditions. That's one, one title. Oh, wow. One song with three sort of parts to it.

Traditional biblical values and all that stuff, but he's also written songs for LGBTQ shows like Queer Eye. He co-wrote a song entitled, Y'all means y'all, with lyrics like, if you're torn between the X's and the Y's, you ain't got to play the hand, you're dealt. play a sot 18 please okay well I'm sorry I'm I apologize for playing that I didn't realize I'm sorry is country music has got to be the type of music that can most easily be generated with an AI probably all right so shame McAanely legally married his gay lover Michael Baum in January of 2017 but they apparently been they had a commitment ceremony in 2012 so they've been together for like 14 years but they weren't able to have biological children but they They're two dudes, so they can't have biological children.

So they got their first two children, the twins, boy Dash and daughter Dylan, via surrogacy in 2012, before procuring another newborn via surrogacy in October of 2025. The new baby is a little boy named Texan. And it seems to be a great. Named Texan? Yeah, T-E-X-S-O-N. And now they're going viral because they post a little. a video laughing at this baby after the baby cried out for

mama and there is no mama there's no mom around because there's just two dudes there's just two dudes around and I actually find this to be excruciating to watch so my apologies again SOT 16

Hey hey who do you want Dada or pop Mn Mamm No mama There is no mama I'm so sorry

You have dad dad You have pop Two choices No mama So they thought this was funny It ended up exploding online Many of you have probably seen this clip And I find it horrifying to watch

But since then Another video has resurfaced When McAnally and His lover, Baum have played a game with their kids their kids to

you know find out they would I guess they would point to each one of them and the kids had to say who was more like whatever they were pointing out

and I'll play the clip you'll get the idea and this one's pretty disgusting because they say which one of your dad's is hornier sounds great

17 who's hornier who's richest okay they have sent set their accounts to private, but Shane McAanley has talked to Daily Mail defending his post saying,

people have been saying some awful things. He's the happiest baby in the world. They thought this clip was going to be self-deprecating, quote-unquote, because most babies say data before mama. We found it hilarious. He's five months old. He obviously doesn't understand English. All right.

Blake, do you want to go first? This is gross and unsettling, and children should have a mom and a dad and policy should incentivize that. And also country music is bad. All right. So the main, no, it's not. I like country. I grew up with country and it's great. All right.

So here's what I will say. I totally agree. Our policies should enable a mom and a dad. Kids need a mom and a dad. the feminine and the masculine. That is the way God intended. God intended for the building blocks of society to be male and female. We learn important lessons from our mothers. We learn important lessons from our fathers. Now, the argument is that these children need love. That is a fairly compelling argument for a lot of people in a lot of places when it comes to adoption, when somebody's

already been born. It's a whole other can of worms when you're talking about surrogacy. Surrogacy is essentially renting the womb of a woman to then implant a baby and, you know, manufacture one that you want, okay? So I have a much, much bigger problem with gay couples getting babies, procuring them via surrogacy than I do with adoption. Adoption I'm still very uncomfortable with, but at least you could make the argument that these people need love, okay? These babies need a family. They need somewhere to go, and if not, they're going to be in a foster care system. But surrogacy to me is completely an abomination. I'll just be honest.

I find it disgusting, especially for gay couples. Okay. Now, if you are a couple that is struggling with, and you're a male and a female, and you're struggling with fertility issues, okay, you have my grace. I don't love it, but I'm going to extend a lot more grace to that situation

than I am a gay couple. And the reason I think that this has sparked such a backlash, Blake, is because it's the same thing for me as seeing a gay couple kiss. on like a movie or a TV show. Instantly gives, I have a visceral reaction to it. I don't want to see it. I think people saw this.

They felt their hearts were broken for this baby that wants its mom. And it's just something so viscerally reactive when you see a gay couple behaving. And it's just, it's unsettling to see that. And then to be reminded of the bigger picture thing, which is kind of without a thought. I don't think anyone ever really did much to vote for this. It just sort of was a legal void that stuff flowed into. We've made it so you can basically purchase children for order in the United States. It's popular to do it here from around the world.

That's how all those Chinese billionaires get their 100 kids. They'll buy 100 different surrogates. We've entered a brave new world, as it were. There's a lot of dark things that people can do with that. Charlie had an absolutely relentless passion for learning. I saw it up close and personal in every waking moment, every spare moment. every spare moment that he could he had a book open he had a podcast open he had a hillsdale online course open he was always diving into new ideas absorbing information studying up and sharpening his skills

that's why i love dr arne at hillsdale college they shared a deep understanding that learning is the key to shaping your character creating courage and changing lives charlie never stopped learning and neither should you through hillsdale's online courses he spent time studying the class The classics, the American founding, and the enduring truths of the Bible. Now it is your turn. With Hillsdale's free online courses, you can follow in his footsteps, learning from real professors and challenging yourself with rigorous coursework that's free and accessible to anybody who's willing to learn.

A great place to start is their brand new course on logic and rhetoric. Learn from Hillsdale professors how to speak masterfully, make a powerful point, and see how clear thinking leads to better decision-making and more effective. speech don't wait go to charlie for hillsdale.com to enroll today it's completely free this is a real good one by the way logic and rhetoric pick up the mic carry it forward learn like charlie start right now at charlie for hillsdale dot com very excited about our next guest we needed to pick me up here uh we have dr stephen meyer he's a phd in philosophy of science he's a former geophysicist he's the author of return of the god hypothesis which we have right here because like we literally

to keep his books in our office because they're that important. And the book has been the inspiration of a new film that we want to talk about. So without further ado, Dr. Meyer, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. Well, thank you guys for having me. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about all this with your audience. Yeah, I mean, listen, so the story of everything is a feature documentary adaptation of Return The God Hypothesis, the book that I have right here. I remember when this came out and everybody was talking about it.

Because it's kind of like a science-first look at creation, right? A lot of times people will argue for the, you know, I guess intelligent design through a theological lens. But you are doing it with a science-first perspective. Why don't you tell us about that in this film? And then we'll play the trailer so people, it's really well done. Yeah, thank you. Well, yeah, the book and the film describe and tell the story of the discovery of three major discoveries that reveal the reality. of a transcendent and active mind behind the universe.

In other words, an intelligent agent with the attributes that traditional theists, Jews, and Christians have long ascribed to God. So I call this the return of the God hypothesis, and that's what the film is about. Well, I mean, that's a, I want to get into what those three discoveries are, but let's play the trailer because I will tell you, a bunch of people sent me this and we've got to get you on to do this. And I was like, yeah, yeah, okay, okay, okay.

And then I looked at the trailer and I was like, wow. This is like somebody has done a phenomenal job executing on this vision. Sat 20. Today, I'm going to tell you a story which may seem very strange. Galileo, Kepler, Newton. Each tried to explain events in the history of the universe. Has the universe always been here? Or is it finite?

Is there something else that would lay these questions? to rest. It reopens that question of ultimate meaning. How in the world did this start? The simulation theory? The multiverse. You can't trust what's in front of your eyes. Without guidance, we would get a life unfriendly universe. Many organisms have beauty beyond anything that's relevant for their survival value. The concept of life as a cosmic phenomenon should have many consequences. The question then was what does one do about it? really beautiful stuff. Honestly, I mean, I'm so used to people pitching projects, Doctor, and they don't look great, if I'm being honest, but this looks beautiful. Tell us about how long

you guys have been working on this, and then I want to hear some of the, I want to hear some of the three discoveries. Yeah, absolutely. Well, the embarrassing thing about the film project is that with some delays that we encountered during the final phases of COVID, that it actually took five years to produce the film. It took me three and a half years to write the book, so the film was an even more extensive project. But we have 22 different scientists and scholars who are in it. The filmmakers are fantastic storytellers.

So this is not a sermon on tape. This is a genuine story, and it's the story of two stories, The story of two competing views of reality and how modern science has revealed that one of those stories clearly provides a better explanation for what we see. The two stories are the thing that we've all heard

that life arose and the universe arose from undirected material processes, or as Richard Dawkins put it, from blind, pitiless indifference. And the other story is that instead there's a mind, a creator, a creative intelligence behind the universe, and we can tell by looking as St. Paul put it, the things that are made.

But it is, as you say, a science-first approach, and the producers did a fantastic job. There are 400 visual effects. The cinematography is gorgeous. They take you deep out into space, deep into the interior workings of the cell. You can see the digital information in the DNA, what it does. You can see the nanotechnology, the little miniature machines inside the cell.

So it's a very powerful visual representation of the evidence. There's a very strong argument that runs through it. But it's also just some very compelling storytelling, not only about the story of the scientists making the discoveries that are pointing to God, but how those discoveries have affected their own thinking and their own lives. And in many cases have affected a kind of intellectual first and sometimes even religious conversion among the scientists who have. have encountered these really powerful evidences for a mind behind the universe.

Yeah, I remember actually the, I forget his name, you probably know it, Doctor, but the guy who was sort of first behind the mapping of the human genome, and he became a strong Christian. Francis Collins. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, exactly. So a theist, and there is something really profound, like creation is so intricate and beautiful and complex that the people that study it most deeply tend to be persuaded

that there is a creator. There is something behind creation. I'm thinking of, you know, the Artemis II launch, right? Where there was the gentleman that was on board and he was looking at the majesty of Earth. And he said, I'm not really a theist at all, but like I started praying and crying and weeping.

And apparently this is a very common experience for astronauts when they come back. Go ahead. I can see this is sparking. I had a piece about that when the Artemis guys were still in space at Fox News.com at their, website. This has been a very common thing. We send people up into space. They look back at that beautiful blue jewel through the window in their space capsule. And they, if they were religious before, they become even more religious. And if they weren't, they become open to it. There's

a kind of experience of a space flight epiphany, if you will. It goes back to the astronomers, or sorry, the astronauts in the Apollo mission. Apollo 8, they read the Bible, they read the biblical account of creation from Genesis on Christmas Day, 1968. The current head of NASA, the administrator of NASA, Jared Isaacsman, has said that his time in space convinced him that, quote, the heavens declare the glory of God. And this is one of the passages that the current astronauts emphasized as a result of their experience.

So, yeah, it's kind of a cool thing, really. And we've seen that when, and in addition to the kind of intuitive sense that there must be something behind what they see, because you look at that beautiful blue jewel from space and then there's the darkness behind it. And as far as we look, we know no planets, there are anywhere near as friendly to life as our planet is. And then when you analyze it from the standpoint of physics as far as all the what are called fine-tuning parameters, all the parameters, all the parameters, the parameters that have to be exactly right in our local solar system and in the universe itself to make life possible, the most obvious implication of all that fine-tuning is that there must have been a fine-tuner. And this is one of the things we cover in the film. Let's elaborate on one of the points you mentioned in passing. So you mentioned the big

picture stuff about our planet and what's exceptional about it. But also you said, as you put it, the nanotechnology in cell, at the smallest level that we can look at. that that seems to defy comprehension as something that could arise naturally. Could you elaborate on that point? Well, absolutely. I've been elaborating on that for about 30 years now. So you better ask, be careful what you ask for. But yeah, the big discoveries of modern molecular biology have shown that once you open up the inside of the cell, it's not at all what people thought in Darwin's time. Darwin's so-called bulldog, his great proponent Thomas Henry Huxley in the 1860s said that the cell is a simple homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm. It's just a blob of jelly. And if you think that's what the cell, the simplest unit of life, the smallest unit of life is,

it's pretty easy to imagine how a few simple chemical reactions might produce something like that. But it hasn't turned out to be so. Instead, starting, in the 1950s and 60s in a period of rapid exploration and discovery in the field of molecular biology, scientists began to discover that inside the cell, there are, first of all, large information-bearing molecules, the most famous of which is the DNA molecule. Watson and Crick elucidated its structure in 1953. In 1958, Crick had a kind of epiphany and realized that along the spine of the in a molecule, there are subunits, chemical subunits, that are functioning just like alphabetic characters in a written text or zeros and ones in a section of machine code. This is a stop

press moment in the history of science and the history of biology, because prior to that, people were trying to explain the origin of life from simple chemistry. They were trying to get from chemistry to chemistry. Now, after Crick, we realize you've got to get from chemistry to code. How does the chemistry, how does do undirected chemical processes, produce an elaborate information storage, transmission, and processing system, which is what's been discovered. And instead, we know chemistry doesn't do this, but we do know something does make code.

And that is intelligence. Bill Gates says that the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. Richard Dawkins said the same thing. Dr. When does the film come out? And how do people watch it? Yeah, fantastic. The film opens April 30th in theaters. That's next Thursday. And people can get tickets by going to the story of everything.com film. And yeah, that we appreciate the interest.

Yeah, absolutely. So check it out. Get your tickets. You guys are doing like an event, right? It's like a fathom event. So on Thursday, there's going to be theaters all over the country that people can watch us at. Well, this is a week-long opening, so it's not just a typical fathom event. This is a fathom functioning as a full-on distributor. So we get a week guaranteed. We're in over 500 theaters already, and we're adding them daily as more and more interest is coming in. Our pre-sales are very strong. We're hoping to kick over into a second week.

And then there will be a digital release beyond that. So I do encourage people to see it in theaters, though, because it was really the producers made this with a big screen in mind. It is, it's just, I didn't see it on a, on a big screen until a recent screening, and it's just gorgeous. There's 400 visual effects, great cinematography. You go deep out, way out into space, and then deep into the interior of the cell, and there's a fantastic story that goes with all the beautiful imagery.

Yeah, and I encourage everybody, take your friends, buy a bunch of tickets, take your friends, churches, do this with, you know, if it doesn't have to be a church, it could just be, you've got that friend that you've been working on for a while, and they're open, And they just need a little intellectual equipping to get over the hump. So we talked about this Artemis 2 clip, and I just really want to play it for people because I just thought it was so, it was so beautiful the way he described it. It's not 20. On the ship.

I'm not really religious person, but there was just no other avenue for me to explain anything or to experience anything. So I asked for the chaplain on the Navy ship to just come visit us for a minute. and when that man walked in, I'd never met him before in my life, but I saw the cross on his collar, and I just, I broke down in tears. Like, it's very hard to fully grasp what we just went through. And in these short, you just said it's been a week since we've been back, but it's been a week of medical testing, physical testing, doctors, science objectives.

Like, we have not had that decompression. We have not had that reflection time. So I'm basing this on what we saw. And when the sun eclipse behind the moon, I think all four of us, I turned to, to Victor, and I said, I don't think humanity has evolved to the point of being able to comprehend what we're looking at right now, because it was otherworldly and it was amazing. Wow. Just incredible. All right, so I have a question for you. If you want to react to that, well, I was just going to say that connects with a very strong theme in the film, which is the

fine-tuning of the universe that allows for life and the fine-tuning of our planetary system that makes life on planet Earth possible. We have a second. in the film precisely on what they have been seeing and describing, which is all the intricate parameters that were set up just right to make life on planet Earth possible and some beautiful, beautiful photography. One of those parameters is actually the possibility of an eclipse. The distance between the Earth and the Sun exactly matches geometrically what you need,

given the size of the Moon in relation to the Earth, to make eclipses possible, and that we can have eclipses is one of the things that makes it possible for us to make basic discoveries about the universe and the cosmos. So there's a book called The Privileged Planet that's co-authored by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Jay Richards is featured in the film describing this, and that book makes the argument that not only is our planetary system fine-tuned or designed for life, it's fine-tuned and designed for us to be able to make scientific discoveries that is to know something about the cosmos and its creator. So the intuitive response of the astronauts is well supported by scientific evidence about just how

incredibly designed our planetary system is. I have so many questions for you, Dr. Meyer, and we've got two minutes left in this segment, but it's like one question I would have for you is if somebody who's not a believer came to you and said, you know, I, you know, I don't believe because we're all just primordial goo, you know, the product of and we've evolved and all this. I mean, what do you do? What's your first reaction, your first answer? Well, I go right back to where we were talking to the subject we were talking about before the break, which is that in the interior of the cell, you have these information-bearing molecules where the information is being used by the cell to direct the construction of the proteins and the protein nanomolecules. machines that make it possible for living organisms to stay alive.

And we know from our experience that information, computer code, always comes from a programmer. And in fact, whenever we see information, we trace it back to its source, whether we're talking about the information in a computer program or in a section in a book or a hieroglyphic inscription or the information we're transmitting back and forth between ourselves right now, information always issues or comes ultimately from a mind. So the discovery of information at the foundation of life in every living cell is a powerful indicator of the activity of a designing mind in the history,

in the origin and history of life itself. We wouldn't attempt to explain the origin of the iPhone apart from the mind of Steve Jobs, right? So the fact that we can't see the creator doesn't mean that we might not be in possession of an artifact or of a system that is bearing witness to the existence of a prior cause. It's completely legitimate scientifically to reason from effect back to cause.

And in the case of information, the cause of information is always a mind. Creation declares his glory. The story of everything in theaters nationwide beginning April 30th, 2026. Dr. Meyer, thank you for your time today. Wonderful experience. Thanks very much. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliecirk.com. Thank you.