The Charlie Kirk Show - Erika Kirk's Address to America + The Great Southern Gerrymander

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

The show opens with a reaction to Erika's exceptional appearance on the program yesterday to warn America about the surge in toxic dehumanizing rhetoric. Then Andrew and Blake dive into the mammoth Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering. Could the GOP pick up five seats, ten seats, or even more by redrawing districts in the South? And what will Democrats do in response? 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 noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noble goldinvestments.com. All right. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. We are here April 30th, 2026. How are we doing, Blake? Oh, we're doing excellent. Great. We are here at the Y-ReFi studio. We took a little, you know, a different tact yesterday. It was a special. Erica had a message that she wanted to deliver. I thought she did a great job. And then it was interesting for a lot of our Real America's voice audience. This was

probably the first time that you had been given the opportunity to see in full, at least on these airwaves, the prove me wrongs from Charlie and some of the clips of Charlie's interactions. And I thought it was a really poignant moment because you were able to see the, and compare and contrast in real time, the way that the current rhetoric is being approached, often by our colleagues, our opponents, our foes. What are we? Our fellow citizens on the other side of the aisle versus how Charlie would approach it. And the contrast couldn't be more glaring. Let's just be honest. Charlie was a guy that would say, come up to the front of the line if you disagree. If you disagree, come up to the front of the line. Ask your questions. That's what it was all about.

It was about open discourse, open dialogue, debate, letting the differences be aired in public and see which idea was better, see who could get to the top. So, that's that's different than, hey, I don't like you. I'm going to try and kill you. And unfortunately, that's what a lot of our public discourse has devolved into. And I thought Erica gave a poignant, poignant address and remarks, you know, after what happened to the White House correspondent's dinner, I think a lot of us, when we were in that room, realized this is getting absolutely out of hand. I mean, we've realized it on this show for at least seven months with what happened with Charlie. but when you see a room full of the most prominent journalists in the country be exposed to a violence like that and to be exposed to just the raw energy, the violent raw energy that you could feel in the room as even the Secret Service were jumping over tables and climbing on chairs around your head as you're huddled underneath a table. I think it brings it home.

And I think this is an opportunity for the country to sort of reassess where we're at. and it's an opportunity for all of us to reassess where we're at and realize we have to double and triple down our efforts to end the scourge of political violence in this country. And so I was really proud of Erica. I thought she did a great job and she addressed some of the things saying, hey, listen, when you dehumanize people, that has a destination. When you believe that your political opponents are actual Nazis and fascists and tyrants, then, yeah, I guess you could tie yourself. into a knot ideologically and justify murdering them and that's what cole allen did now cole allen has been uh we just found out by the way they did a uh a review of the secret service agent who was shot that was not friendly fire it did in fact come from cole allen's gun so he's going

to be in some serious trouble and then we have other breaking news that the attackers that went after savannah hernandez in minneapolis that the astrusco family all three have been charged indicted federally. A grand jury returned three indictments or indictments on all three, I should say. And so we're going to see justice pursued there. This is critically important. And Blake, you know, you feel free to chime in here on this. It's critically important that the people that attack people for their political views or their ideological views are held accountable in a very public way. Because if this Estrusco family would have gotten

away with just a slap on the hand or a misdemeanor charge in many Minneapolis, Hennepin County, as we were expecting, then what's to stop them from doing it again? And what's to stop other people that are similarly bent and minded to do it to other journalists and other reporters? So this was a huge, huge, huge news story yesterday that we wish we could have got to. Go ahead. As we've said, we've said before there has to be zero tolerance for assassination culture. And downstream of that, you have to have, let's call it, muscular free speech enforcement. And that means that we have to set the norm, that you resolve differences through argument, through debate, and it's not acceptable to treat it as some sort of sport to attack a reporter you don't like, to attack a speaker you don't like, to sucker punch these people, to cause mayhem for their events, to, as we've seen a gun.

Or pull a gun, but even just, we've always seen these professors who will trash our tables, who will rip up their stuff. there has to be pretty low tolerance for that as well you need a very strong we've we've warned about the hecklers veto well we need a we need a veto of the hecklers veto well the assassin's veto well the assassins veto yeah here's a clip from erika yesterday um so 30 it is uh when you stop talking bad things happen that's when violence happens stop 30 when we stop talking to each other bad things happen this is why my husband created turning point us say so we could have civil discourse and debate and open dialogue. This is a moment for Americans to come together and decide what kind of country we are going to be before we lose our country altogether.

In Romans chapter 12 verse 21 it says do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. Yep. We will not be overcome by evil. We will overcome evil with good. That was what Charlie did. That's what we must continue doing. That's our call as Christians. That we cannot let this country devolve into a cesspool of violence and political assassination. We just simply can. What kind of country would our children inherit and our grandchildren inherit if we let this happen now? So, I mean, it was a, I think it was a poignant moment. We got a ton of emails from you guys in the audience. Blake has a few pulled up. Yeah, we just, we had a lot of reaction. Some of it was a lot of people, it caught people off guard to do that. We haven't had air come on here too much. But, so for example,

William said Erica's intro to the show today was a statement that makes me proud. It is a message that Charlie would have said about the hate that we see today. We got one from Kara. God bless you, Erica, lift you in the kiddos and the turning point family in prayer every single day. And she says, Charlie was big picture and this was big picture as well. There's not just one thing that can heal us. It takes everything above, fitted together. and she really liked how when Erica threw it to the old Charlie stuff,

you can buckle up here we go. We've got Colleen. I just got done watching the video of Erica on the Charlie Kirk Show. I cannot imagine the anguish and heartbreak that she is going through. It is so frustrating to see how she has to fight for her existence and grieve, but she's been very brave, very true. And just a lot of appreciation for seeing a lot of the Charlie stuff, which I think is worth us pausing.

We've seen it. We've run it as special episodes. But a lot of people out there who watch primarily through RAV, they don't necessarily see lots and lots of Charlie debating on campus clips and stuff. And so it was good that we were able to show that. And we encourage all of you who like it and who do watch this primarily through RAV. We continue to have Charlie debate greatest hits release as podcast episodes on the weekend. We just had one of him debating pro-life issues.

We've had him debating border issues. we encourage you to check those out because Charlie's message is still out there and people need to hear it. Totally. And we went to a lot of effort to make sure that all those episodes are up now. And so they check them out. Please take advantage of that. I want to play just a quick 10 seconds of Charlie just welcoming people who disagree. And this is the essence of turning point. This is Charlie's legacy. It's one we can't forget. It's one that needs to be pumped into the bloodstream of this country. SOT 28.

You guys are welcome to ask anything. Open mic. Disagreement. Most welcome. If you disagree, come to the front of the line. If you disagree, come to the front of the line. If you disagree, go to the front of the line. You guys know how it works. You disagree. You can go to the line. We'll have a great conversation.

Amen. Miss them every day. There's a couple of clips that I think really just make it pop. Bring it to life about the way that the media treats left-wing criminals and the way that they treat what happens when conservatives get attacked or, God forbid, killed. So I'm going to start where this show really should start. And that's with Tyler Robinson, the man who is standing trial for the assassination of our friend Charlie. And I want to take you back to how an ABC reporter described a bloodthirsty murderer's text to his lover,

his trans-identifying gay furry lover. I guess he's not a furry. Oh, left. It was very touching in a way that I think many of us didn't expect, a very intimate portrait into this relationship between. the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself with him repeatedly calling his roommate who is transitioning calling him my love and I want to protect you my love. So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd but was doing it in front

of children which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case and in the other hand he was you know speaking so lovingly about his partner so very interesting and as pierre said riveting press conference David. really sick, a touching portrait who jeopardized the life of, no, he didn't jeopardize. He stole Charlie's life. He murdered him in cold blood. But that's the way that they do it. Do you see that like compound this clip hundreds and hundreds of times over across the population set? Do you see how this like little propaganda starts playing on the minds of Americans and how you start sympathizing with the violent criminals that are killing people? Or how about this one? Remember

Arina Zarutka, who was viciously stabbed in the neck while just trying to get home after work at a pizza parlor? She was a Ukrainian refugee who survived the war in Ukraine, only to get killed brutally by a multiple convicted felon that was somehow walking the streets, that never should have been there, released by weak on crime Democrat policies, SOT 24. When you are mentally ill, you have a hard time knowing that you are mentally ill. But also, I mean, people like Charlie Kirk fan, they've been looking for opportunities to make this some sort of like reciprocal George Floyd situation. We don't know why that man did what he did.

And for Charlie Kirk to say, we know he did it because she's white, when there's no evidence of that, it's just pure racial, racial, racial. Mongering, hate mongering, it's wrong. Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there would be sweeping changes imposed on society. We don't know how to deal with people who are hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people, hurt people. What happened was horrible, but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on bandwagons.

And then for someone like Charlie Kirk, he should be ashamed of himself. No one mentioned the word race, white, black, or anything except him. Oh. Hurt people, hurt people. That's what they summed up. A lunatic, stabbing a woman in the throat, for no reason, completely unprovoked. A crime we've seen over and over and over again in the country. The sympathy for the criminals is obscene.

A crime that happens sadly routinely. We've seen, if you want other proof that they love criminals, just what is it? Every other week on this show, we have to cover a new illegal immigrant, led into this country, under Biden, immediately allowed to come here as an asylum claimee. and they murder a random person. Never should have been here. Obviously, a bad news. They were allowed in because on a fundamental level, when the left sees criminals and they see normal people,

their sympathy goes to that criminal. I guess they have an easier time envisioning themselves as that criminal than as the normal person who'd be their victim. Listen, sympathy for the criminals is cruelty to the victims. And I think we should hit another theme of what Erica said yesterday, that so much of what the press does to whip people up, to whip their own base up, to whip people like that teacher

who wanted to kill the president up, or frankly, like Tyler Robinson, because he, a lot of those trans shooters that we've seen, they're whipped up by this idea that there is an impending genocide of trans people going on, that they're facing annihilation. They're whipped up by a press that uses that kind of rhetoric. And as she pointed out,

She was at, she just, she tweeted this last night, I'll read it. Many of the left thing journalists that attended the White House correspondence dinner have spent years consistently calling President Trump a Nazi, a threat to democracy and Hitler, and then they joyfully attended that evening's event. If they truly believe their own rhetoric, then they are either joyfully and willingly having dinner with Hitler, or they are lying to radicalize American citizens with narratives they know are grossly exaggeration. And we know it's basically it's the second point that deep down they know their stuff is hysterical. They will claim Trump is a dictator and then also trot out and say we need to beat him in the next election. The dictators don't go up for normal election. Yeah, she's absolutely right. And I will tell you, you know, to compare that to the Van Jones clip where they he's sympathizing with the killer of Arena Zaruska, compare that to Charlie Kirk the way he covered it, SOT 23.

This was one of the coldest, most senseless murders I've ever seen. She had no interaction with this guy whatsoever. She was sitting my name and he just takes out a knife and just decides to stab her. I do say this with some form of just heaviness. I don't like politicizing situations like this, but it just necessitates it because there are so many dynamics at play here. Based on the information evidence we have, the attacker did say, I got that white girl.

The attacker, you got that white girl. racialized it in his own telling of this situation. And we all know this. Any honest observer of your program knows this, including Van Jones even knows this deep down, which is that, of course, if a random white person on a subway took out a knife and stabbed a black girl senselessly to death, there would be massive media coverage, there would be policy changes, there would be people having to apologize for this. We saw this in George Floyd. And yet, for whatever reason, this situation has not garnered even a fraction of that kind of outrage or backlash. I wasn't expecting this. I have to say. But death of recess, it stopped me in my tracks.

This isn't about dodge balls and jungle gyms. It's about control. The modern American classroom didn't just happen. It was intentionally designed. It was standardized and centralized. And once you see who built it and who protects it, everything clicks. billions of dollars are flowing through education bureaucracies every year. Test scores collapse and somehow the answer is always more money and less parental authority. The documentary breaks down how organizations like the NEA amassed enormous influence, how radical gender ideology entered classrooms and why something as basic as recess, movement, freedom, childhood, you know, had to go.

That's not random. That's systemic. Institutions protect themselves. They do not protect your kids. And that's why this documentary exists on Angel Studio streaming platform Angel Guild. Angel Guild is willing to distribute films that challenge powerful systems when legacy media won't touch them. So right now, go to angel.com slash Charlie and watch Death of Recess right now. If you're a parent or plan to be, you need to see this.

That's angel.com slash Charlie and watch Death of Recess. Without further ado, Rep Andy Ogles, Republican from Tennessee, House Freedom Caucus member. Welcome back to the show, Congressman. Absolutely. Thanks for having me. So I know we got a lot of ground to cover, but I want to start because we haven't had a chance to address it on the show. Yesterday, we did a special with Erica Kirk and the Supreme Court case broke. And so we're kind of catching up here. But the VRA, Section 2 of the VRA has been basically gutted and by the Supreme Court based on the Louisiana maps. But this could have implications across, especially the South, where you have these minority racially gerrymandered districts.

And now your colleague in the Senate, Marsha Blackburn, is called for a new map. If you could throw that up, folks, a new map of Tennessee. And you will notice conspicuously, it's all red. The map is all red. So what is your take on this? And what's your reaction to Senator Blackburn's suggestion here? It's a beautiful map. You know, I think what you can do is look at New England states.

And what we've seen historically over the last several decades, the Democrats will use every tool, every weapon that they have at their disposal to undermine the republic and to undermine Republicans. And so when you look at the map in New England, it's all blue. Why? Because they've jurymandered those districts. And so now with the Supreme Court ruling, we truly in the South have the opportunity to take back the House of Representatives to increase our margins.

And look, the midterms, we know that Democrats are going to lie, cheat, and still. We just know that, right? And so whether or not we hold the House, whether or not we save the Republic, whether or not we're able to implement Donald Trump, President Trump's agenda and vision for the country, which is amazing, by the way, could literally come down to that single seat in Tennessee in District 9. And so absolutely, we need to look at how can we support the cause, how can we save the Republic and how can we implement President Donald Trump's agenda?

So one of the pushbacks that Blake and I have been talking about, for example, in like Texas, is that you are, in theory, you're creating some, let's say, swing districts that if we have a wave year could go against us, we could actually lose, we're losing ground, for example, with Hispanics. Yeah, we should explain this out because the idea of gerrymandering is you can look at districts and they all are going to have a certain spread of between Republicans and Democrats. Yeah, R plus 3 versus R plus 16 or whatever. To use Virginia as an example, Virginia just redrew their map or trying to.

We'll see how it goes in the courts to give them a 10 to 1 advantage. The risk there is every district they're creating, they used to have, let's say, five or six districts where they're up by 15 or 20 points. Now they've made 10 districts where they're up by eight or nine points. They're still likely to win, but if you have one really bad year, suddenly you lose 10 house seats at once. And when you're making some of these aggressive maps in Texas in Florida, we should remember, Florida voted for Obama twice. Florida has been a swing state in recent history that could revive. And if you have one of these very aggressive maps, suddenly we're putting 10, 20 house seats at risk at once.

Should we worry about that? The other insight here, and Jeremy Carl has a great tweet on this. I recommend everybody to check it out. You could be encouraging more moderate Republicans. Are any of these worries for you? Well, I mean, at the end of the day, this literally, if we lose the House, on day one, the Democrats, instead of doing the business of the American people, instead of trying to make us a better country, secure our borders, have a strong military, all the things that Americans want, they're going to focus on impeaching President Trump. Why? Because they're crazy. They're leftists. They're loony and they're more interested in stealing elections than saving the country. So that being said, we have an opportunity. And this is, Republicans operate from a space of fear. We have an opportunity in front of us today to pick up eight, 10, 12 seats. Then right behind it, we have a census where we're going to pick up eight, 10, 12 seats. And so this idea that, you know, we're not going to do the right thing, the proactive thing, the aggressive thing because of what might happen, I think is an argument that's, we're going to pick up eight, 10, 12 seats. And so this idea that we're not going to do the right thing, you know, we're not going to do the right thing, I think is an argument that's, sets us up for failure. We can take and ensure that we hold the house in this next Congress,

which literally will be pivotal in saving the country, in securing our elections. And by the way, on saving our elections, not to get us off topic, you know, I'm literally going to write a letter. We're releasing it today. We'll send it to you invoking Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. We have a Congress that is gridlock. This allows the president to force Congress to stay in Washington, D.C., and do our dadgum jobs like Save America, like funding CBP, and like funding ICE. Enough is enough. We are at crisis mode.

We are at war. We're under attack from all sorts of directions and dimensions. It's time we stay in D.C. and get this done. So Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, one of the clauses here is convening Congress, just for our audience's sake, allows the president to call both houses or either into a extraordinary sessions. And I think I think you're right. I mean, one of the, I think underreported aspects of what happened at the White House Correspondence Dinner was the fact that those ice agents hadn't been paid in 70 days. That's right. I mean, and look, so under extraordinary

circumstances. So I think the logical question is when has it been invoked? It's been invoked. I think it's five times. Four times have been when you're in a state of war. Now, keep in mind, we've been invaded by 10 or 12 million people. We have criminals on our streets. We literally just caught an Iranian sniper in Alabama. You've got Trennerwa, you've got MS-13 all over the country. Like, we are in a state of war. It may be domestic terror, but it's a state of war. And we have to do the thing to secure this country.

And if that means we have to have extraordinary circumstances to convene Congress, to get this done, to secure our elections, there is case after case after case of theft, of stealing elections at the local, the state, and the federal level. I would consider that extreme circumstances. When we have Democrats, we know we have Democrats that are stealing elections. Let's pass the Save America Act. And if Thune does not have the stones to nuke the filibuster, then the president has the authority to make them stay there and do their job.

And guess what? When they're missing their fundraisers, their codels and their little birthday parties, whatever the hell they're doing when they're not in D.C., suddenly I think all of that passes when we are here and having to do the job. I'm sick of this nonsense. We work really hard in the House. We pass all sorts of legislation, and we send it to the Senate where it dies. Enough is enough.

If they want to play games, if they want to get this done, I encourage the president to invoke Article 2, Section 3, and force Congress to get back to work. And an argument in favor of, I think, especially in the wake of this ruling, if you want a justification for passing the Save America Act, even if it means removing the filibuster, you should check the left's reaction to the Supreme Court case that is changing the voting's right act. It's Louisiana versus Calais or Calais. I don't know how they pronounce that one. but they're getting really unhinged about it.

And I know the Democrats do this a lot where they say this latest thing is the end of our democracy, but they're getting pretty radicalized on it. There are people, there are left rulers online who are saying one of their ideas is they should add, not merely make DC a state, but make it eight different states,

truly cartoonish stuff to just to pack the Senate with as many lawmakers as they want. I think it's much more likely that they will just say, we need to abolish the filibuster day one. We need much more aggressive action. We're getting closer to that point where the Democrats are going to make a gigantic power grab the next time they're able to do it. It would behoove us to at least be ready for when this happens. And to have the sense of urgency that you're encouraging, Congressman, I'll play Hakeem Jeffrey, as your colleague in the House, his statements of the press and get your reaction.

SOT 16. And so the guys falling apart. the MAGA majorities in Congress are falling apart. The Supreme Court is a disgrace. And Ben, in the new Congress, we're going to have to do something about this Supreme Court. And let me be very clear. Everything is on the table. Your reaction, sir.

Well, I mean, he's admitting to what they're planning. Everything is on the table. They're going to nuke the filibuster. They're going to pack the Supreme Court. They're going to do anything and everything they can to grab power. And so we have no choice. I mean, if I have a guy standing in my front yard with a can of gasoline and matches, and he's telling me he's going to burn down my house, I should probably take him seriously.

Hakeem Jeffries just told you, he's in our front yard, he's got the gasoline in the matches. He wants to burn this country down and make it in the image of Europe and the socialist and the Marxists. I'm not going to stand by and let that happen. I'm not going to back down. I was in the room when the shots were fired to try to kill the president for the third time. I'm a little pissed off because it's the rhetoric. from the left, where they talk about taking this country by force, where they talk about riots in the streets, and then when something happens, then they point and say it's the alt-right.

It's not the alt-right. We didn't shoot at Biden. We didn't shoot at Obama. No, the libtards have been shooting trying to kill our president. It's the libtards of destroying our country, and it's guys like Hakeem Jeffries, who, quite frankly, this so-called Hakeem Jeffries, who shouldn't be in office. Well, yeah, I agree. The bullets are only flying one way, sir. All right, Congressman, I know you just had votes called. I was getting notes from your team that they're ushering you down to the floor here in just a second for votes. But so we'll make this quick. Belmont University, I'm going to play the clip and get your reaction.

SOT 19. Belmont used to be this, you know, Christian University upstanding in Tennessee, Red State, conservative. No. And by the way, Charlie broke a scoop earlier, Congressman, where it was, they renamed their DEI program. to hub, hope, unity, and belonging, while basically doing DEI under another name trying to get away from the Trump administration cracking down on that.

Your reaction to, first, the violence and the shouting that you experienced on a college campus and just the violence, the rhetoric, all of it. Your reaction, sir. Well, I mean, you know, universities should be institutions of learning where you hear both sides of any conversation. And what you saw there on display was, individuals who were so one-sided in their belief that they weren't willing to sit down and have a

conversation. Now, what you didn't see were the 70 or so students, maybe closer to 80 or 90, that were in a room. We sat down together, and we had conversation. And some of that debate was spirited, but that's okay. I mean, that's what John Quincy Adams talked about when he said, he loved the house. It's where you argued and debated. It was the raucous chamber. And so, but you want that dialogue. And so what you have is you have, you had a handful of students who, I don't think are quite frankly representative of Belmont University. You know, Nashville is unique in that we have Lipscomb University. We have Belmont. We have Vanderbilt and TSU and May Harry. We have three medical schools. We have this concentration of universities that really contribute so much

to our community. But then you have these isolated pockets who stand in a hallway and they act like three-year-old children. Look, I would let my child behave that way. And so when they get called names, look, if you act like an idiot, someone calls you an idiot, probably stop adding, acting like an idiot, right? If you act like a libtard in a hallway and someone calls you a libtard, you know, you brought it upon yourself. You have a member of Congress in the hallway literally saying, sit down and talk with me. I want to hear your side of this conversation, but I also expects you to sit down and hear my version. They weren't interested in that, but that is indicative of the left. You have to agree with them, or they call you racist, or they call you a bigot,

or heaven forbid, like Charlie, like the president, they try to shoot you. Well said, sir. I know you got to get away and get to the, go go get some votes done there, which is kind of your job. So we'll let you do it. But I just want to give one quick shout up before I let you go. You have been leading the charge and what I think is the existential threat to the United States, and that is reforming legal immigration. And I'm grateful for you for doing that. You've even called for the repeal of Hart Seller, the 1960s-era immigration bill that basically transformed the country and nobody really had any idea what it was going to do. As a matter of they promised it wouldn't do what it's done. And the erasure of American society and the invasion

level immigration, which was compounded in 1990 when they expanded green card holders from 500,000 a year to 1.2 million a year. We have been absolutely subjected to invasion level immigration, and you're doing a great job. We need to change the Overton window in Congress. Because all of us out here, we get it. Do a net zero immigration moratorium. We're all in. We do poll after poll.

Everybody wants it. We're sick of all the immigration. We're done. We've had a big meal. We need time to digest. But your colleagues in Congress, they cannot figure it out, that we're done with it. I'm meeting the drum.

And to your point, it is forced invasion. It's no longer immigration. It's an invasion. We have to call it what it is. And you can look at the, literally the, of Europe right now. If we don't wake up, that's coming to New York, that's coming to Chicago, it's coming to Nashville, and I'm not going to let that happen on my watch. Yeah, well, we're still letting in too many damn people, candidly. So God bless you for banging the drum, because it is an

overton window. Anybody in D.C. thinks it's beyond the pale to say, oh, we don't need this many immigrants. We got an AI revolution coming down the pike. We're going to create a permanent underclass of these people because there's not going to be any jobs from farm sector to you know, many entry-level jobs, many labor jobs, all of it's going to be wiped away in about 10 years. And so we better be taking care of Americans first. And Congressman, I just wanted to salute you for doing that and leading the charge on that because we need to change the thinking in Washington what's possible. And hopefully this VRA SCOTUS ruling will help us get you some reinforcements in Congress that can get that done. Absolutely. We got a press. Thank you so much.

All right. God bless you, sir. Blake, your reaction to Belmont, you know, this is not limited. The, the screeching and the wailing and the gnashing of teeth of these infantile libtards is the lib tarts i love that word we had a counter it's a great word it's great to hear it's great to hear a congressman using it uh but it's it's important to note this because it's a thing charlie was worried about it's a thing we all need to remain worried about which is reminding ourselves that really deranged left-wing stuff is not a thing restricted to the ivy league it's not a thing restricted to blue states or really blue cities and regions. It's a thing that is all across the country.

And we've really, I think only in the last few years really seen the right start to realize this. I think we got a great model in Florida where Governor DeSantis, he let Christopher Rufo start experimenting on the new college in Florida. But you also seen it. I think it was Oklahoma. You start seeing the schools look at their public universities and say, wait, what are we paying for with unlimited public money to do. And I think when we look at all of the schools and what we're funding with state dollars, state, you know, because states get involved in the education game, I think it really behooves us to be aware of these things. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's crazy for to see that

scene out of Belmont University, which is, you know, in Tennessee. Yeah. And Andy Ogles is a popular congressman. And to see him shouted down as a bigot. And it's probably because of his immigration stuff, candidly. I mean, Andy Ogles is one of those guys that's proudly defending Western civilization. He's proudly defending traditional heritage American traditions and values. And so for that, he's a bigot to these absolute infantile just, I don't know who raised him. They're infantile, but I would be careful using that specific word because I think it carries. Well, it carries an implication of impotence that they're just screaming babies.

And what they are is they are ruthlessly effective. They are ruthlessly effective at getting what they want. This is not stuff that is crazy stuff on campus does not stay contained to campuses. It spills out everywhere and it rapidly becomes what you see in cities. And eventually what you see at the state level, insane laws start at the campus. So you have to look at what they're doing and take it deadly serious. Well, and here's the truth. Most congressmen are not courageous like Andy Ogles.

They'll see that. They'll see that. And then they will cower in fear because they don't want. want to be shouted out. They don't want to be targeted. And honestly, that's the whole point of assassination culture. Well, one final thought in favor of the new maps is changes coming kind of one retirement at a time, one new congressman at a time. And new maps are a great way to get a lot of new blood in Congress all at once. By the way, might just be getting rid of some of the worst members of Congress if you want to know the truth of it. Imagine being a young woman just finding out

that you're pregnant, not knowing where to go or what to do, not even knowing exactly what is going on in your body. While the whole world tells her it's just a clump of cells, you and I, we both know the truth. We know it is a baby. And once she has an ultrasound that you provide and she sees the truth of the baby growing inside of her, you help her choose life. When you join us in providing ultrasounds with preborn and she sees her baby and hears her baby's heartbeat, you will double the likelihood that she will choose life. And 100% of what you give goes to providing ultrasounds. 100%. Preborn separately fundraisers for administrative costs. $280 can save 10 babies. $28 a month can save a baby a month all year long. And a $15,000 gift, I know there's some of you out there that can

afford this. A $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come. Call 833.000. 850229 or click on the preborn banner at charliekirk.com today. Again, that's 833-850229 or click on the preborn banner at charliekirk.com. We have state senator Greg Dolazol from, he's a Republican out of Georgia, state senator out of Georgia. He is calling for new maps in the state of Georgia. If you notice a theme of the show today, this VRA Supreme Court ruling was a whopper. corks a we didn't fully explain it in the last one so we should probably do it here so what was

happening this was a legal case over the state of louisiana so the state of louisiana so the state of louisiana that was basically i want to say five republican seats and one democrat seat or it might have been let me actually check how many lou but it was a racially gerrymandered map based on it wasn't so what well it was okay so it was the original one was and what happened is a judge they had kind of one seat that was heavily Democrat. And a federal judge said, the Voting Rights Act requires you to create more black majority districts that are going to be won by a black Democrat candidate.

This is what the judge ruled. And he drew this like mutant looking map. You can check it. It has this hideous shape where it's stretching almost from New Orleans all the way up to Shreveport, these tendrils to create multiple districts. Louisiana contested us. It went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said,

you can't draw these white. Mild Mutant districts just to create racial majorities for minorities. And you're not required to do that. And it's okay for, they also gave a green light. You are allowed to draw maps essentially for partisan gerrymandering reasons, even if they have some sort of racial impact. Where this will have an impact, most of all, is in the South. And the big picture here is for decades, it has been legal for Democrats,

anywhere they want, to draw whatever districts they want, Virginia style. where they're going to say, we're going to blow up any Republican seat we feel like. But then the courts will say it's illegal for Republicans to retaliate because we're going to say that it's racist for you guys to do it, but not for Democrats to do it. And the Supreme Court basically said, nope, it's equal. Everyone's allowed to do partisan gerrymanders if they want. And this unleashes us in the South to redraw some new maps. And State Senator Greg Dolazal joins us now. Senator, welcome to the show.

You are calling for Georgia to do something big, for Governor Kemp to do something big. explain it and what do you think is going to happen next. Hey, Andrew Blake, good to see you guys again. Yeah, the South has been forced and we were forced to do this in Georgia. Just a couple of years ago, we drew maps and then Judge Jones ruled that we had to draw more majority, minority districts. And what that forced us to do really was just look at people solely through the lens of race. And we don't do that in America.

And so the Supreme Court ruled correctly yesterday. And so that that opens the window not only for Georgia, but for other states. southern states to go into special session. Obviously, the congressional maps can be impacted by this guys, but don't forget, state house seats and state Senate seats also had to live under these gerrymandering rules handed down by judges like what happened here in Georgia, and this happened all over the south. You guys know there's not even a single congressional seat that's a Republican seat in all of New England. And so they've been gerrymandering like crazy. And this time, it's time for Georgia to go into a special session. I believe I saw that Virginia has already

indicated that that's probably going to happen there. We've got to, we have the opportunity now to draw fair maps. The goal here is not to do anything nefarious. The goal here is that after we know that what happened with yesterday's ruling, we now know that we are forced to draw unconstitutional maps. And we have to come back to session so we can draw constitutional maps based on traditional redistricting principles. So, Senator, I think a natural question, because we, we were concerned about this we've mentioned with florida with texas they are drawing maps that have that could result in republican gains but with any district draw you have the risk if you stretch republican votes too far you could flip it and i know that's worth a thought for georgia georgia as we know

has been a very close state uh in many recent elections it's not going super far either way so if we draw a new house map for georgia what do you think is the most likely breakdown of likely Republican to likely Democrat seats that we would see. And just for comparison right now, there are, I believe, five Democrat leaning seats in Georgia. Yeah, we're nine to five right now, I believe is our current count. I've seen the prognosticators say that there's an easy single seat that probably wasn't unconstitutionally drawn seat. So one, potentially two. So you're not going to move the needle here, probably in Georgia the way that you're seeing other states do it. But, you know, one unconstitutional seat, rectifying that certainly is the right thing to do.

But this also has implications for our state house and our state Senate as well, because we were forced as well to racially gerrymander under judge's orders on both of those fronts. So what does it take to get this done? So you're calling on Governor Kemp. So I would assume that Governor Kemp is the key here or is there another route? Yeah, there's two triggers. And I'm not specifically calling out the governor, but the governor does have, he is the individual. has have the ability to do that in his own capacity. And then two-thirds of the General Assembly can also do that as well. That'll probably go over as well as when I called for a special session

back in 2020 in terms of two-thirds of the General Assembly. We got just a handful of folks who won't stand up back then. You might see a bulk of Republicans do it, but we do not have a constitutional majority here in Georgia. So realistically and functionally, the only way for that to happen, I'm sure, is with the governor. I'm sure he's huddling with his team, having conversations and trying to figure out what he wants to do. Well, and we just got news. It looks like President Trump says he just had a good conversation with Governor Bill Lee in Tennessee this morning, wherein he stated that he would work hard to correct the

unconstitutional flaw in the congressional maps of the great state of Tennessee. So that's one state. We've heard the same from Mississippi. Obviously, we know this was all sparked by Louisiana. Florida has come in. I mean, there is a map here, and I'll show you the redistricting where we're. it shows we could add up to 12 seats across the entire South. Now, I know you're also on the state level, so you're concerned about that as well,

which is huge, by the way. The way that we run red states needs to be redder and more conservative, right? Look at what Virginia has done, where they barely have a margin there and they go full calming, right? You give them 50 plus one, and they go full leftist. And so we should at least be as conservative as our voters are, right? Get the things done that we know our voters want. This is plus 12, though, across the south. And there's big swaths of that blue.

I mean, it's just wild to see how much blue and deep red south that there is because of the VRA. That left map is literally the historical legacy of the Voter Rights Act, Section 2, which has just been completely altered in, or at least our understanding of it legally has been. So if Governor Kemp calls for a special session, what then needs to be done in order to get those maps approved? and what's the timing on it? Can you get it done by midterms? I don't know that we can get it done by the midterms. There's an open question because we actually have early voting underway right now. A couple quick thoughts, though, Andrew.

First and foremost, the reason the state legislatures are important is they are the ones that will do the redistricting after the next census. And so rebalancing these districts to be fair districts in the South impacts the next decade, really, of American politics and control of the House in the 2030s. I know that the lawyers here discussing what can be done. I misspoke earlier in sub-Virginia. I think that it's Louisiana that is saying they're going to pause their midterms. I haven't seen a legal brief on, you know, an official opinion on that.

But the other thing I want to highlight, Andrew, is it's not just this redistricting, this racial gerrymandering, the Democrats have been weaponizing. That combined with all of the illegals that they have flooded into their districts and their states, the count in the census for the apportionment of House reps can't be overlooked as well. And that's really just kind of skewed the balance of power in this country for 30 years. Yeah, I mean, Jeremy Carl, again, the second time I've referenced him, he's basically saying that we could have fair representation in this state, more accurate representation in the country, rather, for the first time in his lifetime.

We're on the path by the 2030s to have some of the, you know, things that Democrats have gotten accomplished for decades, having those reversed and having it set right. So, you know, while everybody's doomed, out there. Just remember, there's some really big structural things that take time to get done, and we're watching it happen before our eyes. So I want to play this clip. I'm actually, there's like two clips I really, really want to play. But this one I thought gave away the game. This was CNN reacting yesterday to the clip, and Blake, I've got to get your reaction to this.

This is what's great about having Blake on this. He's like a, his mind is a fascinating place to explore. So get your thoughts on this. SOT 34. The challenges are going to have to say that there are no race-neutral reasons for this. And that's awfully hard, especially because of the partisan alignment between whites generally voting Republican and blacks generally being affiliated with the Democratic Party, Pam. All right. We're joined, of course, by state senator Greg Dolazal from Georgia. So, Blake, Greg, did you catch what she just said there?

for me it was like a huge whoopsie daisies there because she said because blacks generally vote Democrat and whites generally vote Republican. They admitted it and if you look back through the years, basically you'll realize a stunning factoid that Democrats can't win the white vote, at least a majority of it. But I actually want to pick up that because there was an exceptionally funny case that really gets at the heart of this. This is during the Obama years. and there was a town in North Carolina, and what they wanted to do is they wanted to change it so their local elections were nonpartisan. You just didn't have a party.

And Eric Holder's DOJ tried to block this, and they were filing cases in court where they said this was illegal, they said, because it would deprive black residents of their, basically their constitutional right to vote for Democrats, that they would not be represented unless they could vote for the Democratic Party on the ballot.

And I think that, you know, it's a few years ago at this point, but that perfectly does encapsulate their thinking, that this is not about, you know, the right to vote, this is not about racial equity. This is specifically just saying they have to be voting for a specific party and electing a specific party or else it's unconstitutional. It's a perfect illustration of the Democrat saying, our interests are the only thing that's constitutional,

which manifests on every issue. And this is exactly why Democrats are freaking out about this. And I'll say this one final line and then the floor is yours, Senator. But if you wonder why your community is getting overrun with unending, massive, unfettered waves of invasion-level immigration. If you wonder why the laws have been constructed in such a way, that clip gives it all up. It gives away the whole game is because Democrats realized a long time ago that playing it straight, playing it, you know, the way that you'd think that the system was designed. No, that doesn't work. They have to game it. And they have to flood your communities with people that they can more easily get them to vote their way.

Because the people that were here didn't want to vote for them. And I think that's a very telling, very telling clip. Senator, your reaction to all of this. Yeah, I agree, guys. I think it's important in these moments when you try to kind of decipher what the other side is saying. We've got to remember that progressivism is a religion masquerading as a political ideal. ideology. And so for these people, you wonder why they resort to violence so quickly. You wonder why they kind of rig this system, why they would want to import tens of millions of people into this country and really change the fabric of this country. You don't understand it until you recognize that for them, this is religion, this is all that they think about, they're obsessive, there is not necessarily something higher that they believe in that they're striving for. This is the end.

Political victory for them is the end. And they are willing to do it. by any means necessary. And frankly, they don't care if they see the downfall of America come about as long as they're the ones that are in power as we're whistling past the graveyard here. And so I think we see a number of these things that are, and it also tells you what they think about black people. We've seen this, you know, Joe Biden, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black. We see, you know, here in Georgia, when we passed voter ID law, they called it Jim Crow 2.0

because they didn't believe that minorities were capable of getting NID. and they have this soft bigotry of low expectations that really frankly shows you what they do think of their voters. Oh, I totally agree. They believe that they are entitled to the black vote. And what they're going to find out, I think continually, is that the further away we get from the 60s, and as blacks over 50 have already showed this way less tribal affiliation

with the Democrat Party, they're much more of a getable vote. But to your point, Jim Crow 2.0, they had to take this one back out and reuse it again. It's not eight. And today we're ramping up our efforts. We see the need for it just today and today's Supreme Court decision, which is a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow. Pardon for that clip.

There was an issue with it, but you heard it. It's a return to Jim Crow. I mean, we're literally, this is why there needs to be, you know, term limits, by the way. The day that we have, congressmen, and senators stop using Jim Crow, return to Jim Crow. That will be a good day for the country. But this is the point. I mean, I've got, I've got 14 clips here on my clip sheet that I could just, it's a grab bag of Democrats hyperventilating about this. Because I think they smell blood in the water with the midterms. And they realize that, okay, the midterms, we're not sure what's going to

happen. We might not have enough time. But you come, come 2028 in the 2030s with that census hits again, and all those people have moved from California and Illinois and New York down to the red states, that they are not going to be able to, it's going to be, let's put it this way, it's going to be very difficult for them to win back the house. It's going to be very difficult. Senator, thank you for coming on again. We appreciate it. And we pray for much success in Georgia.

It's a tight state, but I do agree. We looked at the maps and the breaks. There's at least one house seat that I think is getable. So let's hope you guys are successful in that. and Governor Kemp shows some spine and gets on board. So great having you again. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you, guys.

America is entering its 250th year, and the direction of this country is being decided right now in our culture and our economy and who we choose to support matters more than ever. Most wireless companies don't care who you are or what you believe. They just want your money. Patriot Mobile is different.

For more than 12 years, they've stood with Americans who believe freedom is worth fighting for funding the Christian conservative movement when others stayed silent. And here's the deal. You don't have to give up quality or service when you switch to Patriot Mobile. They deliver premium, priority access on all three major U.S. networks so you'll get the same or better coverage than you have today. Think switching as a hassle? It isn't. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Their 100% U.S.-based support team can activate you in just minutes. Still paying off a device? Patriot Mobile even offers a contract.

buyout. This is a defining year. We got to work together to save our country. So go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot and use the promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call them at 972 Patriot using the promo code Charlie and switch today. All right. Joining us now is Ryan James Gerdesky. He has a new pack that we're going to be talking about. He's also got a great substack, natpop.com. Stack.com. Ryan, welcome back to the show, my friend. Thanks for having me.

You also got a show, Ryan. Tell us about the show before. The podcast called The Numbers Game with Ryan Gurdowski. It's on IHartRadio, and we discussed data behind everything going in politics and the news and economics. So I kind of break down the numbers behind what's driving news stuff. It's a little bit wonky. It's a little nerdy, but it's really, really interesting. And it's growing.

It's one of the best shows on the Klan Buck Network. I love it. All right. So you, we have so much to get into, actually. Let's go to redistricting first because we've kind of been on that beat a little bit. I sort of posed you two questions. What would the numbers be and what's the timing? How fast can we get this done?

There's a lot of consternation about midterms for obvious reasons, some headwinds that we're looking at. Question, how fast and what are the numbers? I think in some states you can get it done. done relatively easily. In Mississippi, Tate Reeves says he's doing it. Louisiana says he could do it. The numbers overall, if you could do it across the entire deep south would be 12 house seats. Four in Florida, two in Georgia, two in Louisiana, two in Alabama, one in Mississippi, one in Tennessee. The one in North Carolina has already been redistributed and one in South Carolina.

So 12 total be 13 North Carolina, but we already done that. I think some governors would be very quick to go along with it, like Tate Reeves in Mississippi. Louisiana has already stopped their primary ballots and they're going to push it back and have one in Louisiana. Florida has already done it with Governor Ronda Sanna's taking the lead there. Other states like Alabama, Ivy, Governor Ivy has said that she is not going to do it this term. And the AG and kind of her are arguing about this. Governor Ivy is terminated. So she's out after this year anyway, but she's basically said no. Governor of Georgia, I have a very hard time seeing how Brian Kemp does do it. He's been kind of resistant to a lot of things that the Republicans want to do. South Carolina, it depends on

how much love Clyburn has given. Almost all these states are having new governors come in after next year. Almost all them will have Republican governors. I think the conversation is going to be immediately to all the people running for governors if they're going to do this in the 2027 year, the 28 year. So overall 12 seats, which is a game changing number, but the timeline, I would say maybe three states are going to do it on time. Got it.

And how many would you count among those three states? That would be seven seats. It's still big. Two in Louisiana, one in Mississippi and four in Florida. Alabama, let's see what pressure goes on to Kate Ivy. That's, but that's, I mean, that's offsetting the Virginia power play, which is not a sure thing to be pulled off. It's offsetting California. I know polls suggest it's dicey to hold the house no matter what, but what would you say that has on our percent chance of sustaining things.

Yeah, so everyone kind of goes back to the 2018 numbers where Republicans lost dozens of seats. there are far fewer swing districts this time than there are next time. There's really no new seats in California they're going to lose, like, because there's only four left. New York has a few swing seats. New Jersey has one swing seat. Pennsylvania is the big state. It has four swing seats. Three in Republicans' hands.

So that's like the really, sorry, four in Republicans' hands, rather. That's a really big place. Michigan has one or two. So there's just less swing states to really go around. as we are whittling down how many states we could lose, how many states we can win, this would basically guarantee Republicans really can't go under 200 seats and probably into the 205-206 territory. And then we're looking at Democrats maybe with a 10 to 15-seat majority at most. That's, I mean, we have a very slim majority in the House right now,

and it's hard to get stuff done. But, you know, when you have the majority, you have power, right? And so even if we lose the House and it's only 10 or 15 seats, I mean, yeah, it's not a bloodbath, but it's we're still going to, we're still looking at impeachments. We're still looking at endless investigation. Absolutely. But what happens then is there's a there's a big argument that goes on between like the Josh Gothheimer's of Congress who are much more moderate, obviously very more favorable on Israel and other issues. And then you have the AOC wing. You have the squad.

And you have a real, real breakdown within the Democratic Party of where, what vision that they have going on. And I think you're going to see them. I think you'll see the moderate Democrats cave to the woke, much more woke, progressive wing of the party on issue after issue, which hurts them going into 2028. So it's not a complete loss. And then we go into 20. You know, it's very funny right now, if you see the left that they are having a nervous breakdown on Twitter, they are, you know, they're like, we're going to redistrict New York in New Jersey and Minnesota and we're going to

have Democrats of nothing. At the end of the day, Democrats face a long-term issue because as of right now, California, Oregon, Rhode Island, New York, and Illinois are going to lose nine seats. If Trump does not crack on immigration, which is the big thing because these states grow only through mass immigration, they're going to lose about a dozen seats in the 2030 census. And the old seats are going to go to red states. And they'll redistrict new house seats, but mostly red districts. There'll be maybe a few, one or two Democratic seats.

But they will be mostly red seats in these states. That creates a dynamic where they cannot redistrict enough to give themselves majority. I don't like this, you know, Cold War, hot war of redistricting numbers. I think politicians picking their voters instead of voters being their politicians not great for a democracy. However, they can't win this through just redistricting fight after redistricting fight. Yeah, I know I'm going to play a clip here from AOC and have your reaction to it because she's getting to something similar.

I apologize in advance for playing a AOC clip, but SOT 13. Should New York respond in kind by doing its own. redistricting once the amendment, if the amendment passes. I have long felt that we all have to play by the same set of rules. And the Republican caucus has made it very clear that they want and are setting rules of partisan gerrymandering. The Democratic caucus has tried to pass nonpartisan gerrymandering for 10 years. Republicans have rejected it. And so we have to all abide by the same rules. And so if Republicans are going to redraw in North Carolina, if they're going to redraw Texas, if they're going to redraw and gerrymander every one of their states, then

unfortunately we have to provide balance to that until we get to the day when we can all finally agree to put this behind us and pass nonpartisan gerrymandering federally. How come when I hear her say nonpartisan gerrymandering, I just assume we're going to get screwed? Oh yeah, yeah. Let's let's unpack that a bit because we've seen this play out. I know in California, for example, they have nonpartisan gerrymandering. Or the Virginia, the language in the Virginia fairness. The fairness maps.

Yes, the fairness maps. But you might know about this, Ryan, how it has played out at the state level. I know in California specifically, there was a lot of process where they could declare people stakeholders in the process, I believe, and this would just justify, oh, it turns out we needed 92%

Democrat seats in this state to be fair. Yeah. So actually, if you want to see a worst case of independent and gerrymandering it new jersey has districts that are not even connected by land like they connect them through the ocean and that's how the district is connected so actually new jersey this is way more egregious with independent redistricting in new york the new yorker the new york voter has passed an independent redistricting law over 10 years ago in 2021 kathie hokel tried to repeal that law it went down and her her appeal went down in flames she lost by 10 points to repeal the independent

redistricting so she has tried much multiple times to redistrict New York State and it's failed in both federal and state courts. And she's tried over and over again. She just tried in Staten Island this year. There's no way for her to do it in time for the 2026 election. So this is a 2028 play. But AOC should be much more worried. New York lost over 200,000 residents over the last seven years.

According to new census numbers, if without immigration, their domestic migration out of New York is so heavy. And the death toll from older New York is just dying now. naturally increases the loss year after year. AOC should worry about what kind of seat she's going to have because New York City is almost certainly going to lose a seed. And there's only one Republican left in New York City. So they could talk about redistricting and they can't get rid of Staten Island. I'm sure they would like to.

But AOC should be much more worried what kind of district she's going to have to have to represent in four years rather than whether or not what Republicans are doing. And by the way, Illinois did it first. California was due since the 70s when Democrats controlled Texas. They love to do this gerrymandering in the 80s. There is no, like, it's not a question of, like, we didn't start the fire. I mean, to quote Billy Joel. Republicans didn't start the fire.

This isn't going on for decades. If you want a true independent thing, I mean, this is never going to happen. Get rid of a district as a whole, do, you know, proportional representation by state of how they vote. That's literally the only way you get rid of gerrymandering. Other than that, we're always going to have something. It just depends on, you know, how fair it ultimately is. Homelandpack.com, Ryan. And is a man after my own heart here.

You want to elect candidates that support sovereignty, border security, immigration, common sense. Tell us about it. Yes, I launched a new super PAC called HomelandPack.com. After Maria Salazar, push forward the Dignadatta Act, which would give amnesty to probably 15 million illegal aliens, 12 to 15 million illegal aliens. We want to hold all 20 Republicans. Many are not running for a reelection, but hold the 20 Republicans accountable. We're already pushing for one primary challenge right now in this election. cycle many more in 2028 we're going to hold them accountable and support republicans who are

really good in immigration we need more brandon gills in congress amen brandon he's been amazing yeah you were a colleague or you're a student with him yeah he was a lower classman while i was at dartmouth dartman i was his gc for his campaign or now yeah yeah killing you are that's that's great i want to talk about this uh thing that you were posting about online looks like it's titled uh the americans are coming For the first time in recorded history, more Americans moved to the EU and UK countries than Europeans moved to the U.S. And you see this graph here. And I sent it to Blake.

His first reaction was like, that's kind of depressing. And I go, no, it's not. Just 20 years ago, the ratio was 4 to 1. Right. Ratio is 4 to 1. I have zero problem with this. And I'll explain why. Because you look at that graph, it's basically when Trump gets into office, the dip happens from Europeans coming to the United States.

and guess what, guess who's leaving? All the liberal, all the Rosie O'Donnells, and they're just fleeing the country in mass. I have zero problem with this, by the way. It doesn't change the fact that we have a third world invasion migration problem that's erasing American culture. We've got to deal with that separately. This to me is just getting rid of like dead weight.

Ryan, what's your take? And you know, it's only one party holds primaries abroad, and it's not the Republican Party because conservatives don't leave. America in general. I mean, maybe a handful of do, but most do not. Democrats hold primaries abroad. Bernie Sanders' brother in the 2016 election was a delegate from from Americans living abroad because liberals like to flee. My contention always is if these liberals can't stand in America because we're such an overtly racist country, why do they always move to countries that is whiter than us? Like, why not go to Haiti? Haiti is apparently not a whole country. It's a

beautiful place, allegedly. And we can't say, you know, that Haitians have enormous welfare problems and all the rest of it. Absolutely no problem. Why don't they move to Haiti? Why does any of these, I've never heard of a liberal moving to Tanzania or going to Liberia or any of the other million countries that is a majority non-white country, they always move to white places that are whiter than us, places like many of their, you know, gated communities which they live in while they scream about diversity. It is infuriating, but, you know, I don't, I don't think they should be able to vote if they're abroad candidly. I, I want to get rid of dual citizenships and I want to get rid of like, unless you're in the military or if, you know, you're something like, okay, there's carve-outs. But if you're just going to

flee the country, like, Rosie O'Donnell should not be allowed to vote in American elections. I'm sorry, but you don't care about us enough to live here. You're so afraid of Trump. Well, then fine. Go away. And by the way, if you pursue a dual citizenship, You don't get to vote either. Like, I don't know. There's got to be something to we can do about this, because this is infuriating what you just told me, this primary abroad.

Get out of here. Stop it. Yeah. No, I 100% agree with you. I don't think that people who live around the world. I have a relative whose sister lives in Germany. She's lived in Germany for 30 years. She's a two-time Obama voter.

She's a Biden voter. She's a Hillary voter. She votes in every American election. There is. She's not stepped foot in this country in over 30 years. And she is, you know, ardently for the Democratic Party, never misses an election. Her vote, you know, maybe it can go to, like, a fake election count. Like, this is how they would have counted.

I can go to, like, the CPAC totals. Like, it doesn't really mean anything. But, like, they should not count towards any state how they vote in the electoral college at all whatsoever. And it shouldn't really count for the popular vote either, not that the popular vote means as much. Certainly not to, like, a House representative. And especially in these close elections where a few votes matter.

And they're like, we have to wait until these. overseas ballots come unless there are military serving across the world absolutely not i i completely agree with you now i know we can gloat about this because yeah there are the rosy o'donnells who move to europe i think that's the vast majority of these people i think i think that's over that's thinking too much we cover politics every day so we view so many things through the lens of politics the vast majority people who move countries are not doing it in protest over a country's election result one way or the other. And if you look at the chart, it's not so much that there's been an explosion in Americans leaving the country. It's also that there's just a decline in Europeans coming to

America. And I think we should reflect on that because America, as it is, it was 20 years ago, it was a four to one thing because this is where you came for all the opportunity, all the jobs. And there's still a bit of that. Europe's economy is actually quite stagnant and backwards. But ultimately we do want to be a country where Europeans are culturally and economically at home because that is our bedrock, that is our history. And instead, we'd become, as we've said, a dumping ground for the third world. They're still coming. Yeah, but also, but you have to remember this.

People who move tend not to be 65 and older, right? You don't move to a new country when you're, you know, a grandparent, usually. Europe is aging. It's aging vastly. They are countries like Italy have a shrinking population. Countries like Poland are very close to it. They're only growing because their expats are moving home because the economy is so strong. That's part of why they don't have any immigrants coming here.

And a big part of it is they're, you know, afraid of Trump and afraid of America. And they watch CNN abroad. It's like it's nonsense, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So they hear these stories that you have to be afraid you have to leave. And also it's a continent of aging people. And if they want, I mean, forget if they want to send people abroad. If they want to survive as a content, they need to start having babies. very, very quickly.

Yeah, that's a very good point. One last story here, Ryan, SOT 37. A real sense of excitement here at Gate D-55 in Miami International Airport. That's something you haven't seen up on the board for the past seven years. Caracas, Venezuela. American Airlines are going to make the first commercial flight to Venezuela from the U.S. in seven years through the unrest in that country. It just hasn't happened.

For a lot of people here in Florida, it's going to be a chance for some to reunite with their family members. This is a symbol, not just of reunions, but how much has changed in Venezuela over the past 117 days. Great. So all of the asylum seekers, all of the temporary, whatever the categorization, they can all go home now, right, Ryan? Absolutely. If you are, if you vacation in the country, you are fleeing, you do not get to come back to America. The amount of Somalians who have vacationed in Somalia and have visited family, and they got to, here through asylum, absolutely should have their citizenship revoked and their asylum claims revoked. There's no reason they do not belong here. If it's so safe to go back, I mean, and if these countries are so terrible like that this vote for TPS and Haiti, why can I fly to Port of Prince

today? I can go buy a ticket at JFK and fly there today. It's clearly not nearly as dangerous as they're claiming. And if they're going to vacation and going to visit family, they're not running from the government and they don't have a legitimate claim to asylum. Absolutely. If you're, if, American Airlines or Delta will fly there. There's no reason of asylum. Amen. Amen. We agree. I wish we could have disagreed. I think when it comes to immigration, Ryan, you and me are probably on the same page.

I'm so sick all this gaming our system and like, oh, I'm just going to go back and visit my family, but I need asylum because I fear for my life. No, you need to get the heck out. And we actually need to. This is the problem with government immigration when they grant this temporary stuff. It's never temporary. It's always game. Ryan James Gurdesky. We ran out of time.

But check out all of his things, the numbers game, Homeland Pack, Nat Pop Substack, check them all out. Thank you guys. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.