The Charlie Kirk Show - Threats to the Republic + The Glory of America's Founding

Episode Date: June 9, 2026

California's election laws are so absurd that it doesn't really matter if there is fraud or not — nobody can trust what their results say. If such a cancer spreads, how can the republic survive? Walter Kirn joins for the entire first hour to talk about that, the racialization of American justice as shown by the Karmelo Anthony case, and more. Eric Metaxas comes in-studio to show off his tremendous new book on the American founding. Tom Fitton explains his unfortunate clash with the Trump FBI and asks why we're still waiting on 75,000 pages of files. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter.

Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at nobelgoldinvestments.com. That is noble goldinvestments.com. All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. We are here at the Y-ReFi Studios in Phoenix, Arizona. How are we doing, Blake? Oh, we're doing pretty well. It is June 9th, 2026. Lots to cover. Right now, the Carmelo Anthony closing arguments are happening. We're going to talk about that a little bit later in the hour, but we're going to get right into the ongoing saga that is unfolding in Los Angeles

and in the state of the whole state of California. And we have such a treat for you. I will tell you, one of my favorite guests of the show, one of my favorite thinkers in all of America, one of my favorite authors in all of America is Walter Kern. Gosh, he's got my hard bargain, mission to America, up in the air, blood will out, thumb sucker, all these great books. And he is the editor at large of the, the county highway, America's only newspaper.

They don't even have a digital version. So without further ado, let's welcome him in. Walter, good to see you, my friend. Thank you for joining us. I'm psyched to be here at a high leverage point for American democracy because it either slides into the ocean or we pull it out. Well, yeah, let's start right there, Walter. I mean, you know, so a lot more intel is kind of coming out.

The internet's loose. They're trying to figure out how the heck did somebody like Nithia Rahman, who not many people in the country had even heard of. Not many left wingers in L.A. knew that much about her. How she went from about 21% of the vote from the first 65% that was counted. And then the next 15% she about doubled her, well, it was 23% of the vote to about 41% of the vote. So now she has overtaken Spencer Pratt in the number two position. And I'm told by, you know, all the lefties, this is just the way L.A. and California count their ballots.

They've prioritized participation, Walter, not speed. Well, there's no way for them to know whether participation has occurred because the ballots are enigmatic documents with people behind them, presumably, whose faces we don't know, whose names we don't know, whose circumstances around filling out the ballot or allowing it to be filled out, we don't know. So if what we want is participation, I can propose a much better way, everybody getting off their butts and standing in a line talking to each other without without activists bothering them or holding a pen over their ballot and they participate in the

ritual that has been time honored and proved to work and works in almost every other country bit of hours. Well, and that's that's the big thing here. Walter, when I was chatting with you yesterday about coming on. Making lack of transparency stand for participation is an Orwellian inversion, like so many that are used in these, in these circumstances. They've turned, they've turned elections that last forever into proof of their deliberate, slow, patient, careful way of counting when in fact they're the opposite. Exactly. Well, and this is the thing. So you see, Roe-Kana is actually in very rocana fashion, I will tell you, is sort of trying to split the baby. He's at least saying

in this tweet he just fired off a few hours ago, actually about an hour ago, you know, he goes, you know, a close friend of mine, he says this, is canceling his voter registration today. He is convinced Spencer Pratt was robbed of the election. I explained to him that in California, we can't count absentees first, which go older and more conservative. And election day voters are younger and more democratic. The slow count is largely because of policies to maximize participation, including postmarking a ballot on election day. Regardless, we need to figure out how California can get the vote counted faster and results tabulated so it doesn't drag on. This is classic rope. How can we figure it out? This is such a deal. We had it figured out.

Somali land can do it. And if you read on, his whole point is let's throw some more money at it so we can get the vote counted in 48 hours. Because that's like the stretch goal in California. But I kind of can't stand this, Walter, because he's justifying the fraud. And he's called it the impression of fraud and eroding trust conspiracy theories. We used to have a concept called the appearance of conflict of interest, meaning that it was important that politics. politicians not even appear to be working for outside forces or be taking money from the people that they're supposed to be writing laws to control and regulate and so on. And we were always

very careful. And it was thought to be the sort of height of liberal circumspection to make sure that there is no appearance of conflict and interest. What we have now is not just the appearance of fraud or just the appearance of malfeasance, but the overwhelming stench of it. rising so it makes your eyes water. And now in their classic fashion, they've taken what has now been identified as a problem, which they created, and they want to be the ones to solve it. They want, you know, create homelessness,

profit from homelessness. Create election chaos. Profit from election chaos. But this is all fog, this is all smoke. You have to be able to walk through the storm and reach your destination turning neither to the left nor the right we have to do that in our moral lives and our social lives we cannot be every voice and every every every monster that jumps out of us can't detract from our mission and our mission here is to get people elected in a way that

their election will be respected by both sides elections are are, by their nature, enterprises in which half the people or around half the people are going to be dissatisfied with the result. Thus, the essence of an election is to have it be fair. Just like the essence of sports is, you know, one team is going to lose at the end of this game. So that's why we need referees, rules, you know, clear videotape of the play and so on. We don't have those in elections. And in that sense, it really doesn't matter. Legal, illegal?

Faith is the problem. And when you systematically make it impossible to have faith. And when you also systematically allow the conditions in which fraud traditionally grows, which are silence and darkness, then you've got the end of your system on your hands. What are you going to do about it? this case, it's been so statistically and in other ways blatant that it almost feels like what you're going to do about it, buddy, situation. Like the last, like the last time we're even going to try to make this look realistic.

Yeah, and it's, it's so glaring, I think, because it's so unnecessary. I don't think many of us are under the illusion that California is a swing state at this point. I don't think any of us saw Spencer Pratt's run as anything but a long shot that we were very hopeful for because we love L.A. and we would like it to recover. And yet they have these laws that are so extreme. You just look at it and you just think this can't be legitimate because they don't need to do something like this. But no, of course they're necessary. Of course they're necessary. Because no matter how secure you might be in the thought that you have erected or constructed or, one-party state. There are always, as we saw with Spencer Pratt, or as we saw with past candidates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, there are all Ronald Reagan back when. There are always cases in which a challenger, in every league, in every boxing league, in every fight league, there are cases in which

a challenger taking advantage of opportunity, superior training, and circumstances, and maybe God's luck, God's given luck, can unseat a champion. And when you get in there and you make the circumstances such that no challenger can, no challenger can arise and none can be successful, you no longer have a little action, you no longer have a sport. What you have is a ritual, and it is a ritual of domination and a ritual of intimidation. And that's what we've been treated to. Or, and I agree with you, exactly.

there's the insecurity is obvious but why would they be insecure walter maybe they know that their house of cards has been built on fraud for a long time and that they know how flimsy it all is i've written a lot about criminality over the years in my books and in my journalism and criminals know better than anyone better than the cops how their schemes work they know where their vulnerabilities lie and they know exactly how the working parts come together uh the kind of a elections that they're running now that involve bringing vast amounts of votes in late, you know, across public roads and so on, you know, in helicopters even, are very difficult operations. At every moment, they're conscious of what they're doing. And as the ballot grows

further and further from the voter, more detachable, it's sort of like the way we used to have money that was backed by gold. For every dollar you had, wallet somewhere there was gold in Fort Knox say now for every ballot you've got down at the registrar there's a voter somewhere maybe we don't know we don't know if the gold's in fort Knox and we don't know if the voter is behind the ballot is even out there maybe there's somewhere on skid row without a name and any way to prove they're even from L.A. Maybe they got there yesterday. Yeah well Walter I think that's exactly right you talk about how the skid row thing so you know there's there's all these

documents going around DSA is Democratic Socialists of America saying and they've got a position paper here about how they're going to ballot harvest and they say and they this document and you could throw it up there

I'll tell the team which one you can see it they're deliberating back and forth back and forth ultimately though they say this ultimately we recommend a vote for ramen to ensure a left candidate with a proven track record of delivering for working class Angelinos makes it to the general against bass.

So, you know, the first part of these two paragraphs are saying, you know, some DSA, LA members believe that we should vote for the candidate with the most radical and grassroots platform, you know, and they admit that Raman has a rocky relationship with major constituencies on the left, but that, da, da, da, da, da, but ultimately, let's just get rid of Pratt. So it's very simple and it's highlighted right there. And you could see it here. What have they also accomplished here? This is a post from Susan Shelley on X. She goes, late arriving ballots continue their enthusiastic embrace of higher sales taxes in Los Angeles County. Yes, on measure ER has overtaken no in the June 8 update of the vote. So now they have just voted for higher sales taxes as well. This is a little

bit underreported. So all the ballot harvesting from these DSA guys that were out on the streets, often illegal, by the way. And we had Bill Ossaly on the show yesterday, Walter, and he said, listen, I'm going to go after the individual instances of voter fraud, and we're going to put a lot of these people behind bars. He's like, but it's so baked into the cake that literally the fraud has, it's basically legalized corruption at this point. Yeah, but whenever there's legalized corruption, there's frosting, which is just pure illegality. Yes. And most, and most corrupt about all this is the, as I say, the opacity, the shadowiness, the darkness, the untraceability. You know, these are all almost academic questions because there's no way to go back and answer them.

You know, how did this stream of votes get this way? Why are people voting for an increase in a sales tax? Now, that's interesting because if we stipulate that her supporters are grassroots people, ordinary people, working people, sales taxes are the most regressive taxes in America that you pay them on every, you know, mountain dew you pick and you pick up at the convenience store. The idea that working people and people who live near the street and near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder would vote for a sales tax increase, that's nuts. Well, they're doing it, Walter. And it's, it's no, they aren't.

Well, no, there is evidence. There is very thin and complex evidence that they have been represented as doing it in a legal way. But whether they're doing it, we have no idea. I want to end this discussion about California's sham debacle that election debacle here that would make the Venezuelans blush and Maduro blush and so many others. Walter, when I talked to you last night, you, you, you, said you had you agreed to come on because you believe this is a critical moment for our constitutional republic and our representative democracy explain what you mean well first of all california our biggest state our most powerful and and uh financially important state it's important to our food supply and our you know military it's where the aerospace industry is uh headquartered and so on is one that we cannot afford to have fall into political chaos and turpitude. So that it's California is important. But more importantly, the moment that people begin to despair of not just regular voting, but of having any potential weapon against people who will exploit them, in other words, the minute you think, wow, no matter what is done to

me by these officials. If they burn down my whole neighborhood or fail to put out the fire, no matter what they do, I have no weapon against them. It's not just voting then that people despair of. It's any counterposing any counterforce to the powers that be. That's when they start looking for separate deals. They either leave or they form warlord groups to kind of, in some way push their case in ways that no longer are possible by usual means. I don't think, one thing I said to you real quickly is I don't think that the democratic machine is free to have a fair election. I think they are mastered and guided by corrupt elements that say deliver or else. You better show up with the mayor seat of L.A. or you're in

trouble. If you're about to turn 65 and you're already on Medicare, this message is for you. Charlie cared about America's seniors. He was outraged that so many were paying too much for their Medicare coverage and getting less than they deserved in return. That's why he partnered with Chapter and we're still partnered with Chapter. Chapter's licensed advisors search every Medicare plan to find what's actually best for you. The call is 100% free, no pressure, just honest help. Seniors save an average of of $1,100 a year with Chapter. They've already helped hundreds of our listeners enroll in better plans, and they can help you, too. So if you're nearing 65 or already on Medicare, make the call today.

Dial pound 250, pound 250, and say Charlie Kirk to make sure you're in the best available plan. That's pound 250 and say Charlie Kirk or go to askchapter.org slash Kirk. All right, Walter, we're going to turn our attention now. to the Carmelo Anthony case, which the closing arguments, I believe, are happening right now. A little bit of a twist here is that they are, the judge has allowed manslaughter to be a potential verdict here, which would mean that they believe the Carmelo Anthony acted recklessly, but not with intent. And I want to show you this image here. This is actually a snippet from one of the reports on this case.

It says medical examiner, Dr. Elizabeth Ventura told jurors, the knifing left Metcalf with a gaping two-inch wound, and that the knife went so deep, it pierced the bone of his chest and the right side of his heart. So that was just recklessness possibly. But what do you? Well, and it's not just that. It's the fact that no one else knew he had a knife.

He knew he had a knife in his bag, and he's endlessly repeating over and over, like, touch me, see what happens. Touch me see what happens. That's what he was saying over and over. He knew what it would mean if someone touched him and they would see what happens. He would pull out a knife and stab them. But the bigger picture thing, I think, is Walter, is beyond the details of this specific trial,

it's that, for example, we've had our frontlines reporter, Savannah Hernandez there. She's been interviewing people. Some of them have said they're black Americans and they've said, we're going to stick with our guy, regardless of what the evidence shows. She's interviewed people who have said that. Others have shown themselves willing to believe like a very outlandish narrative that's taken hold where he was self-defense he was surrounded by a mob of people like he was basically about to you know about to be beaten up or murdered if he hadn't defended himself and now they're you know they're railroading him and we've also seen the narrative with the who got on to the jury and the different demographics of it and a lot of people are thinking and watching this and just thinking can the american tradition of a jury trial

withstand this modern pressure to racialize everything, view everything through a racial lens? Can that work when you need 12 people unanimous in a jury to convict someone of a crime? It can work. It can go on in the sense that we can keep having trials and they might or might not result in verdicts that the wider community finds just.

But the cost of it is that, that the gaming of these trials by jury consultants, lawyers, the media, because remember, the media often forms these arguments in advance, what we see happen in the courtroom was also composed before the trial even started. They will game these things and turn them into something completely different than what they were, which is a kind of theater. And we've been seeing that, obviously, since OJ. Race is only one way in which they sort of insert identity politics into trials.

You know, sometimes it's gender-based, sometimes it's, you know, based on sexual preference and so on. But what loses is the notion that there is an overarching transcendent set of laws that can be applied equally. And when you no longer believe in the equal application of the law, you don't have the United States. anymore because its entire basis was to create a state in which the law was equally applied. If, you know, we didn't need the United States if all questions could be decided in favor of this group or that group based on their inclusion in it. The whole complex constitutional republic of the United States was based on the premise that we had to overcome superficial differences in order to preserve a kind of eternal or transcendent or deep order in our lives.

And that seems to have been abandoned. So it's not what happens in the trials that I worry about. It's what's going to happen in the streets as a result of the trials. You're going to start to get people who think, you know, I can expect not so much a trial for what I do or for my misbehavior as an airing of my justifications and my excuses. and I might even become famous. I might even, you know, come out of this a celebrity. So it's gone from deterrent to almost stimulant this kind of justice.

Yeah. I think the reason this has sparked such intrigue and interest across the country is that it seems like such a cut and dry case. And yet even when it's cut and dry, and I hate to use that expression actually, now that I think about it. It's a poor choice, but it's a very clear case. And, you know, the fact that there is still controversy,

the fact that this man's family, this murderer's family, raised $700,000 from people that wanted to just support him because he's a young black man and they don't want to see another brother in jail, I think is the part that's really disheartening to me. Now, I will say it does seem to me that we've developed some antibodies as a culture perhaps since OJ. Right? The way that this is being handled in this Texas court

seems to have been pretty by the book. I'm concerned about manslaughter. I'm concerned about what happens in the streets. But notice there's no Reverend Sharpton there. You know, a lot of the race baiters and the grifters that we've become accustomed to aren't even showing up to this case. And yet, and still, there is a portion of society that thinks young black man about to be thrown in prison,

can't let that stand, even though all the facts go against him. And the surge of sentimentalism, too, where we mentioned that burglar, that home invasion case where someone was murdered and that the jury foreperson said, someone in this jury was just not going to convict because they just didn't want to see a person go to jail for life, for murder. They'll know they're guilty. And we saw that in the jury selection where they dismissed potential jurors because they said, I, you know, I just don't want to send a brother to prison, a young man, you know,

like I just don't I can't do it. And all of this, Walter, happens in the back on the backdrop of Henry Novak. But you want to dismiss a juror who says that, don't you? Of course. Of course. That's common sense. It's not controversy. So there's a little common sense operating somewhere in the system.

I mean, the problem with in your face and cut and dried crimes not being prosecuted is that it's almost a physical blow. You feel like your society has failed in its essential task of protection and common sense. And so I think the fear here is that if this guy gets off for reasons that aren't perceived as legitimate, then we aren't really a country that protects each other using the law anymore. We're just a country that referees, political fights, using real people. Yeah. And we can't forget about the backdrop here, though, Walter. Henry Novak in the UK, right, a poor white guy that was killed brutally. We don't find out about it for six months until, you know, guys like Elon Musk expose it on X. And now it's, you know, this outrage is spreading across Europe,

which is, which is good. Then we find another story that's going viral this morning. about this, it looks like an African immigrant in Northern Ireland that attempted to behead an Irishman. Just confirmed a Sudanese asylum recipient who apparently came, bonus stuff, comes to Ireland and then Britain, thanks to Brexit, has this open border just in Ireland with the world. So comes in, comes to Belfast and, you know, does the natural thing that anyone's seeking safety would do, which is tocapitate a random person in the street. Right.

And thankfully, some bystanders saved this young man's life. They came out with a shovel and actually hit the guy in the head with a shovel and saved his life. Police arrested him. But this is something that is a bigger conversation. And we're probably going to have to get into the next segment here, though, Walter, is that it does contribute to this feeling like we're losing our society. It's becoming more tribalized.

It's becoming, you know, it's fraying at the end. You know, this oft-used term, social cohesion. We're losing it partly by immigration, partly from stupidity, partly from woke. And it's this witch's brew of garbage. You know what we're really losing it from. You need social cohesion when you have groups of people mingling in real life in public spaces. If you're doing that a lot, then it's very important to you that some member of that group doesn't turn, crowd doesn't turn around and be had another one.

But as we withdraw into our phones, as we withdraw into our private worlds, as we withdraw into spaces in which we are insulated, we look at incidents like this as though their reality TV shows that won't affect us. Unfortunately, the people who make the laws anymore, the so-called elites, are the people least likely to end up on that street in that situation. And it is, and it is, if the poor are your concern, and they should always be our concern as human beings, then what are we doing by creating this arena in which they're beheading each other, and we're standing back and making abstract arguments about it? No freaking beheading.

But people who would be in that crowd know that in their guts. They just don't go around anymore. We're not together in ways that cause us to be, in solidarity with each other's safety needs. Walter, I'm going to mix it up here. So we had some breaking news. Blake just flagged it for me. President Trump confirms that an Apache helicopter was shot down by Iran.

It was patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, and both pilots have been recovered. But he says, nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to the attack. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This obviously comes on the backdrop of ongoing peace negotiations. where we're trying to get the nuclear dust. Where he aggressively made Israel, told Israel,

stand down, don't let this continue. And it seemed like there was progress on that. But as we've seen for months in this conflict, it's step forward, step back, step forward, step back. And this seems like the latest. Yeah. So I want to take this in a slightly different direction, though. So we have this ongoing day and day out saga with Iran.

Are we going to get peace? We are pushing for peace. We want peace. That being said, it has exposed. a fissure on the right. You might call it America First versus Maga. You might call it neocon versus non-interventionist, whatever you do. But the point is that it has exposed to fissure that I think our enemies are exploiting. They're trying, you know, so what do you make of that? And can we get out of it? Can we get out of the rut of this divisive nature in Iran in time for the midterms?

Well, I'm not sure. I mean, predicting what's going to happen in war as a fool's game. But the fact is we have been at war, I'm going to speak as a sort of old-hand journalist, we have been at war with Iran since the early 90s. I sat in on a new republic magazine briefing with an incoming Bill Clinton security official. He had not yet taken office. This is, you know, in the beginning of the 90s. And he said, we are at war with Iran. It's a war that we fought in all sorts of proxy ways, silent ways, financial ways,

diplomatic ways, but not militarily, not in the out-right fashion. Under Trump, we started to fight it that way with, you know, tanks, helicopters, missiles, and planes. I think the thought was that we had to bring this thing to a conclusion, that it had gone on chronically for too long, that it had spread its tentacles into all sorts of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and so on, that it was regionally destabilizing and it was time to bring the damn thing to a head. It's a war that has been going on, but that we decided to fight in a new way. I personally feel that because there is a nuclear component to it and a genuine one, which there wasn't in Iraq, and there certainly wasn't in Afghanistan, it's a slightly different situation.

And if there is a real prospect of reordering things such that we have a non-nuclear Iran and an Iran that is no longer basically headquarters for a worldwide terrorist organization that is also destabilizing the region immediately, it was probably an incentive to go hot. People's tolerance for that and their patience with it will vary. It has not been in a high casualty war for us so far. That's a fact, and I think that's probably caused people to be more patient with it than they might have been. But I think he's perfectly aware that, you know, he's got elections coming up, that he ran as a, quote, peace candidate or, you know, non-interventionist candidate.

But I would say again, this is a war that's, it's a war that they decided to finish, not when they decided to start. So that's, I think that's right. And President Trump has been consistent about that, certainly. I mean, we were skeptical about going into it, wanted to focus more domestically. but I've said it since the very beginning, Walter. This could have been the geopolitically absolute right move to make, but politically costly. Both things can be true at one point. But my question is, it does seem it has it exposed these fissures, these fault lines that exist on the right. I'm concerned that bad actors...

I don't know if it's exposed them so much as it's provided an opportunity to exploit them, and they have been exploited to the max. That's what I'm going with this, yes. Yeah. Continue. you. Yeah. How is it being exploited? I think there's a spectrum. You know, there are people who are, you know, more sort of isolationist and there are people who are more interventionist. But that's not so much a fissure as a kind of gradient, a difference. What's made it a cleavage, which made

it an absolute difference, is the insistence that this war was fought for Israel on Israel's behalf, almost at their command. And that is, I think, untrue. Otherwise, you know, we would not have been enemies before with Iran, which we have been for longstanding. Maybe Israel's cooperation in the war and the timing of it have something to do with how and when it took place. But they turned it into a surrogate or for a kind of decision about what you thought on Israel. And that's what's turned it, made it divisive. And the rhetoric around that conflict, pro-anti-Israel, Zionist, anti-Zionist, and some of it just outright anti-Semitic Jew or hate Jew, has made it a real problem,

not just for Trump, but for American society, for Western society. Because the fact is it does dip its toe in the brankist anti-Semitism. But geopolitically, I also think it's a little bit absurd. I mean, if Israel has a whip hand over the American military, and you see all this stuff now, oh, we've decided to merge our militaries, that's not accurate either. Then Americans are going to be justly afraid if they believe it. It's hyperbola, it's exaggeration.

It's not borne out. And it's a propaganda tactic. And the propaganda tactic has been effective. 20 seconds, Walter, where can everybody find you and follow your stuff and support your work? Well, I go back and forth between being a very reclusive writer, writing novels and screenplays, and a guy who does podcasts and things. Right now I'm on Twitter. That's my main social media presence.

I have a substack. I go on TV now and then. But I will return in my glory as a talking head at some point. And so people can await that moment. But for the moment, I'm finishing up some big projects that I hope to be everywhere next year. Walter Kern, the great Walter Kern and County Highway Editor at Large, novelist, thinker extraordinaire. 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 ch ministries.org slash Charlie and use promo code Charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's ch ministries. slash Charlie and use promo code Charlie. Man, I've been thinking about this conversation for the last couple days. Because there's a lot of stuff going on with Butler, Pennsylvania, and the attempted assassination against President Trump that just, you know, just keeps raising these questions.

What do we know? What do we not know? And one man, as we've become accustomed to, is like a dog with a bone on this. and that is Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. And he's been foyering like a crazy man, getting all the information we can, but it's drips and drabs, and we don't know exactly what it is.

So I'll let him explain what he's found. Tom, welcome back to the show. It's great to have you. How are you doing? And tell us about this story. You've got 48 pages out of, like, you know, hundreds of thousands that are potentially out there. What's going on?

Yeah, we've been asking for records. the FBI since the shooting happened. And we got in Stonewall, we sued last year, didn't get anything until just recently. And the FBI first told us they had 45,000 records, and then they said they had 75,000 records. But they only give us a few hundred at most a month, and most of those they withhold. So that 48th from like 300. You know, so we put it out there, and, you know, what they gave us was heavily redacted. It looked like the emails, you know, looking back on it, it still looks like emails were sent to a Butler deputy by Crooks.

Turns out that wasn't the case. The FBI was withholding information that would have shown it was not the case. So they attacked us. They called me a liar. They called Judicial Watch a liar. Crazy, crazy response from the FBI at Cash Patel. disappointing and frankly, you know, a malicious juvenile post that cash promoted. I'm just I'm still kind of shocked by it. In the meantime, they're hiding 75,000 pages of records from us.

And, you know, at this rate, we won't get them until, you know, I've been joking to the Barron Trump administration. Yeah. Well, that's the thing that's so disconcerting here, Tom. And, you know, I've known you for a number of years you were close with Charlie. I trust you and I trust your integrity. And I know that you're trying to get to the bottom of this and you're trying to get transparency here. And when I saw the reaction to your push for transparency, and listen, you corrected the record. You said, hey, it didn't, it doesn't actually appear on, you know, as we're reviewing the documents, that this was between a deputy and crooks. This actually appears that it was between a college

instructor, but the problem was they so redacted it. It made it almost impossible to tell what you were looking at. And so I just want to say that, Tom, on your behalf, as somebody who's known you, I was offended on your behalf. I support a lot of what the FBI has done in this administration. I support the lower crime rates. I support kind of reforming some of the bureaucracy and trying to work, putting agents back in the field. There's so much to celebrate here, okay? But when it comes this story. It's so weird. Why is it being shrouded in secrecy? It makes absolutely no sense. And if they have to redact this to keep up with statutes or laws or customs, change those, because the guy's dead, and we deserve to know what happened. Yeah, you would think, given that President Trump was

nearly killed as a result of Biden administration malfeasance and negligence, to put it charitably, that be an interest in exposing that because I do think there is still risks to the president as a result of failures by the Secret Service and, you know, the agencies that support his security. And so we're trying to figure out what went on and make sure it doesn't happen again. And, you know, this issue to get attacked over

for disclosing records in a good faith way and saying, well, you're lying because we have material you don't have, therefore you're lying in disclosing what you do have. It's just crazy. And, you know, in many ways, I want to move beyond it. All I want is the disclosure. I want the records, you know, and this happened on Sunday.

And our focus, at least my focus, was at the time, I was like, what's going on in California? You know, we're suing in California to clean up the voting rolls. We've got a Supreme Court decision about to come down that is likely going to stop the counting of ballots that arrive late after election day. So big issues, and of course, transparency about Butler, it's a big issue. Instead, we get this juvenile attack from the FBI director and his people. And, you know, he owes us an apology, and he overreacted.

And I think they're upset because, you know, we give everyone guff. I mean, we want the information. You don't give us the information. We sue in federal court, and we alert the public to the lack of transparency. So, Tom, you've been filing suits like this for a long time. You mentioned you're seeking disclosure on this. There's 75,000 documents outstanding. Is there an explanation?

What's driving that level here? Is the FBI basically just saying, we don't need to release things unless we feel like it? Do they have laws they fall back on? Is there something Congress could do to make this a smoother process? Because we were saying yesterday, the best way for the FBI to just restore the public's confidence in general is to be brisker about releasing documents they have with fewer redactions and having clear explanations on the reasons they can't release other things. What's going on here? What does need to change? Well, the law's already the law.

I mean, they weren't following the law, this FBI, not the last FBI, not race. FBA, but Cash's FBI wasn't following the law and releasing the records to us. And we're litigation over it now. So the answer is follow the law, be transparent. We know the records can be produced quickly when there's political will. We saw that with the EFstein records. They went through how many millions of pages? 75,000 pages.

It should be able to release these Tutsweet. And what are the redactions that need to be held have? I tell you, everything should be released. No redactions. What secrets are they withholding? You know, who are they talking to whose identity needs to be protected? We're beyond that. The president was almost killed.

Innocent was killed that day. And we want to know what went on. We have the right to the full information. The president does too. Yeah, and that's my concern, Tom. You know, when you see these sort of bureaucratic, you know, I don't know, obstructionism, whatever you want to call it, and then they go after somebody like you who's our friend, who's on, you know, on the right side of all of these issues, who's fighting to clean up the voter rolls, who's fighting for transparency.

And yeah, you're right. You do give everybody guff. You're an equal opportunity offender when people are blocking transparency for the American people. My question is, is what are they keeping for President Trump here? Do you have a firm handle or any confidence that President Trump has been given all the details on this matter? I don't know. I mean, it's 75,000 pages. I doubt there's been full disclosure even internally. I think this is what I would do if I were at Cash Patel.

I get a handle as to what the documents are that are outstanding, direct his agency, and the Justice Department, which is responsible for the FBI, should collaborate on this, because they're defending this lawlessness in court right now in terms of. of transparency and secrecy, and just get the records out as quickly as they can. But it's not rocket science. We know how to do FOIA. We know how to do FOIA lawsuits. Just get all the records out.

Stop with the excuse making about the need to do redactions and then attacking judicial watch when we get it wrong because they hit crap from us. I'm tired of it. Yeah, Tom, we have your back 100% here. I feel like the reaction was from the FBI was not good. and they should apologize because you are an asset you are a friend you you want what's best

for the country and you want what's best for the conservative movement you want what's best for our voter rolls for transparency for trust in the system all these things so I think it's super counterproductive and I will tell you as somebody that has had a lot of pressure on me put on me personally to attack the FBI

and you know when it comes to Charlie's case or whatever right and listen so this is not an easy place for me to be but I just want to say once more, Tom, we have your back, and I appreciate all the work you're doing to try and bring transparency and actual accountability, communication from our Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yeah, it's the work we do as a watchdog, and I know.

I think the president appreciates the work, and I think Cash generally appreciates the work. He knows he's out of joint for whatever reason on this particular issue, but he's got to stop calling us a liar, and have his people calling us a liar because that type of language is dangerous language. You know, it's escalatory. And, you know, these are dangerous times.

And when you have the FBI going around targeting people like this with what I consider to be outrageously false statements, you know, that's not good. That's not good. And it's a dangerous smear. Yeah. So they should back down.

They really should back down. And by the way, you guys did the honorable thing, Tom. You changed your press. really so you updated it you said you got it wrong that it wasn't a uh an officer that was emailing with crooks it was a professor or some sort of academic contact to his um i want to um quickly change the our focus here tom because so much is going on in l a going on in california well uh so we want to also highlight the good work you do there uh you have some recent cases you've been suing to highlight california you've uh one of your most recent suits you've exposed

California has almost a million inactive voter registrations that have been hanging around for three or even four elections, which when California is sending out a million ballots every single cycle, that shows a lot of danger here. Can you go into that? Yeah, so the issue is, is California taking reasonable steps to clean up the rolls? And we sued previously, California, and L.A. agreed to, as part of a settlement, remove, ultimately they remove one. 1.2 million dirty names from the rolls. But the rest of the state is a mess, and there are at least 87330 names on the rolls, 873,000 dirty names on the rolls,

some of which are going back as long as 10 years. And they say they're, quote, inactive. Well, when you have the process break down and you're not cleaning the names out, it means that there are people who are, quote, active, who are getting ballots, I suspect by the hundreds of thousands because if they have 800,000

they're telling us about that are inactive and they know who shouldn't be on the rolls, what about people who move away and the state doesn't even know they've moved away for two years? These are people that they know or should have known have moved away.

But there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands who they just don't even check. So when they say there's no evidence of impropriety and that's the new media line, right? No evidence of impropriety in the California elections. No, there is evidence of impropriety. They aren't following federal law to clean up the election rolls. That's an indicator that there are dirty names on the rolls, likely receiving dirty ballots, and that lawlessness is resulting in less confidence in the elections. So the whole system is being compromised. This election is

compromise by the failure to keep the rolls clean. On top of it, we've got this litigation in California. The underlying issue right now is before the Supreme Court. We made the argument a few months ago, our lawyers did, that counting ballots that arrive after election day is contrary to federal law. Now, certainly in November, where federal law sets an election day, I'm hoping the Supreme Court will rule almost any minute now, practically speaking, that we're right. And I suspect they will. They won't be able to do that anymore in California. So there's a crisis ongoing.

We're seeking to address it. But let's not pretend it's not there. And let's not pretend it's all lawful and normal. None of it is. Well, and Tom, we had Bill O'Saley on First Assistant U.S. attorney of the Central District in California yesterday talking about you can use a gym card or a prescription pill label for proof of. you know, when you register a vote as your ID. And look at this crazy clip from Steve Hilton, who, you know, by some miracle is going to be in the top two for the governorship in the runoff race. But this is him telling Billy Bush how insane the system is, SOT 24.

There's a line in the law that says that actually the proof that you mailed your ballot on or just before Election Day. even if it arrives after election day. It's not just the postmark. You can write it. You can handwrite the date. Wow. You can backdate your ballot. By hand.

By hand. And it will be counted. That's how insane this system is. I was double checking that myself. That's 100% real. They'll say, oh yeah, send in a ballot, and as long as it's postmarked, and I don't know why I should trust a postmark for that matter. That sounds like the easiest thing in the world you could potentially.

scam. But yeah, you don't even need that. It's 100%. You can look at it. It just says if they have dated their ballot and it's before election day, then it counts. I can't think of how that could go astray when you have a month to count these things and you have

thousands of city employees and volunteer and active, everything going into this and the amount of time they take to do this. There's so much room for shenanigans to come in. And that's one of the reasons that's so important to at least count this stuff in a day. And they won't do that either. No, they can't get it counted in a day. They don't want to do that. And in California,

they just passed the law. The leftist did, and Newsom's been celebrating it. He signed it into law. It makes it harder to challenge this issue. So if you're an observer and you see the signatures aren't matching and you want to raise an objection, you're prohibited from doing so. That's how sensitive they are about protecting this unsecure, unsupervised voting. I mean, you know, it places your vote at risk to have all these mail-in ballots out there because your honest vote can be negated by dishonest voting. And I tell you, if you're not voting in the ballot place in the voting in the voting precincts or the voting places, you can't be assured or no sensible person can be assured

that votes aren't being – voters aren't being threatened, coerced, or having their voting. stolen out from under their noses. Well, Tom, I moved, you know, after Charlie's assassination, I moved from California to Arizona. And this is probably on me because I didn't inform the state and say that I was moving or whatever. But I got a ballot, you know. And that's the thing.

I didn't ask for it. They just sent one to my old home. So I have no idea what happened to it. But hopefully it's sitting on my kitchen counter somewhere or something. Tom Fitton Judicial Watch, President's Judicial Watch. They do great work. Please support them. They are fantastic patriots.

Thank you, Tom. Thank you, guys. Before he ever stepped on to a debate stage or behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. If you want to lead, you have to learn first. Charlie believed that ideas shaped character, conviction, and give you courage. That's why he spent years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible through Hillsdale College's free online courses. These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors. One of those courses is Great Books 101, Ancient to Medieval, where you're a real college.

where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, and Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization and still speak to the deepest questions about human nature, virtue, courage, family, and self-government. The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West for thousands of years. And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey. Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey, course launches in July. Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about

forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage. You can enroll today completely free, 100% free, just by visiting charlie4hillsdale.com. That's Charlie for Hillsdale.com to start learning today. Charlie forhillsdale.com. Learn deeply, think clearly, lead boldly, carry it forward with Hillsdale College. I've told Jasmine Crockett just went off on Charlie at this SPLC hearing. We're going to get the clip. Oh, gosh. We're going to light her up in just a second.

And then secondly, it is Election Day in South Carolina. It's primary. Vote Mark Lynch. Put out to pasture Lady Graham. Okay, so if you're in South Carolina, get Lady Graham out of there. I'll even say there are other candidates. If you really want to vote for them, we just need to keep them below 50. Keep Graham below 50.

I believe head to head, he's toast. Yeah. So go vote. Keep it below 50. That's right. Okay. Those are our PSAs. Eric Metaxis, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. Welcome to the studio, my friend. It's great to be in the studio with you guys. Thanks for having me here. I have no idea why you're here. What's your favorite thing now that you're here and you can see the stuff on the wall?

We've got Jonathan Edwards, sinners in the hands of an angry god. I'll tell you my favorite thing is there's a banner over there that my team sent you guys and you've displayed it. It's USA 250. You can see it over place. Supercentennial. The official term, I told President Trump this, and he loved it and he spoke about it in Fox News, and then he forgot about it. But the official term for 250 is supercentennial. I'm old enough to remember the bicentennial, and the whole country was crazy.

It's our bicentennial. We're celebrating our bicentennial. This year, it's just America 250. It's like, no, no, no. We need to have a term. So the term is supercentennial. This year, this is our supercentennial year. And it's on the cover of my book, which we are going to discuss.

That's why you're here. Now. Okay. Now. This, okay. So Eric sent me this beautiful box right here. And it had that banner in it. It was filled with processed luncheon meats.

Beautiful. Yeah, it was like a luncheon cheetos. And a juice and a juice box. Continental Army Russians. And I will confess the audience. I've only read the first chapter. But I will tell you, Eric. And you know I don't give out compliments, especially to you very easily.

You never have. It's really hard. I think you're getting better. I mean, everybody knows Bonhoeffer. They know Letter to the American Church. I mean, you've written a lot. Oh, yeah. And you're, I hate to say it.

But I think you are like now at that, like that very elite level as a historian, as a storyteller. This is so well done so far. I'll tell you something, Andrew. And I really mean that. No, and listen, and I'm not blown smoke back either. when I was writing this book I said to my wife Suzanne many times I said

Suzanne something's going on with the writing of this book I feel a confidence as a writer kind of a joy that I have never felt in writing a book before I was really it was notable that it's almost like I've achieved something over

the decades you know you do something you do something doing and then you get to a point where I just felt this kind of confidence and joy in some of the writing that I have never felt before. So I always want my books to be extremely readable because everybody writes books and you're like, I got the book. Did you read the book?

No. I want my books to be readable. This is summer reading. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're an American, it's such good story telling. It's not for history buffs. It's for Americans. Any American should care about the story of how we came into being. In fact, it is necessary.

It's kind of why I wrote the book. We need to know this. This is not like for people who are, you know, I'm sort of interested. No, no, no. It's an assignment. You need to know how America came into being. Maybe you heard it in school. You probably forgot most of it like I did.

No excuses. Every American needs to know the story. That's why I wrote the book. This is a standard fun gallop through our history, you know, starting 1763, the end of the French and Indian War, which leads the revolution, all the stories of revolution. And the heroes, the people, the stories. Honestly, it's amazing. It's amazing.

Classic story. You just think of if you go back to the 1800s, Americans knew all these classic figures. You don't need to go back to 1800s. You could go back to 1960. I've said this, and I know this. If you stick a microphone, anybody's face, Main Street, America, 1960, every single person, every American knew everything that's in this book. Nathan Hale, you mentioned Nathan Hale. There's a chapter in here on Nathan Hale, one of the great heroes of American history.

We should know everything about him. What an inspiration and what a profound. Christian. I mean, amazing. Brilliant. Yale graduate. That's before Yale went to hell before my time. But all these stories are beautiful and we all used to know them. And that's why I wrote the book. I said, I know there are folks who don't know this. And you need to know it. Because obviously we care about America's actual religion with Christianity. But you need the country needs to have its secular religion as well, which is it's secular heroes. Especially because we're this diverse country. You actually need everyone to think. George Washington rocks. But Blake, here's the problem. All these quote-unquote secular heroes are fire-breathing Christians. This is what I didn't know when I started to write the book. And that's what the big news is for me.

When people said, Eric, you're writing a book on the Revolution, what's your angle? I said, I have no angle. I'm just going to write a story that's in one volume because, you know, you can read 30 books or 10 books. I just want one volume. It's everything is right here. This is what you need to know. So I have no angle. We're just going to tell the story.

It's going to be fun. You know, when I did the read. research everywhere I looked. I was astonished over and over and over. This is a Christian story. Every player in it is a Christian. You could maybe say Franklin and Jefferson are iffy, and that's another story, but they still got the Christian narrative dramatically. The whole way this comes into being comes out of the Reformation, Puritan theology. You get no America without God. And the proof, the reason the title is revolution, not the American Revolution, is because I make the case. and I think it's open and shut.

There's no other revolution that succeeded. The French Revolution is a joke. It ends in a bloodbath. They get rid of a king. And what happens? They replace him with, oh, yeah, a dictator emperor. How did that go for you, France? So every revolution that they call itself a revolution,

succeeds, fails. Our revolution is the only revolution in the history of the world where people said, okay, we want to govern ourselves. They actually pulled it off. And that is because God was at the center. That is not my Christian perspective. That is historical fact. And I prove it in the book.

I didn't set out to prove it. But when you just look at the facts, you're like, how have we not known this story? How have we not known that it was born out of people wanting to create a Christian government where people govern themselves? Because we used to assume it and understand that it was an assumed truth. And then it got challenged by a bunch of wokeies. Yeah. And then we had to build up antibodies. I mean, I'm starting to realize that our modern.

environment is a series of onslaughts attacks against, to Blake's point, our civic religion, our civic myths. Totally. And I use myths in a general term, but they're true histories. And they're the stories that we tell our children. And all of a sudden, they start getting attacked by the wokeies. And then we need to figure out, oh, this is actually something we need to be able to defend. And so then we have to gear up and tool up and defend them.

Right. But I really want to make the point here. Yes, you sort of reveal this. through the telling of the story through your own research but this is like really readable history I mean you're just

the opening scene of the revolution Parliament debates the stamp act mob violence comes to Boston John Adams waxes prophetic the stamp act takes effect the stamp app is repealed the Townsend acts Liberty Affair on the road to bloodshed

I mean this is the actual history and it's so readable and it's so insanely tear it down because we're really such a blessed country like if you're a modern French person And the French Revolution is the founding event of your modern country. And it is a bloodbath that goes horrible. It's a joke.

Basically genocide and just total trustees. US, we're so blessed that our founding events, a revolution, which could have gone really awry, ends amazingly. We end up with this prosperous constitutional republic. But you have to ask why. And that's the point that came to me. And again, I happily always confess my ignorance. I'm not somebody who knew all this and said, oh, I need to put it in a book. I didn't know this.

I only knew I want to write a readable story of what happened 250 years ago in time for the 250th Supercentennial. That's my goal. In the course of doing a ton of research, this evidence comes to me. I thought, how in the world did I not know this? How does every American not know this? It's because all of these guys in this revolution were looking directly to God. They wanted to go back to the Sinai covenant of the Israelites in the wilderness.

They had this Old Testament theology that we're going to get rid of a king. going to get out from under Pharaoh, and we're going to look directly to God. And only by doing that can we govern ourselves. There's nobody in this book who didn't get that. They all got the narrative. I mean, everybody, including Jefferson and Franklin, how have we gotten to a point where most Americans don't know this? That's what stunned me. And again, that's not the point of the book. But if you read the book, it's all through the book. It's not avoidable. I love it. And I mean, you know, honorable mention, like I said, I've read chapter one. He starts the book out by talking about the death of King George II, which gave rise to King George

the third. Right. And there was a fascinating reference to Sir Thomas Crapper. Sir Thomas Crapper, 19th century. Which is where we get the colorful expression for a BM, which is just fun. The first, there's a lot of fun in the book. And you know me. I can't help joking.

So I find weird, strange stuff. And it's like, I got to put it in there. There's no way. It's a beautiful book. It's so well done. And I'm very proud of my friend of what he's accomplished here. People don't realize writing a book is like birthing a child. It's a huge undertaking.

So congratulations, Eric. Thank you. I know because, listen, go buy the book. Just get it. But I know that Amazon, they printed out tens of thousands of these things that are already sold out. It's sound like hotcake. So get yours today. Do not wait.

It will get to you. Somebody said that books a million has copies because I think Amazon is saying like they're sold out or if you want one, you might not get it by Father's Day. So I think books a million has enough books to give it. But I think even if you order from Amazon, you'll get it before Father's Day, but they're not guaranteeing it. But this is good news. This means that people are buying the book. And my assignment for America, you got to read this this summer.

I don't care if you steal it. You got to know America's, you got to know America. We can steal it from, you know, your brother, from your brother. But I guess the point is that we have an assignment. We need to know our story. And that's not like, it's not extra. credit. The reason we've drifted so far, you know this, you guys know this, is because we don't know this stuff, we've forgotten this stuff, we've taken it for granted, we've let it slide. If you don't

know the biblical roots of the founding of America, that all of the founders understood that, then you're really missing it and you can't, we can't sustain what we have. You cannot have liberty without people looking to God, being virtuous. And again, that's not what the book's about, but you just can't help but see George Washington, oh my gosh, oh my gosh. This was a man. When they say he's a deist, that is like you might as well say he's a radical Muslim.

It's the dumbest thing. These were men, they were Christians. You've given the country a great gift here, Eric, honestly. Thank you for this. We got to light up Jasmine Crockett. Let's do it. SPLC hearing, Jim Jordan, judiciary committee is doing it.

I submitted a letter for this. We have some of our students in the room. Jasmine Crockett took it upon herself to make a fool of herself again. Let's play 36. I know some of y'all are, you know, caping for Charlie Kirk, because I didn't heard y'all talk about his organization over and over and over. So I'm not going to play with anybody who's going to play with my time, so I'm going directly to Ms. McCord.

If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified. Does that sound like a hater or not? That sounds like a racial stereotype. Okay, sounds good to me. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s. That sounds like someone who still adheres to racist views. Okay. America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank.

Large, dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America. These all just happen to be comments from the fearlessly. of Turning Point USA, so I could see where SPLC was going. All right. I'm an ugly woman. And also, I will just know, it's funny she's reading out this is SPLC. Charlie never funded a clan cross burning, whereas the SPLC has multiple times. Paid millions of dollars to KKK members.

Okay, Jasmine Crockett. Let's go by one by one here. Black pilots. That is a bastardized, out of context clip. Bingo. Where Charlie was reflecting on the fact that the CEO of Unique. United was going to mandate racial quotas and gender quotas on the new pilot class, taking it from about 85, 15%, 85 straight white men or white men in general, to 15% minorities

and going to mandate that the new pilot class was 50-50. Honest questions, are there enough black pilots to make 50%? Are there enough minority pilots to make up 50% in the new pilot class? Other honest questions, can you guarantee that the safety standards will continue to be met at 85%? 15 going to 50-50. Lots of honest questions. If you were going to force racial quotas into the system, every time that happens,

qualities paid, standards drop. You see this in medical schools. You see this in policing. This is a joke. So Charlie responding to that says, I don't do this now, but if you're going to enforce it, I'm going to say,

hey, I hope he's qualified. Because guess what? That is an actual logical and rational reaction to it. Charlie believed in equality. Charlie believed in having equal standards for people and you accept whatever the consequences is. If you say you have to be the most qualified person to become a pilot, and that means white dudes become pilots, great.

Everyone's safer because they're flying on planes with good pilots. Yeah, let's go to the Civil Rights Act comment. Civil Rights Act, Eric. Did you know that the Supreme Court agreed with Charlie Kirk? Because they just gutted the VRA, right? Okay, so the voting rights acts swept something different, but it's the same era, and Charlie was sort of making that comment about all of that. It created racial gerrymandered lines.

Guess what else the civil rights? Act has been used to do. Civil Rights Act has been used to reinforce trans dudes, dudes that think they're women to go into women's locker room. Those laws have been bastardized and used to corrupt women's sports. That actually is totally a fair critique that you could agree. Charlie also said, I agree with the intent of the Civil Rights Act, but it went too far. It became extra constitutional. It became the new constitution, the new founding of America. It did the opposite of what people thought it was going to do, which is they wanted to abolish discriminatory. Instead, it mandates discrimination.

A civil rights act is why we have laws that just say, actually, your office needs to do affirmative action. You need to do all this favoritism. It's why we get anti-white discrimination in university admissions and hiring and government contracts. All of these things are downstream of that. And Charlie said, no. America's principle is equality. Equality under the law for individuals.

Well, and then they go off to the Islamic question. So Charlie said, listen, it's not good to have whole neighborhoods that are established on like Sharia law. Whoa, that's super controversial. Oh, that's, and I just couldn't get over the fact that she goes to the SBLC rep. And she goes, well, that seems like racial animus. And that seems like bigotry. And that seems, no, it's called common sense.

We don't want people that are subject, subjugating other people, taxing them, creating streets named after Islamic conquerors. It's worse than that. They're beating their wives. Let's be honest. Child brides. They are beating their wives. and they're saying, according to our laws, that is absolutely fine.

Well, according to the American laws, it's not fine. So the idea that we're going to have an area that's not going to abide by the rules of the United States of America, obviously that's the problem. Guess what? I'll go one step further. No more Islamic immigration into the country. It's bad for the country. We're a Christian nation.

We're founded as a Christian nation. And we will continue to be a Christian nation if I have something to do about it. God bless you, Eric, Pataxus. God bless you. Thanks for having me. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.