Threats to the Republic + The Glory of America's Founding

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/support

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
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 gonna end up miserable. But
if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end
up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to

(00:26):
stop sending your kids to college. You should get married
as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start at turning point. You would say college chapter.
Go start at turning point, yould say high school chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign
up and become an activist.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
I gave my.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision
I ever made in my life, and I encourage you.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
To do the same.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Here I am Lord, Use me. Buckle up, everybody, Here
we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor
of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold
iras and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you

(01:07):
could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments
dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com.

Speaker 4 (01:17):
All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. We are
here at the y Reefi Studios in Phoenix, Arizona. How
we doing, Blake, Oh, We're doing pretty well. It is
June ninth, twenty twenty six. Lots to cover right now.
The Carmelo Anthony closing arguments are happening. We're gonna talk
about that a little bit later in the hour, but
we're gonna get right into the ongoing saga that is

(01:39):
unfolding in Los Angeles, in 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 what he's got my
hard bargain mission to America up in the air, blood

(02:00):
well out, thumbsucker, all these great books. And he is
the editor at large of the County Highway, America's only
newspaper all 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.

Speaker 5 (02:15):
I am psyched to be here at a high leverage
point for American democracy because it either slides into the
ocean or we pull it out.

Speaker 4 (02:23):
So 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 louse are trying to figure out
how the heck did somebody like Nitthia Rahman, who not
many people in the country had even heard of.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Not many left wingers in LA new touch about her.

Speaker 4 (02:40):
How she went from about twenty one percent of the
vote from the first sixty five percent that was counted,
and then in the next fifteen percent she about doubled
her Well, it was twenty three percent of the vote
to about forty one percent of the vote. So now
she has overtaken Spencer Pratt in the number two position.
And I'm told by you know all the less, this

(03:00):
is just the way LA and California count their ballots.
They prioritize participation while they not speed.

Speaker 5 (03:07):
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

(03:29):
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 activists
bothering them or holding a pen over their ballot, and
they participate in the ritual that has been time honored

(03:55):
and proved to work and works in almost every other country,
be ours well.

Speaker 4 (04:00):
And that's that's the big thing here, Walter. When I
was chatting with you yesterday about coming on.

Speaker 5 (04:05):
Maybe making lack of transparencies 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

(04:29):
of counting, when in fact.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
They're the opposite exactly well, and this is the thing,
So you see, Rocanna is actually in very Rocanna fashion.
I will tell you it's sort of trying to split
the baby. He's at least saying in this in this
tweet he just fired off a few hours ago, actually
about an hour ago. You know, he goes, you know,

(04:52):
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 him that in California
we can't count absentees first, which older and more conservative,
and election day voters are younger and more democratic. This
slow count is largely because of policies to maximize participation,
including postmarking about on election day. Regardless, we need to

(05:15):
figure out how California can get the vote counted faster
and results tabulated so it doesn't drag on. This is
classic road.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Can we figure it out?

Speaker 4 (05:23):
This is such a we hadn't figured out some molly
lambers can do it. And if you meet on his
whole his whole point is let's throw some more money
at it so we can get the vote counted in
forty eight hours. But that's like the stretch goal in California.
R I kind of can't stand this Walter because he's
justifying the fraud and the and he's called it the

(05:44):
impression of fraud and eroding trust. Conspiracy theories.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
We used to we used to have a concept to
call the appearance of conflict of interest, meaning that it
was important that politicians not even appear to be working
for outside forces or be taking money 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

(06:11):
liberal circumspection to make sure that there is no appearance
of conflict of 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's eyes water. And now, in their classic fashion, they've

(06:32):
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

(06:53):
able to walk through the storm and reach your destination,
turning neither to the nor the right. We have to
do that in our moral lives and our social lives.
We cannot be Every voice and every monster that jumps
out of us can't detract from our mission. And our

(07:14):
mission here is to get people elected in a way
that their election will be respected by both sides. Elections are,
by their nature enterprises in which half the people are around.
Half the people are going to be dissatisfied with the result.
Thus the essence of an election is to have it

(07:38):
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

(08:02):
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? And in this case, it's been

(08:24):
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.

Speaker 6 (08:39):
Yeah, and it's 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
Pratts run as anything but a long shot that we
were very hopeful for because we love LA and we
would like it to recover.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
And yet they have these laws that are.

Speaker 6 (09:00):
So extreme you just look at it and you just think, there,
this can't be legitimate, because they don't need to do
something like this.

Speaker 5 (09:08):
But of course they're 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 a 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

(09:30):
back when. There are always cases in which a challenger
in every league, in every boxing league and 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 unsea a champion. And when you get in there

(09:54):
and you make the circumstances such that no challenger can
no challenger can arise, and none can be successful. You
no longer have an election, you know, have a 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.

Speaker 4 (10:14):
To or and I agree with you exactly. There's the
the insecurity is obvious. But why would they be insecure Walter?
Maybe they know that their their house of cards has
been built on fraud for a long time, and that
they know they know how flimsy it all is.

Speaker 5 (10:30):
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. The kind of elections
that they're running now that involve bringing vast amounts of

(10:51):
votes in late you know, across public roads and so on.
You know, in helicopters even are very difficult operations that
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

(11:13):
to have money that was backed by gold. For every
dollar you had in your wallet, somewhere there was gold
in or 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 goals in for Knox,
and we don't know if the voter is behind the
ballot is even out there. Maybe they's somewhere on skid

(11:34):
row without a name and any way to prove there,
even from LA. Maybe they got there yesterday.

Speaker 4 (11:40):
Yeah, well, Walter, I think that's exactly right. You talk
about how the skid road thing. So you know, 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.

(12:02):
I'll tell the team which one you could 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

(12:24):
these two paragraphs are saying, you know, some d DSA
LA members believe that we should vote for the candidate
with the most radical and grassroots platform, you know, and
they admit that Ramen has a rocky relationship with major
constituencies on the left. But da da da dad. But ultimately,
let's just get rid of Pratt. So it's very simple,

(12:45):
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 later arriving ballots
continue their enthusiastic embrace of higher sales taxes in Los
Angeles County. Yes on measure er has overtaken no in
the June update of the of the vote, So now

(13:06):
they have just voted for higher sales taxes as well.
This is a little bit underreported. So all the ballt
harvesting from these DSA guys that are out on the
streets often illegal, by the way, and it's we had
Bill a Sale on the show yesterday, Walter, and he said, listen,
I'm going to go after the individual instances of voter fraud,
and we're gonna put a lot of these people behind bars.

(13:27):
He's like, but it's so baked into the cake that
literally the fraud has it. It's basically legalized corruption at
this point.

Speaker 5 (13:35):
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 shadowyness,
the darkness, the untraceability. You know, these are all almost
academic questions because there's no way to go back and

(13:58):
answer them, you know, correct where 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.

(14:23):
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,
near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder would vote for
a sales tax increase, that's nuts.

Speaker 4 (14:41):
Well they're doing it, well, they're and it's it's no,
they aren't.

Speaker 5 (14:45):
Well, but we're there is evidence there is 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.

Speaker 4 (15:01):
I want to end this discussion about California's sham debacle,
that you know, election debacle here that would that would
make the Venezuelans blush and Maduro blush and so many others. Walter,
when I talked to you last night, you you said
you had you you agreed to come on because you
believe this is a critical moment for our constitutional republic

(15:21):
and our representative democracy. Explain what you mean.

Speaker 5 (15:25):
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, where the
aerospace industry is headquartered and so on, is one that
we cannot afford to have fall into political chaos and

(15:48):
uh turpitude. So that it's California is important. But more importantly,
the moment that people begin to of not just regular voting,
but of having any potential weapon against people who will

(16:09):
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 a 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

(16:31):
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

(16:51):
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 pharaoection. I think they are mastered and
guided by corrupt elements that say deliver or else you
better show up with the mayor seat of LA or
you're in trouble.

Speaker 4 (17:14):
If you're about to turn sixty five and you're already
on Medicare, this message is for you. Charlie cared about
America 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. Chapters Licensed advisors search

(17:35):
every Medicare plan to find what's actually best for you.
The call is one hundred percent free you, no pressure,
just honest help. Seniors save an average of eleven hundred
dollars 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 sixty five or already
on Medicare, make the call today now pound two fifty,

(17:58):
pound two fifty and say Charlie Kirk to make sure
you're in the best available plan. That's pound two fifty
and say Charlie Kirk. Or go to ask Chapter dot
org slash Kirk. All right, Walter, We're gonna turn our
attension now to the Carmelo Anthony case, which the closing
arguments I believe are happening right now. A little bit

(18:20):
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 this image here, This is actually a snippet from
one of the reports on this case. It says medical

(18:40):
examiner doctor 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.

Speaker 6 (18:57):
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

(19:17):
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 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

(19:41):
outlandish narrative that's taken hold.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
He was it was self defense.

Speaker 6 (19:45):
He was surrounded by a mob of people like he
was basically about to you know, about to be beaten up,
a 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 off to the jury and
the different demographics of it, and a lot of people
are thinking and watching this and just thinking, can the

(20:06):
American tradition of a jury trial withstand this sort of
this modern pressure to racialize everything, view everything through a
racial lench? Can that work when you need twelve people
unanimous in a jury to convict someone of a crime.

Speaker 5 (20:24):
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 the gaming of
these trials by jury consultants, lawyers, the media, because remember

(20:47):
the media often forms these arguments in advance, that 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

(21:08):
which they sort of inserting identity politics into trials. You know,
sometimes it's uh, 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

(21:29):
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, uh,
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

(21:53):
in favor of this group or that group based on
their based on their inclusion in it. The whole, the whole,
plex 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

(22:13):
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 from my misbehavior, as an airing of my
justifications and my excuses. And I might even become famous.

(22:37):
I might even you know, come out of this as celebrity.
So it's gone from deterrent to almost stimulant, this kind
of justice.

Speaker 4 (22:51):
Yeah. I think the reason this is 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

(23:12):
fact that there is still controversy, the fact that this
man's family, this murderer's family, raised seven hundred thousand dollars
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

(23:34):
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 Sharpen there. You know, a lot of the race
baiters and the grifters that we've become accustomed to aren't

(23:54):
even showing up to this case. And yet and still
there is a portion of societ that thinks young black
man about to be thrown in prison, can't let that
stand even though all the facts go against him.

Speaker 6 (24:06):
And the surge of sentimentalism too, where we mentioned that burglar,
that home invasion case where someone was murdered, and that
the jury four person said someone in this jury was
just not going to convict because they just didn't they
didn't want to see a person go to jail for life.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
For murder, like they'll know they're guilty.

Speaker 4 (24:22):
And we saw that, 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 you and all of this, Walter,
happens in the on the back you want, Henry Novak,
but you.

Speaker 5 (24:39):
Want to dismiss a duror who says that, don't you.

Speaker 4 (24:42):
Of course, of course that's common sense, it's not contrary.

Speaker 5 (24:46):
So there's a little common sense operating somewhere in the system.
I mean, uh. 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.

(25:12):
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.

Speaker 4 (25:34):
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
outrageous spreading across Europe, which which is good. Then we

(25:55):
find another story that's going viral this morning about this.
It looks like an African immigrant in northern Ireland that
attempted to be head an irishman.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Just confirmed.

Speaker 6 (26:09):
A Sudanese sudanesesylum recipient who apparently came bonus stuff comes
to Ireland and then Britain thanks to 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 seeking safety would do, which is to capitate
a random person in the street.

Speaker 4 (26:29):
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 with a shovel and
saved his life. Police arrested him. But this is this
is something that is a bigger conversation and we're probably
gonna have to get into the next segment here though,
Walter is that it does contribute to this feeling like

(26:51):
we're losing our society. It's becoming more tribalized, it's becoming
you know, it's fraying at the edges. You know, this
off used term social cohesion. We're losing it, partly by immigration,
partly from stupidity, partly from woke and it's this witch
is brew of guard.

Speaker 5 (27:07):
You know, you know we're really losing it from the
fact you need social cohesion and you have groups of
people mingling in real life in public spaces. Uh, if
you're doing that a lot, then it's very important to
you that some member of that group doesn't turn the crowd,
doesn't turn around behead another one. But as we withdraw

(27:29):
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 they are
reality TV shows that won't affect us. Unfortunately, the people
who make the laws anymore, the so called elites, are

(27:49):
the people least likely to end up on that street
in that situation. And it is and it is if
you're if the poor are your concern, and they should
always be our concern 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

(28:12):
be in that crowd know that in their guts, they
just don't go around anymore. There were not together in
we're not together in ways that caused us to be
in solidarity with each other's safety needs.

Speaker 4 (28:29):
Walter, I'm gonna 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 Hormouse and both pilots
have been recovered, but he says, nevertheless, the United States
must of necessity respond to the attack. Thank you for

(28:49):
your attention to this matter. This obviously comes on the
backdrop of ongoing peace negotiations where we're trying to get
that nuclear dust where.

Speaker 6 (28:56):
He aggressively made Israel told me is sammed down and
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.

Speaker 4 (29:12):
Yeah, so I want to take this in a slightly
different direction, though. So we have this ongoing date a
day and day out saga with Iran or we're gonna
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 neo KHN versus non interventionists, whatever you do.

(29:33):
But the point is is that it has exposed a
fissire 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 mid terms?

Speaker 5 (29:48):
Well, I'm not sure. I mean, predicting what's going to
happen in war is a fool's game. But the fact
is we have been at war. I'm going to speak
as a sort of old hand journalists. We have been
at war with Iran since the early nineties. I sat
in on a New Republic magazine briefing with an incoming

(30:09):
Bill Clinton security official. He had not yet taken offices,
you know, in the beginning of the nineties, 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
outright fashion. Under Trump, we started to fight it that

(30:30):
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 Hezbolah and so on,
that it was regionally destabilizing, and it was time to

(30:51):
bring the damn thing to a head. So it's a
war that was 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.

(31:16):
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.

Speaker 7 (31:25):
Basically headquarters for a worldwide terrorist organization that is also
destabilizing the region, immediately it was.

Speaker 5 (31:34):
Probably an incentive to go hot. People's tolerance for that
and their patients with it will vary. It has not
been in a high casualty war for US so far.

Speaker 7 (31:48):
That's a fact, and I think that's probably caused people
to be more patient with.

Speaker 5 (31:52):
It than they might have been. But I think he's
perfectly aware that, you know, he's got elections coming up.
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.

Speaker 4 (32:12):
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 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.
So but my question is it does seem it has

(32:34):
exposed these fissures, these fault lines that exist on the right.
I'm concerned that bad actors don't know.

Speaker 5 (32:42):
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.

Speaker 4 (32:48):
That's that's how I'm going with this. Yes, yeah, continue, Yeah,
how is it? Well?

Speaker 5 (32:54):
I think there's a spec 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 interventionists.
But that's not so much a fissure as a kind
of gradient difference. What's made it a cleavage, which made
it an absolute difference, is the insistence that this war

(33:17):
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 in long for long standing. Maybe Israel's cooperation

(33:37):
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

(34:00):
that conflict pro anti Israel, Zionist, anti Zionist, and some
of it just outright and anti Semitic Jew or hate Jew,
has made it a real, real problem, not just for Trump,
but for American society, for Western society, because I have
not because the fact is it does dip its toe

(34:23):
in the rank is anti Semitism, But geopolitically, I also
think it's a little bit absurd. I mean, if Israel
has the whip hand over the American military and you
see all this stuff, now, oh, we've decided to merge
our military. Is that's not accurate either? Then Americans are
going to be justly afraid if they believe it. But

(34:45):
it's hyperbola, it's exaggeration, it's not born out, and it's
a propaganda tactic, and the propaganda tactic has been effective.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
Twenty seconds, Walter, where can everybody find you and follow
your stuff and support your work?

Speaker 3 (34:58):
Well?

Speaker 5 (34:58):
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 and 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,

(35:20):
I'm finishing up some big projects that I hope to
be everywhere next year.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
Walter Kern, the Great Walter Kern and County Highway Editor
at Large, novelist, thinker, extraordinary, 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

(35:47):
health insurance. And this is real stuff, Folks like You've
got to listen in With HM. You're not paying into
a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with
less overhead than the competition. You get real liable 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

(36:10):
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 healthcare budget, CHM
has four low cost programs for every stage of life,
starting at just one hundred and fifteen dollars a month, plus.
You can enroll or switch your program at any time.
See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith.

(36:33):
Start today by visiting Cchministries dot org. Slash Charlie and
use promo code Charlie for a fifty percent credit towards
your first month. That's shministries dot org, slash Charlie and
use promo code Charlie Man. I've been thinking about this
conversation for the last couple days because there's some a

(36:56):
lot of stuff going on with Butler Pennsylvania and the
attempt did assassination against President Trump that just, you know,
it 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 fitting, president of Judicial Watch,
and he's been foiaing like a like a crazy man,

(37:19):
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
forty eight pages out of like you know, hundreds of
thousands that are potentially out there. What's going on?

Speaker 3 (37:41):
Yeah, we've been asking for records of the FBI since
the shooting happened, and we've gotten stonewalled. We sued last year,
didn't get anything until just recently. And the FBI first
told us they had forty five thousand records, and then
and they said they had seventy five thousand records, but

(38:02):
they only give us a few hundred at most a month,
and most of those they withhold, So that forty eighth
from like three hundred, you know, so we put it
out there, and you know, what they gave us was
heavily predacted. 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

(38:25):
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 you, I shall
watch a liar. Crazy crazy response from the FBI and
Cash Betel disappointing and frankly, you know, a malicious, juvenile
post that Cash promoted. I'm just I'm still kind of

(38:49):
shocked by it. In the meantime, they're hiding seventy five
thousand 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 baron Trump administration.

Speaker 4 (39:00):
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.

(39:23):
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

(39:44):
to say that, Tom, I 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. 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 to this story,
it's so weird, Like why is it being shrouded in secrecy.

(40:06):
It makes absolutely no sense. And if they have to
redact us to keep up with statutes or laws or customs,
change those because the guy's dead and we deserve to
know what happened.

Speaker 3 (40:17):
Yeah, you would think given that President Trump was nearly
killed as a result of Biden administration of malfeasance and negligence,
to put it charitably, that'd 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

(40:38):
Service and the agencies support his security. And so we're
trying to figure out what went on to 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

(41:00):
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 times, like what's going on in California?

(41:21):
You know, we're suing in California to clean up the
voting roles. We've got a Supreme Court decision about to
come down that is likely going to stop counting the
counting of ballots that arrive late after election day. So
like big issues, and of course transparency about Butler it's
a big issue. Instead, we get this juvenile attack from

(41:43):
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 soon in federal court and we alert the public
to the lack of transparency.

Speaker 6 (42:05):
So, Tom, you've been filing suits like this for a
long time. You mentioned you're seeking disclosure on this. There's
seventy five thousand documents outstanding. Is there an explanation? What's
driving that level?

Speaker 4 (42:18):
Here?

Speaker 6 (42:18):
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 reactions and having

(42:40):
clearer explanations on the reasons. They can't really change what's
going on here.

Speaker 2 (42:46):
What does need to change?

Speaker 3 (42:47):
Well, the laws are already the law. I mean they
weren't following the law. This FBI, not the last FBI,
not raised FBI. But cash is 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,

(43:09):
be transparent. We know the records can be produced quickly
when there's political will. We saw that with the Epstein records.
They went through how many millions of pages? Seventy five
thousand pages? They should be able to release these? Too sweet?
And what are the reactions that need to be held?

Speaker 5 (43:28):
Have?

Speaker 3 (43:29):
I tell you everything should be released, no reactions. What
secrets are they withholding? You know, who's who are they
talking to? Whose identity needs to be protected? We're beyond that.
The president was almost killed, an innocent was killed that day,
and we want to know what went on. We have
right to the full information, but president does too.

Speaker 4 (43:52):
Yeah, and that's my concern. Tom. You know when you
see these sort of bureau bureaucratic you know, obstructionism, whatever
you want to call it, and then they go after
somebody like you, who's our friend, who's on the right
side of all of these issues, who's fighting to clean
up the voter rules, who's fighting for transparency, And yeah,

(44:13):
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 do you have a firm handle
or any confidence that President Trump has been given all
the details on this matter.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
I don't know. I mean, it's seventy five thousand pages.
I doubt there's been full disclosure even internally. I think
this is what I would do if I were a
cash Betel. 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. I should
collaborate on this because they're defending this lawlessness in court

(44:52):
right now in terms 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 Foyer.
We don't how to do foil lossuites. Just get all
the records out. Stop with the excuse making about the
need to do reactions and then attacking Judicial Watch when
we get it wrong because they hit crap from us.

(45:14):
I'm tired of it.

Speaker 4 (45:15):
Yeah, Tom, we have your back one hundred percent here.
I feel like the reaction was from the FBI was
not good and they should they should apologize because you you,
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,

(45:35):
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 if this
is not an easy place for me to be, but
I just want to I just want to say once more, Tom,

(45:55):
we have your back, and I just I appreciate all
the work you're doing to try and bring transparency, an
actual accountability communication from our federal Bureau of Investigation.

Speaker 3 (46:07):
Yeah, it's the work we do as a watch dog.
And I know, I think the President appreciates the work,
and I I think Cash generally appreciates the work his
noses at a joint for whatever reason on this particular issue.
You know, but he's got to stop calling us a
liar and have his people calling us a liar, because
you know, that type of language is dangerous language. You know,

(46:28):
it's escalatory, and you know these are dangerous times. And
when you have the FBI going around targeting people like
this with with 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. So they should back down.
They really should back down.

Speaker 4 (46:49):
And by the way, you guys did the honorable thing, Tom.
You changed your press release, you updated it. You said
you got it wrong, that it wasn't an officer that
was emailing with crooks, it was or some sort of
academic contact to his I want to quickly change our
focus here, Tom, because so much is going on in LA.

Speaker 6 (47:10):
Going on in California. Well, so we want to also
highlight the good work you do there. You have some
recent cases you've been suing to highlight California. You've 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

(47:31):
sending out a million ballots every single cycle, that shows
a lot of danger here.

Speaker 2 (47:36):
Can can you go into that?

Speaker 3 (47:38):
Yeah, So the issue is or is California taking reasonable
steps to clean up the roles? And we sued previously
California and LA agreed to as part of a settlement
remove Ultimately, they remove one point two million dirty names
from the roles, but the rest of the state is
a mess, and they're at least eight one hundred and

(47:59):
seventy three dirty names on the rolls, eight hundred and
seventy three thousand dirty names in the roles, some of
which are going back as long as ten years, and
they say they're quote inactive. Well, when you have the
process breakdown 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,

(48:22):
because if they have eight hundred thousand, they're telling us
about that are inactive and they know 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 tensusands, hundreds of thousands
who they just don't even check. So when they say

(48:45):
there's no evidence of impropriety, and that's the new media
ligne right, no evidence of impropriety in the California elections. No,
there is evidence of impropropriety. They aren't following federal law
to clean up the election roles. It's an indicator that
there are dirty names in the roles, likely receiving dirty ballots,

(49:06):
and that lawlessness is resulting in less confidence in the elections.
So the whole system is being compromised. This election is
compromised by the failure to keep the roles clean. On
top of it, we've got this litigation in California. The
underlying issue right now is before the Supreme Court. We

(49:27):
made the arguments 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.
I suspect they will. They won't be able to do

(49:48):
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. On
of it is.

Speaker 4 (50:01):
Well and Tom, we had Bill A. Saley on, first
Assistant US 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
read should vote as your ID. And look at this
crazy clip from Steve Hilton, who you know, by some

(50:23):
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. SAT. Twenty four.

Speaker 8 (50:34):
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

(50:57):
by hand, by hand, and it will be counted. That's
how insane this system is.

Speaker 6 (51:03):
I was double checking that myself. That's one hundred percent 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 postmark for that matter. That sounds like the
easiest thing in the world you could potentially scam.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
But yeah, you don't even need that. It's one hundred percent.

Speaker 6 (51:18):
You can look at it just says if the if
they have dated their ballot and it's before election day,
then it counts.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
I can't think of how that could go astray.

Speaker 6 (51:27):
When you have a month to count these things and
you have thousands of city employees and volunteers 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 important.
Count this stuff in a day. And they won't do
that either.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
No, they can't get it counted a day. They don't
want to do that. And in California they just passed
the law the leftist did and Nuisances been celebrating it.
He signed it into law. That makes it harder to
challenge this issue. So if you're if you're an observe
and you see the signatures aren't matching and you want
to raise an objection, you're prohibited from doing stuff. Well

(52:06):
that's how sensitive they are about protecting this unsecure, unsupervised voting.
I mean, you know, it places your vote at risks
to have all these mail in ballots out there, because
your honest vote can be negated by dishonest voting. And
I tell you, if if you're not voting in the

(52:29):
ballot place, in the voting set, in the voting precincts,
or the voting places, you can't be assured or no,
no sensible person can be assured that votes aren't being people,
voters aren't being threatened, coerced, or having their votes stolen
out from under their noses.

Speaker 4 (52:47):
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, 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 Fit

(53:09):
and Judicial Watch President Judicial Watch. They do great work.
Please support them. They are fantastic patriots.

Speaker 3 (53:14):
Thank you, Tom, Thank you guys.

Speaker 4 (53:18):
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 Colleges free online courses. These are
real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors. One of

(53:41):
those courses is Great Books one oh one Ancient to Medieval,
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 ode see the epic
stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West

(54:04):
for thousands of years. And this summer, Hillsdale College is
releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey
Great Books. One oh one 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

(54:26):
completely free, one hundred percent free, just by visiting Charlie
fo Hillsdale dot com. That's Charlie four Hillsdale dot com.
To start learning today, Charlie four Hillsdale dot com. Learn deeply,
think clearly, lead boldly, carry it forward with Hillsdale College.
I'm told Jasmine Crockett just went off on Charlie at

(54:49):
this SPLC hearing we're gonna get the clip and we're
gonna we're gonna 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 past your
Lady Graham. Okay, so if you're in South Carolina, you
know I get Lady Graham out of it.

Speaker 6 (55:07):
I'll even say there are other candidates if you really
want to vote for them, we just need to keep
them below fifty.

Speaker 4 (55:11):
Keep Graham below blow fifty. I believe head to head he's.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
Toast, So go vote keep it below fifty.

Speaker 4 (55:17):
That's right, Okay, those are our PSAs. Eric Metaxas, Welcome
to the Charlie Kirks Show. Welcome to the studio, my friend.

Speaker 9 (55:24):
It's great to be in the studio with you guys.
Thanks for having me here.

Speaker 4 (55:29):
I have no idea. Why.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
What's your favorite thing?

Speaker 6 (55:31):
Now that you're here and you can see the stuff
on the wall, we've got We've got, uh.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
Jonathan Edwards sinners in the hands of an angry guy.

Speaker 9 (55:37):
My favorite thing is there's a banner over there that
my team sent you guys, and you've displayed it. It's
USA two fifteen super centennial. 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 two fifty is super centennial.
I'm old enough to remember the by centennial and the
whole country was crazy. It's our bi centennial. We're sitting

(56:00):
celebrating our bi centennial. This year is just America two fifty.
It's like, no, no, we need to have a term. So
the term is super centennial. This year, this is our
super centennial year, and it's on the cover of my book,
which we are going to discuss starting.

Speaker 4 (56:14):
You're here now, okay, now this okay. So Eric sent
me this beautiful box right here, and it had that
that banner in it.

Speaker 9 (56:24):
It was filled with processed luncheon meats.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
Beautiful. Yeah.

Speaker 9 (56:27):
It was a bag of cheat.

Speaker 4 (56:28):
Cheese and a juice box. 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.

Speaker 9 (56:42):
You never have. It's really hard.

Speaker 4 (56:43):
I think you're getting better. I mean everybody knows Bonhaffer,
they know Letter to the American Church. I mean you've
written a lot. Oh yeah, and you're 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.

Speaker 9 (57:06):
So I'll tell you something, Andrew, and listen. And I'm
not blowing 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.

(57:28):
It was really it was notable that It's almost like
I've achieved something over 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,

(57:48):
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 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 were you know, I'm sort of interested. No, no, no,

(58:10):
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 seventeen sixty three, the end of the
French and Indian War, which leads the revolution, all the

(58:33):
stories of revolution and the heroes, the people, the stories. Honestly,
it used to be.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
It's amazing classic story.

Speaker 6 (58:40):
You just think of if you go back to the
eighteen hundreds, Americans knew all these classic figures.

Speaker 9 (58:46):
You don't need to go back to eighteen hundreds, you
could go back to nineteen sixty. I've said this and
I know this. If you stick a microphone anybody's face
mainstream America nineteen sixty, every single person, every American knew
everything that's in this book. Nathan Hale. You mentioned Nathan Hale.
There's a chapter in here in Nathan Hille one of
the great heroes of American history. We should know everything

(59:07):
about him, what an inspiration, and what he profound Christian
I mean, amazing, brilliant Yelle 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.

Speaker 6 (59:23):
It's so neat to know it because obviously we care
about America's actual religion with Christianity, but you need the
country needs to have it secular religion as well, which.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
Is its secular heroes.

Speaker 6 (59:33):
You've especially because we're this diverse country, you actually need
everyone to think but George Washington rocks.

Speaker 9 (59:39):
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,
what's your You're writing a book on the revolution, what's
your angle? I said, I had no angle. I'm just
going to write a story that's in one volume, because
you know, you could read thirty books, ten books. I

(01:00:00):
just want one volume. It's everything is right here, this
is what you need to know. So I have no angle,
which is gonna tell the story. It's gonna be fun.
You know, when I did the research, everywhere I looked,
I was astonished, over and over and over. This is
a Christian story. Every player in it is a Christian
who you could maybe say Franklin and Jefferson are ify

(01:00:22):
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 that tells revolution without 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 any blood bath.

(01:00:45):
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, it fails. Our revolution is
the only revolution in the history of the world where
people said, okay, we want to govern ourselves. They actually

(01:01:05):
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.

Speaker 4 (01:01:26):
Because we used to assume it and understand it right.
It was an assumed truth, correct, and then it got
challenged by a bunch of wokies, 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 total civic myths. Totally,

(01:01:49):
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 wokies, and then we need to figure out, oh,
it's actually something we need to be able to defend,
and so then we have to gear up and tool
up and defend them. But I really want to make
the point here. Yes, you sort of reveal this through

(01:02:11):
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 back,
mob violence comes to Boston. John Adams Wax is prophetic,
the Stamp Act takes effect, the stamp app is repealed,
the townsen acts Liberty affair on the road to bloodshed.
I mean, this is the actual history, and it's so readable.

Speaker 6 (01:02:33):
And it's it's so insane. They tear it down because
they're really such a blessed country. Like if you're if
you're a modern French person, the French Revolution is the
founding event of your modern country. And it is a
bloodbath that goes horrible and they basically genocide and just
total us. We're so blessed that our founding events, a
revolution which could have gone really awry.

Speaker 2 (01:02:52):
Ends amazingly.

Speaker 6 (01:02:53):
We end up with this prosperous constitutional republic.

Speaker 4 (01:02:57):
But you don't ask why.

Speaker 9 (01:02:58):
And that's the 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 in a book. I didn't know this. I
only knew I want to write a readable story of
what happened two and fifty years ago, in time for
the two and fiftieth super centennial. That's my goal. In
the course of doing a ton of research, this evidence

(01:03:20):
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, we're going to get out from
under Pharaoh, and we're going to look directly to God,

(01:03:41):
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 it's not avoidable.

Speaker 4 (01:04:02):
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
the Second, which gave rise to King George the Third, right,
and there was a fascinating reference to Sir Thomas.

Speaker 9 (01:04:17):
Crapper, Sir Thomas Crapper where we.

Speaker 4 (01:04:20):
Get the colorful expression for a bm for you know
which is which is? Which is just fun?

Speaker 9 (01:04:26):
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.

Speaker 5 (01:04:32):
There's no way.

Speaker 4 (01:04:33):
It's a beautiful book. It's so well done. And I'm
very proud of my friend 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. And I know
because listen, go buy the book, just get it. But
I know that Amazon they printed out tens of thousands

(01:04:53):
of these things that are already sold out. It's it's
sound like hotcakes. So get yours today, do not wait,
it will get to you.

Speaker 9 (01:05:00):
Somebody said that Books a Million has copies, because I
think Amazon is saying like we're 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

(01:05:22):
don't care if you steal it. You got to know
America's you got to know. We can steal it from
you know, your brother, from your brother.

Speaker 4 (01:05:30):
But you can see.

Speaker 9 (01:05:31):
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

(01:05:51):
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

(01:06:12):
say he's a radical Muslim. It's the dumbest thing. These
were men, They were Christians.

Speaker 4 (01:06:18):
You've given the country a great gift here, Eric, Honestly,
thank you for this. I gotta we gotta light up,
Jasmine Crockett, let's do it, SBLC 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 thirty six.

Speaker 10 (01:06:39):
I know some of y'all, are you know capin for
Charlie Kirk because I hadn't heard y'all talk about.

Speaker 4 (01:06:46):
His organization over and over and over.

Speaker 10 (01:06:48):
So I'm not gonna play with anybody who's gonna play
with my time. So I'm going directly to Miss McCord.
If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy,
I hope he's qualified. Does that sound like hater or not?

Speaker 3 (01:07:02):
That sounds like a racial stereotype.

Speaker 10 (01:07:04):
Okay, sounds good to me. We made a huge mistake
when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid
nineteen sixties.

Speaker 4 (01:07:13):
It sounds like someone who still adheres to racist views.

Speaker 10 (01:07:17):
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 fearless leader of Turning Point USA, So I could
see where SPLC was going.

Speaker 6 (01:07:36):
All right, I'm an ugly woman, and also I will
just know it's funny she's reading out with SPLC. Charlie
never Charlie never funded a clan cross burning, whereas the
SPLC has.

Speaker 4 (01:07:46):
Yeah, multiple times, paid millions of dollars to KKK members. Okay,
jas MC 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
Sea CEO of United was going to mandate racial quotas
and gender quotas on the new pilot class, taking it

(01:08:07):
from about eighty five to fifteen percent eighty five straight
white men or white men in general, to fifteen percent minorities,
and going to mandate that the new pilot class was
fifty to fifty Honest questions, are there enough black pilots
to make fifty percent? Are there enough minority pilots to
make up fifty percent of the new pilot class? Other
honest questions, are you can you guarantee that the safety

(01:08:28):
standards will continue to be met at eighty five fifteen,
going to fifty to fifty lots of honest questions if
you were going to force racial quotas into the system.
Every time that happens, quality's paid standards drop. You see
this in medical schools, you see this in policing. This
is a joke. So Charlie responding to us, says, I
don't do this now, but if you're going to enforce it,

(01:08:49):
I'm gonna say, hey, I hope he's qualified, because guess
what that is a actual logical and rational reaction.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
To charlielieved in equality.

Speaker 6 (01:08:56):
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.

Speaker 2 (01:09:10):
With good pilots.

Speaker 4 (01:09:10):
Yeah, let's go to the Civil Rights Act. Comment Civil
Rights Act, Eric, did you know that the Supreme Court
had agreed with Charlie Kirk because they just gutted the
VRA Right. Okay, so the Voting Rights Acts saw up
something different, but it's same era, and Charlie was sort
of making that comment about all of that. It created
racial gerrymanderd lines. Guess what else the Civil Rights Act
has been used to do. Civil Rights Act has been

(01:09:32):
used to reinforce trans dudes, dudes that think they're women
to go into women's locker room. Those laws have embastardized
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 amor.

Speaker 6 (01:09:54):
Did the opposite of what people thought it was going
to do, which is they wanted to abolish discrimination instead
of manned it's discrimination. 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 and university admissions
and hiring and government contracts. All of these things are

(01:10:15):
downstream of that. And Charlie said, no, America's principle is equality,
equality under the law for individuals.

Speaker 4 (01:10:21):
Well, and then they go after 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 and and I just couldn't get over the
fact that she goes to the SBOC rep and she goes, well,
that seems like racial animus, and that seems like biquetry,
and that No, it's called common sense. We don't want

(01:10:43):
people that are subject subjugating other people, taxing them, creating
streets named after Islamic conquerors.

Speaker 9 (01:10:52):
It's worse than that. They're they're beating their they're beating
their wives. They are beating their wives. And there's 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 prime problem.

Speaker 4 (01:11:13):
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.

Speaker 9 (01:11:25):
My taxis God bless you. Thanks for having me.

Speaker 4 (01:11:30):
Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you
about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been
hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now.
We are all in with these guys. If you or
someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt,
take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're
behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You

(01:11:50):
don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refy
will provide you a custom payment based on your ability
to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save
you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.
We go to campuses all over America and we see
student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.
Many of them don't even know how much they owe.

(01:12:12):
Y ref I can help. Just go to y refi
dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com.
And remember, y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your
friend Andrews said you.

Speaker 9 (01:12:30):
For more on many of these stories and news you
can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com,