All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 28, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
36:13
How Joe Biden Just Helped Make Putin Dictator for Life
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Biden's Regime Change Gaffe 00:15:09
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk show, Biden gaffes his way into a potential nuclear war and strengthening Putin's power grab in Russia.
Also, we are joined by Seth Dillon, CEO of Babylon B.
We are both in Twitter jail together.
We're cellmates, actually.
And we go through our ban from Twitter and so much more.
You guys can email us your thoughts.
As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you'd like to subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, take out your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show by hitting subscribe in the upper right-hand corner, that beautiful plus sign.
If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com and go to our young women's leadership summit, tpusa.com/slash ywls, or our student action summit in July, tpusa.com/slash SAS, or our tour.
In just a couple hours, I will be in Arkansas, then Auburn, and the rest of the country will be blitzing.
tpusa.com slash tour.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
While you were probably having an enjoyable weekend, you might have missed the fact that Joe Biden might have communicated one of the most clear and one of the actually anything but clear, one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of the last 30 to 40 years.
Joe Biden went to Europe and he went to hopefully try to unite the NATO countries and to try to bring forth some form of peace.
But instead, Biden did the exact opposite.
You see, here's a good rule of thumb.
If the United States government was serious about anything, they should just not have Biden talk.
Okay, he's president.
They implemented him.
Massive shenanigans, massive cutting of corners in the 2020 election.
We've gone into all of that, and you guys can listen to our conversation with Dinesh D'Souza to go more into that.
Okay, he's president.
That doesn't mean he has to talk.
Biden being president is one thing.
Actually, giving him a microphone is a completely different thing.
Who's the handler for Joe Biden exactly?
Is it Ron Clain?
Is it Jen Psaki?
Probably not.
Valerie Jarrett, whoever's doing the handling of Joe Biden, they need to make sure that he no longer is able to speak publicly because he did exactly what Putin would want him to do this weekend.
So Joe Biden went to Europe.
He went to Europe and gave a series of speeches.
And there was one 15-second portion of his speech that has gone completely not just viral.
It is now policy.
Now, we've talked a lot about the dangers of regime change.
We've talked about a lot on this program how when the United States is involved in regime change, more times than not, there are issues, power vacuums that follow, then there is actual stability.
That when you remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, for example, you get slave markets, you get civil war, you get a fracturing of a country.
Now, no one in their right mind was a fan of Muammar Gaddafi.
Gaddafi was a thug, just like Putin.
But Qaddafi had the country under control.
But now Libya is effectively an Islamic slave state.
It's worse than it ever has been.
You see, Libya is a great example for the playground that is the United States State Department.
Hillary Clinton even bragged about her involvement in Libya.
She thought it was a wonderful accomplishment.
Iran is largely run by evil theocratic tyrants because of the United States involving ourselves in the displacement of Mossagh Day and the implementation of the Shah, which then led to the Islamic Revolution to remove the Shah because the Iranian people felt as if Western influence was coming into their country.
And the Iranian example is a really good one.
The Iranian example is because when the West involves themselves in foreign policy, when the West involves themselves in other countries' affairs, you better do it right.
And you must be very careful because any misstep will be used as a rallying cry and a call for a consolidation of power domestically from other tyrants.
So let's listen to what Joe Biden said this last weekend in the last couple of hours that is setting the world ablaze.
Play cut one.
We will have a different future, a brighter future rooted in democracy and principles, hope and light, of decency and dignity, of freedom and possibilities.
For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power.
You could tell that was unscripted.
You could tell that he was not exactly following his speech.
So he's calling for regime change.
He's calling for Putin to be removed.
Now, what's the significance of this?
Well, Putin couldn't have asked for a better equation.
Putin could not have asked for a better one-liner.
That has now been cut and put all over domestic Russian propaganda television, where he says, see, the West wants to do us exactly what they did to Qaddafi.
You see, the West wants to do us what they try to do to Assad.
You see, the West wants to do us exactly what they did to Hussein.
You see, the West wants to do us exactly what they did to Iran.
You see, the West wants to do.
You get the point.
Let's go to cut three, Hudson Institute's Rebecca Heinrichs on Joe Biden's trip to Europe.
Play cut three.
Unfortunately, the message is confused, which is why President Biden, I think, kind of worked himself up in this speech, and then he made a comment that he did.
This isn't his only gaffe.
President Biden also made the gaffe about sending the 82nd airborne into Ukraine, which we're not doing.
And he also said that the United States would respond in kind if there was a chemical weapons attack on the part of Russia.
So this really was, it was not a good, I think, trip for the president because the three big gaffes really are at cross purposes with the overall message from this administration.
Instead of trying to actually broker peace, Joe Biden is actually getting us closer to war.
His inability to say a coherent sentence is now a national security issue.
So we make fun of his ever-increasing dementia.
We make fun of it.
We make fun of his mental acuity slipping.
But now his lack of mental clarity is an existential threat to the safety of the United States.
Let's go to cut six.
The White House was in full recovery mode.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken walks back Biden's comments in Warsaw that Putin, quote, cannot remain in power.
Play cut six.
With regard to the President's incredibly powerful speech yesterday, I think the President, the White House, made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else.
As you know, and as you've heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else for that matter.
Well, they do.
And they've had a strategy or regime change for the last 50 years.
Central America, South America, Southeast Asia.
The United States can't help itself but meddle in the domestic affairs.
Now, I'm not defending these regimes.
The question is, should you change them?
And what happens when you do change them?
When you do change them, you create an inexplicable vacuum and sometimes a vacuum that cannot be filled by normal or otherwise stable forces.
So Biden went to Europe and Putin became more powerful.
Let me say that again.
The biggest threat to Vladimir Putin's regime and his reign is not the West.
Right now, what keeps Vladimir Putin up at night when Putin is sitting in his bunker with his sinister advisors?
Do you know what Putin is focused on more than anything else?
It's not even how Ukraine is going.
He's focused about that.
He's focused on whether or not he is going to have a revolution in Russia.
That's what he's worried about.
He's worried about a domestic backlash with the currency, the ruble, completely deteriorating.
You see, Putin is worried that oligarchs and people will time up together and mobilize forcefully against Putin's reign.
So now Putin is able to say, see, the one thing we can all agree on, oligarchs, peasants in the St. Petersburg area or the eastern part of Siberia, the one thing we can all agree is that we don't want the West to tell us how to live our life.
So what did Joe Biden do?
Joe Biden just sent a power wire transfer directly to Putin.
Joe Biden just made Vladimir Putin dictator for life.
That clip right there from the mouth of Joe Biden is more than just saying we're going to sanction Russia, that we're going to oppose them.
No, no, instead, it's he's got to be removed.
Biden went to Europe and Putin became more powerful.
Look, everybody, I know you love freedom and you want to defend it.
And I know you love the Constitution.
It's a beautiful document, and so do I.
And it's the same with Hillsdale College, the best liberal arts college in America.
Hillsdale's mission is pursuing truth and defending liberty.
It gives its undergraduate and graduate students the best education and is working to make this education available to all, from offering free online courses to helping support K through 12 schools.
But today I want to tell you about Hillsdale's amazing free monthly digest of liberty.
It's called Imprimus.
Over 6 million households and businesses receive Imprimus for free each month.
And you can join them by subscribing right now at charlie4hillsdale.com.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
There's no strings attached while you're there.
Take an online course.
Take their Aristotle course.
Take their Winston Churchill course.
Take their Western Theology course.
Generous donors who love freedom make it possible for Hillsdale to send you Imprimus for free.
Imprimus is one of my favorite publications.
And Imprimus means in the first place.
It's short, smart, useful, and fun.
Start receiving your own free copy of this great digestive liberty and take an online course while you're at it.
Enroll.
Their Great American Story course is incredible.
Visit charlie4hillsdale.com.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
Check it out right now, charlieforhillsdale.com.
So if we were serious about actually brokering peace, we wouldn't have this joke of a president going to Europe and saying that we need to have a regime change.
Now the entire administration is in complete fallout mode there.
Of course, this is a backtrack from what Jen Psaki said in Cut 11.
But first, here's a montage of congressmen and people on television ripping Biden's speech.
Play cut five.
By saying that, that regime change is our strategy effectively, it plays into the hands of the Russian propagandists and plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin.
It strengthens Putin at home, makes it difficult for any domestic opposition to coalesce together.
I wouldn't use those terms because I continue to speak to President Putin.
Because what do we want to do collectively?
We want to stop the war that Russia launched in Ukraine without waging war and without escalation.
Well, this will escalate it.
And now Vladimir Putin is able to tell the oligarchs and the people that he fears the most: you see, the West is trying to destabilize me.
The West is trying to take me out.
And now we need to stand together.
You might not like me.
You might not agree with the invasion of Ukraine, but we all agree that the West is the enemy.
You see, what Joe Biden doesn't understand, and this is the problem because people say, well, Charlie, we can't go after his mental decline.
Well, yeah, when you give him a microphone and he goes to Europe, then all of a sudden his mental decline becomes an international security issue.
So that one 13-second clip, that singular sentence where he says, look, we just need to get rid of him.
He's got to go.
He's just got to go.
It's a big deal.
Outwardly calling for the regime change of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, especially one that is invading another country that you allegedly want to support.
So if you actually want the sanctions to work, if you actually want this kind of stranglehold on Russia to be effective, you would say the opposite, actually.
You would say the opposite.
You would say, look, Putin, he's kind of a joke.
Putin's actually not that strong of a person.
We'll see what the people end up deciding.
That would have been incredibly destabilizing of Vladimir Putin.
It would have been destabilizing if Biden would have underplayed Putin.
Do you see the way that they're able to communicate that is say, we in the Putin regime are such a threat to the West that they have to make a special trip to Europe and call for our displacement, especially after the track record of Western influence that has happened in the last couple of years.
And so, but this is a complete contradiction, of course, to what Jen Psaki said back on March 4th, where she said, look, we're not going to tell anyone that they have to be removed from power.
Regime change is not a policy of this administration.
Play cut 11.
Senator Lindsey Graham said last night that someone ought to assassinate President Putin.
Does the White House have any take on that statement?
Is it helpful at this point?
That is not the position of the United States government, and certainly not a statement you'd hear come from the mouth of anybody working in this administration.
No, we are not advocating for killing the leader of a foreign country or regime change.
That is not the policy of the United States.
For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power.
It certainly is the policy now of this administration, and the consequences of this are severe.
The consequences are you're making Vladimir Putin dictator for life.
Now, are we pursuing a policy of Russian roulette with Russia?
Funding The Left With Phones 00:03:30
I want you to think about that.
This is not prudent foreign policy.
You might as well just be rolling the dice and gambling as we are dealing with the Russian Federation.
So the question is this: did the Biden blunder increase or didn't decrease the odds of Vladimir Putin using nuclear weapons?
And remember, Joe Biden did not stutter when he does that.
Usually he does with gaps.
This is something that he deeply believes.
Joe Biden would love nothing more than to try to execute a CIA operation against Vladimir Putin.
Was this top secret talks that slipped out of an undisciplined mind?
Is this something that he didn't mean to say or something that he said that he didn't mean?
Those are two different things.
So did he say something wrong?
Like, oh man, that was a mistake.
Or is it a mistake that he said it?
I would argue that most likely it's something that he believes that he didn't mean to say.
What does that mean for the United States government?
What does that mean for our current policy towards the Russian Federation?
I don't think peace is coming anytime soon, unfortunately.
Look, stop giving money to companies that hate you.
I know I say it a lot, but it's pretty simple and it's important.
Your cell phone bill is probably funding the left.
They're probably funding pro-abortion groups.
They're probably funding LGBT groups.
Your cell phone bill, whether you know it or not, are going to woke companies that hate you.
The political class is obsessed with supporting anything that's outside of America.
And businesses, they're not in our team anymore.
So I went on a search.
I was so sick and tired.
At Turning Point USA, we're spending thousands of dollars a month on our cell phones.
And so I asked the question, who in a cell phone space actually shares my values?
So I went on a search and I found Glenn Story, a friend of mine who runs Patriot Mobile.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative cell phone provider.
So I found them and I asked them all the tough questions and then I used their service.
I realized they offer broad nationwide coverage and they use the same towers that carriers.
But more than anything else, Glenn Story and Patriot Mobile, they sponsor all of our Turning Point USA events.
They're not afraid to get into the trenches.
So I know that when I pay for my cell phone service at Patriot Mobile, it's not going to BLM.
It's not going to the Gay Pledge of Allegiance with Chast and Buddha Judge.
It's not going to the Atheist Alliance of America.
No.
It's going to groups like Turning Point, groups like the March for Life.
So Patriot Mobile has plans to fit any budget.
And their American-based customer support team provides exceptional customer service.
Most importantly, Patriot Mobile, they share your values.
Organizations fighting for religious freedom, constitutional rights, and sanctity of life.
So make the switch today.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
Get a free activation with the offer code Charlie.
They also have special discounts for our veteran and first responder heroes, and they are heroes.
So vote with your dollars.
Stop paying the left with your cell phone bill.
Right now, I bet you are looking at your cell phone bill.
You're looking at your credit card statement.
You might pay your cell phone bill with your credit card statement.
Maybe it's $80.
Maybe it's $150.
You might as well scratch out the company and just fill in B L M. If that makes you queasy, it should.
So do something about it.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
Join the movement.
Stop using the bad guys.
PatriotMobile.com slash Charlie.
Twitter Censorship And Free Speech 00:09:27
One of the most popular websites on the planet is Babylon Be.
I just love reading from their website.
If you aren't familiar with BabylonB.com, you should be.
It is a satire website.
You're supposed to laugh.
The left hates comedy because comedy is rooted in truth, saying things that you know are true that you might not have thought of that are right in front of you.
And so Babylon Bee tweeted out something about Ricardo Levine, who is the four-star admiral in the Navy that Joe Biden appointed.
They got suspended from Twitter.
We tweeted something similar.
We got suspended from Twitter, and we're both not deleting.
So with us right now is Seth Dylan, who is the mastermind behind the Babylon B. Seth, welcome back to the program.
Hey, thanks for having me back, Charlie.
Good to be here.
So Seth, you're not deleting.
We're not deleting.
What's hilarious is we actually didn't talk.
We kind of came to that conclusion independently.
So walk us through kind of why you won't bend the knee to Twitter, and I'm sure I'll agree.
Yeah, we decided that we weren't going to, I mean, that's exactly how we saw it.
We saw it as bending the knee.
I'm sure you did too.
And that's why we came to this conclusion independently and didn't have to like coordinate the effort.
I mean, it's one of these situations where they're not just saying, you know, you violated our terms.
So we're going to delete the tweet for you.
They're saying you need to delete it.
And when you delete it, you're attesting to the fact that you acknowledged that you engaged in hateful conduct.
And we're just sitting here like, come on.
I mean, you can't ask that of us.
You can't ask us to admit that we engage in hateful conduct.
Of course, we dispute that we did.
For one thing, our post was a joke, right?
It's a satirical parody of a real world story that happened where Rachel Levine was named woman of the year by USA Today.
So we're cracking a joke about that.
But on the other hand, like you said, you know, comedy is rooted in the truth.
And this particular joke is rooted in the truth that a biological male person is a man.
And so that's the truth.
That's the basis behind the joke.
And we're certainly not going to say that two and two make five here so that we can get back in Twitter's good graces.
So I'm sure you agree with us that that's a good reason to, as good a reason as any to take a stand.
So it says violating our rules against hateful conduct.
You may not promote violence against, threaten, harass other people, other or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Funny, I get harassed of those things all the time on Twitter.
And people don't get banned, but whatever.
But we got accused of dead naming.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with this or not, Seth.
Dead naming is using the name that someone had on their birth certificate, like Cassius Clay before he became Muhammad Ali.
We should have just said Ricardo Levine, not Richard Levine.
But talk more broadly here, Seth, about how important it is that we don't just give Twitter what they want.
So I don't have access to my Twitter account.
You don't have access to your Twitter account at the Babylon Bee.
Those are big platforms.
Tucker doesn't either.
So this is a growing thing.
Do you think Twitter's going to respond to our appeals or are we just never going to get back on Twitter?
We may never get back on Twitter, but my comment on that is then so be it.
I mean, I think you want me to comment on the importance of this or like what or why, you know, why this is why this is necessary, why we feel this is like a hill to die on.
I mean, if we can, if everybody just simply rolls over and does whatever Twitter wants and engages in this kind of like reality denial where we all have to use the language they want us to use, affirm the things they want us to affirm, refuse to deny things that we wish to deny, then we're just handing them power that they shouldn't have over us.
We're giving them more power than they should have over us.
And so I think that Twitter will face, if they eventually get to the point where they're asking people to say and believe or not say what they believe, things that are just so outrageous and outlandish and insane that people in large numbers finally say, you know, no, we're not going along with this.
We're not deleting our tweets.
We're not going to abide by your rules.
Twitter is going to ban themselves into irrelevance at some point.
But unless and until somebody takes a stand, a bold stand, somebody with a following that's got some influence, people aren't going to be emboldened to follow suit.
And I think that once you get one person that stands up, another might feel a little emboldened to do it.
And then another and then another.
And the next thing you know, you've got a mass of people who are standing in defense of truth and reason and goodness and freedom.
And maybe that'll happen.
I don't know.
That wasn't what we were originally planning on like trying to lead that charge.
We were just simply standing on principle and saying the right thing to do is not delete this tweet.
Yeah.
And it's interesting.
So Dan Bongino tweeted out my tweet as well, and he hasn't been banned.
So Twitter is, in some ways, they don't want to escalate this further.
They don't want to draw more attention to it.
It seems as if they are fine with you and I not being on Twitter, fine with Tucker, but are they really willing to purge the entire conservative movement?
That's a question, right?
And so there's now rumblings that someone you know that has come on your podcast, the world's wealthiest man, Elon Musk, very well might be starting his own social media site.
What are you hearing with this?
I think it's a possibility.
I mean, he did tweet about it.
So he's like, he's gone on the record saying that he's that he's exploring this very seriously, this idea of potentially either, well, I mean, what he was, the specific question that he was dealing with in his Twitter poll was, is Twitter committed to free speech?
And he was telling people, you know, the results of this poll are going to have important consequences.
So I'm going to act on the basis of the results of this poll.
And 70% of people said, no, Twitter is not dedicated to free speech.
They don't value that.
And so, you know, he's now asking, well, what should be done about it?
Is a new platform necessary?
I think, you know, Musk is a man of action.
He likes to solve problems and he has resources like nobody's ever had to go after and solve problems.
And he's a pretty smart guy.
So, you know, I don't think he doesn't just go to the public with stuff like this lightly.
I'm sure there's things that he's like toyed with the idea of doing something and then didn't do it.
I think he even thought about making a candy company at one point and then didn't end up going forward with that.
But, you know, he's, I think, I think speech, he's called himself a free speech absolutist, which I love.
And if it really matters to him that much and he feels it's that important for the health of our society, of our democracy that we have free expression, then who knows?
He may take action here and try to do something.
I just have questions about, you know, how effective these alternative platforms can be.
So yeah, what would that potentially, I mean, Elon could buy Twitter based on the market cap right now.
I mean, it would probably be the share price would skyrocket, right?
But I suppose, I mean, there's Truth Social coming out.
There's Parlor.
There's Getter.
Is there a need for kind of a less outwardly conservative social media site?
And would Elon potentially lead that?
Well, I mean, if it's a free speech social media platform, it's a conservative platform.
What do leftists hate more than free speech?
I mean, what do they love more than censorship?
You know, it's like, it's right up there with talking to little kids about sex and gender.
It's one of their favorite things, right?
So I mean, misinformation and hate speech, they want to clamp down on those so aggressively.
And of course, you know, their definition of misinformation and hate speech is just like opinions that they don't like.
It's people that they don't like for the most part.
Obviously, you know, there's unlawful and terrible speech that moderation is sometimes warranted for.
But the left really loves censorship.
They really love censorship of views that they disagree with because they consider words that they disagree with to be violence and they have to do away with that.
So even if Musk were to do something that was more like politically central or neutral and that wasn't like a conservative haven or pitched that way to the public, he would still have this problem of he's pursuing a free speech platform.
And leftists aren't going to leave Twitter in droves for a free speech platform when they want heavy-handed censorship.
So in my mind, you know, there is some sensibility, I think, to the possibility of Trump taking over Twitter.
If that's even, is it feasible?
I don't know.
I don't know anything about that kind of stuff deals at that level for a public company like that.
But if he were to do that, then they might stay on the platform because they have no alternative.
They have nowhere else to go.
Where else are they going to go?
They would have to go start their own censorship-heavy platform, and they would have to decide whether they wanted to flee.
They'd be in the position that conservatives are in now, being on a platform that doesn't want them there.
Leftists would be on a platform that they don't want any part in, and they would have to decide do they want to leave it and to create a new one.
So I don't know, man.
I don't know if an alternative is ever really going to get off the ground and chip away at the market share of these major companies that have tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of daily active users and function as the public square of the modern age.
Just talk about the success your website is having, BabylonB.com.
Can Alternatives Challenge Big Tech 00:08:05
I mean, it's hard to kind of distinguish some of the headlines from reality, which I think is why, you know, it's so successful.
For example, Are You a Woman? 12 Signs to Look For, BabylonBee.com.
Some of those are good, by the way.
If you read through that, it's pretty funny.
It's hilarious.
No, I mean, I could read some of them on here.
Or it says, Leah Thomas, confused as to why teammates keep asking her to open pickle jars.
I mean, it's so on the edge that you could circulate these to your friends and they have to do kind of a double glance.
Like, that could be true.
I mean, in a world where satire is so closely blended with reality, so talk.
I mean, your website, I mean, your entire news media kind of empire is exploding.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the success, this idea that, you know, these, this, these headlines are so believable.
I mean, that's true, but I think that's, I think that this is a point I often make is that's that's definitely an indictment of reality, right?
Reality is too close to satire, not the other way around.
And when we make a joke about CNN praising the Taliban for responsibly wearing masks, the reason that that goes viral and that so many people share it and so many people think it's funny is because that's it's it's great commentary on CNN and their bias.
It's because of their track record that that joke lands and that it and that it's really funny.
But it's believable also because of their track record.
And that's why, you know, sometimes there's some confusion and our stories have to get fact-checked and rated false before you buy into this dangerous misinformation.
But yeah, we've seen a tremendous amount of success because I think one of the reasons, honestly, why I feel like we're being so successful right now is because we're doing something that a lot of comedians today aren't willing to do.
Instead of promoting the popular narrative, we're poking holes in it.
And that's what comedians are supposed to do.
You're supposed to poke holes in it.
You're supposed to subject these things to scrutiny and ridicule.
Say, are we okay with this stuff?
Are we okay with these ideas?
Are we okay with these policies?
Are these people hypocrites that are pushing this stuff on us?
You know, the comedian is supposed to examine that stuff and challenge that stuff and do it in a lighthearted way, in a fun way, but that exposes and points to the truth.
And a lot of comedians are just interested in promoting the popular narrative instead of poking holes in it.
So comedians who are willing to challenge the narrative are going to get a huge audience because that's what real comedy does.
So if we're doing that effectively, that's the reason that we're growing.
It's terrific.
Well, this one, What is a Woman? 12 Signs to Look For is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
BabylonB.com.
Yeah, read a couple of those.
It's a good article.
Yeah.
Are you always cold?
Do you, as a human being, ever popped out of you?
Do you have two X chromosomes?
And others that I'm sure would offend many listeners in our audience because they're like, that's not true.
Well, it kind of is.
Let's play cut 13 here of the CEO of Twitter, Parag Agarwal, during a 2020 speech saying, quote, our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment.
Then I want your reaction, Seth.
Play cut 13.
Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation.
And our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.
The kinds of things that we do to work about this is to focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.
One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet.
Most people can speak.
Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.
Seth, your reaction, if you can understand that.
Who can be heard?
They're going to decide who can be heard.
You know, Twitter has held themselves out there.
Even if even if they're, you can read their hateful conduct policy.
I'm going to read like a little brief section of this real quick, right above where we supposedly you and I violated this policy.
It says that Twitter's mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers.
Free expression is a human right.
We believe that everyone has a voice and the right to use it.
Our role is to serve the public conversation, which requires representation of a diverse range of perspectives.
That sounds like a ringing tribute to free expression right there.
I mean, it sounds like they're all about free speech.
But then when you actually dig down into their terms of service, you know, they have these policies that are based on like an ideology, a very progressive ideology that most people don't even agree with.
The majority of Americans don't agree with it, but it's baked into the terms of service.
So you have to agree with it in order to use the platform.
So on the one hand, they're saying, you know, what they're giving with one hand, they're taking away with the other and saying that this is a free speech place.
We want everyone to express their ideas and be free to express their ideas.
But then with the other hand, they take that away and say, oh, but your ideas have to line up with our extremely radical progressive ideology.
Are you cool with that?
So are you optimistic that this is going to kind of help red pill a bunch of people?
Like the work you're doing, kind of, I mean, I have a term that I use, which is called like the Rogan voter, right?
The Joe Rogan voter, they're not a radical.
They're politically independent.
You know, they might be more libertarian, which I'm not, but whatever, you know, but they definitely don't like petty authoritarianism.
They don't like inconsistencies.
They don't like people getting clamped down for humor.
You know the type of demographic I'm talking about.
That's 15 to 20 million people strong who otherwise would have been reliable Democrats.
You can call them kind of the Rogan swing voter.
I can't imagine this sort of pattern of behavior makes them more likely to become leftists.
I don't think so.
I mean, they're pretty fired up about it too.
You know, I know people like Rogan are supportive of us, both of us for taking a stand and not backing down.
You know, they're not necessarily, these are not necessarily conservatives, but yeah, they value freedom and they don't like to see people's freedom being trampled on.
And I think that's an that's that's an important thing to unify around.
You know, if we can't agree on everything as conservatives, well, at least if we're unifying around freedom, then we have the right to disagree with each other on those other things.
And so, you know, I'm happy to lock hands or walk in lockstep with people who value freedom like that.
I'm honored to share a Twitter jail cell with you.
I think it's very noble of you and very brave of you to be taking a stand on this.
I mean, look, you and I both stand to gain a lot by being on Twitter.
We have large platforms on there.
We reach a tremendous amount of people.
We're connected to a bunch of people.
We're in the conversation when we're on that platform.
If we refuse to delete the tweet and get back on there, we're really giving something up.
I don't know that people really realize how much you give up when you have a voice in a platform like that and you sideline.
I mean, it's the reason that I'm connected to Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and all these people, you know, is because of Twitter.
And so, you know, to sideline yourself from that is a big thing.
And in this whole conversation, I'd be very interested in hearing your perspective on like, what is the answer to this?
What is it?
Is it legislation?
Does Congress fix this problem?
How do we fix this problem?
Yes, we should have broke up these companies a long time ago.
We should have had, I think, you know, much more robust free speech protections for any sort of company that has 50 to 100 million plus users.
I mean, that's not the same free speech protections for like a local bowling club, right?
Or a local florist.
I mean, you are now the essential public square.
And anyone who rejects that, I think has no prudence at all whatsoever in how to approach policy.
And then finally, we have to create our own competitors.
And that's what Truth Social is trying to do.
And Elon could just totally change the game.
But BabylonB.com, Seth, thank you so much.
And jail's not too bad with you, I have to say.
So, because more, we don't have to go to real jail.
That's where they want us.
All right.
Thank you so much.
That's next.
Appreciate it.
Hope not.
Thank you so much for listening.
Everybody, email us your thoughts.
As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection