All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 30, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
36:27
Charlie's Tragic "I Told You So" with Matt Peterson
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Action Over Commentary 00:11:51
Hey, everybody.
Today in the Charlie Kirk show, Matt Peterson joins us to talk about the scary trend of Trump allies being indicted.
I asked the question about: should you support a candidate if they receive support from a Democrat organization running ads on their behalf?
That and so much more.
Email me your thoughts as always: freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com/slash support and get involved with TurningPointUSA at tpusa.com.
Sort of high school chapter, sort of college chapter today at tpusa.com.
Turning point USA is on the front lines of the American Culture War.
So check it out, tpusa.com.
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 AndrewandTodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
With us right now is a great American Patriot, co-founder and general partner of New Founding, and also the president of American Firebrand Super PAC and friend of the show, Matt Peterson.
Matt, welcome back to the program.
Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie.
So, Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here, but first, I want to play a piece of tape here from Justice Alito's speech.
I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary because that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered.
You're not allowed to do that.
And I want to play Cut 94 here.
And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter, you know, than not.
However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism.
Play Cut 94.
Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law.
One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.
Matt, kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Samuel Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court.
They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist.
What do they mean by that, Matt?
Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear.
They think both of those words are bad.
And if you put them together, it's two bad things.
And that's one big bad thing.
And it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like, you know, handmaid's tale, an enforced Christian religion.
They think it's racist, too.
Somehow, they seem to only regard whites as Christians.
It's interesting.
But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it.
And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad.
And when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.
Yes, exactly.
And so the Washington Post says, where Justice Alito and Representative Green overlap on religious liberty.
Now, Justice Alito is different than some of the other justices on the court.
He's an originalist.
However, he's pushed back against some of the other rulings that maybe Gorsuch has had, especially on immigration or Kavanaugh on some of the others.
What is it about kind of Clarence Thomas and Alito and some of those members of the court that stand differently than some of the more traditional Republican justices?
Well, I think they don't hide behind an originalism that's too scared to rule on what the Constitution means.
So, you know, there's a strain of originalism that I call it technocratic, that wants to shy away from really correcting 50 years of egregious liberal error when it comes to the Constitution.
And perhaps no case illustrates this better than Roe v. Wade.
You don't have to be on the right or left to realize that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, nothing about a right to privacy.
All of this was introduced out of whole cloth a long time ago, and it's a terrible decision.
It's just terrible logic.
And even if you wanted to get to that result, you could write a better decision.
So I think that what you see in the more bold justices is the idea that no, we will correct these errors.
We will return that decision back to the states.
Or, you know, some of them would go even further.
But I guess to boil it down, they're willing to make those judgments and they're not hiding behind a kind of proceduralism or they're not hiding behind this idea that, oh, well, we have to be very careful prudentially and respect precedent, even if the precedent is laughable and unconstitutional.
So, Matt, another thing I want to reinforce for our audience, though, George W. Bush originally wanted to put Harriet Myers on the court.
And it wasn't until conservatives said, no, we've had enough.
We want a real constitutionalist.
It's a story of also the power of the people, which segues to a question I want to ask you about, Matt.
I want to spend some time on.
And this is a piece from the MSNBC.
It looks, quote, Merrick Garland is acting like an attorney general is supposed to act as they're investigating Donald Trump, potentially going to indict Trump, going after many Trump allies.
What is your take on this outright, naked and public weaponization of government against political opponents?
Look, Americans have to wake up and realize that what's happening here is extremely serious.
And, you know, I don't see how you get back to normal anytime within our lifetimes.
I mean, what you're doing by criminalizing dissent, by criminalizing the other side, by using the power of government against the other side, is you're starting a cycle in which both sides are going to have to do the same thing in order to keep up with each other, in order to stay afloat, in order to stay alive.
And this is a desire for a one-party state.
And what you have to think is, if you were responsible, a responsible political leader, even if you were on the left, you would realize that by criminalizing dissent, by trying to criminally prosecute your political opponents, you are, this is the height of irresponsibility.
You are going to throw the country into a divide, a debate, a conflict that escalates.
And I have to say, I don't know how some of these people aren't very smart, but some of them are smart enough to realize what they're doing.
They are purposely doing what they accuse the other side of.
They are escalating political conflict in the United States in a way that's extremely unhealthy and that frankly, most Americans never dreamed would happen here.
It's happening here now.
Yes.
And I mean, it's so then, I guess the operative question then is, Matt, how do we stop it?
How do you stop the federal government going after political opponents?
Well, yeah, that's a good question.
I mean, I think the first thing that needs to happen is Republicans need to be screaming about this and doing everything they can, if they have political power, to leverage that power against it.
So this is why taking over Congress is important.
These people should be investigated, and anyone running for president should be directly talking about how, giving us a plan, how they're going to radically clean out. these agencies and these departments.
Because if they don't do that, this is only going to continue.
So A, it's awareness.
Tell people what's going on, identify it as the radical threat to our system that it is, and then provide that plan of what you would do when you take office, no matter what your political position is.
There's a lot of ways to get at it, but we need to hear political leaders with a plan who are directly addressing it and saying, when I get in there, I'm going to get rid of X, Y, and Z. I'm going to clean out the stables, and this is how I'm going to do it.
There's many paths potentially, but it starts with awareness and then it starts with people talking about specific plans.
And Matt, what frustrates me, and we'll talk about it after the break, is that some of the old guard in the Republican Party still acts as if we're dealing with a Democrat Party that is in good faith and good intentions.
They're literally imprisoning their opponents, Matt.
I mean, this is as serious as it gets.
This is the descent into a third world oligarchy.
There is no other way to put it.
Now, some people said, well, we should go imprison all of them.
I'm like, well, I mean, what does that even mean?
How do you do that?
Is that the proper course of action?
I mean, I said the other day on the show that state attorney generals, as just as a show of force, should all consolidate criminal investigations in a Hunter Biden.
I'm sure he's broken plenty of laws in your states, Red States.
He seemed to party in Arkansas plenty.
And I said that somewhat jokingly, but I also said they have to think that there is a counterbalance against them, right?
They can't be the only ones that put political, meaning they have to feel as if there is a cost to this.
I don't know what that is.
I'm just thinking out loud.
But currently, there is no check.
There is no balance because they control the entire criminal justice institution.
Look, there's a must-see movie you got to check out at salemnow.com called Michelle Obama 2024, Her Real Life Story and Her Plan for Power.
Film director Joel Gilbert, I know Joel, great American, takes a deep dive into the life of Michelle Obama from Chicago to Princeton to Martha's Vineyard.
He says Michelle Obama will run for president in 2024 and base her candidacy on a life story that is more racially divisive and nearly as fictitious as that of her husband, Barack Hussein.
Check out the stunning new movie on Salem Now, Michelle Obama 2024.
Michelle is following the same formula as Barack to become president, a best-selling autobiography, the keynote convention speaker, and a voter registration organization.
First, Barack and now Michelle want to transform America.
Michelle Obama 2024, now playing at SalemNow.com.
This new movie has stunning, game-changing revelations about Michelle Obama's past.
The film director says only the truth can stop her.
Michelle Obama 2024, watch the movie on demand or buy the DVD on salemnow.com.
So Matt, I would just want to get into some details here, though, because people feel so helpless.
They're willing to lock up their political opponents.
How do we then respond just from a state level, a local level, if at all?
Or do we just talk about it and hope it gets better?
No, no, the time for op-eds only as a response has ended.
This is not an academic matter anymore.
This is not a matter of commentating and talking.
This is now a matter of action.
And let me say first that I do think that a taste of their own medicine in a just and equitable way, as they would say, is absolutely what's required.
Holding Leaders Accountable 00:03:42
So let me give you some examples.
First off, you know, I'm thinking you walk in as president, say, let's stop at start at the top.
You declare Black Lives Matter and Antifa domestic terrorist organizations, and you say, we're going to look back at 2020, and we are going to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute anyone who supported violent crime throughout the entire country.
And that includes politicians who gave them aid.
That includes private corporations that gave money to these terrorist groups.
That includes large foundations who are funding illegal activity effectively.
We're going to have to investigate that and we're going to have to look at their communications, the communications between these violent insurrectionists, right?
These violent rioters and their organizations and the politicians and foundations who supported them.
That to me is completely legitimate as a move.
And that would send a signal that you're not going to get away with this.
We are going to come after you and we are going to make you pay because you did violate the law.
And we can investigate your foundations and your universities.
What universities supported the riots?
What universities are teaching violence and justifying violence and insurrection throughout the country against the United States of America?
Well, lots of them.
And therefore, we will remove funding after we do a thorough investigation of what these universities are teaching.
Charlie, this is just an example of the kind of thing that could be done at the state and federal level.
Why is it Republicans are unwilling or reluctant to do that, Matt?
Well, I think you have what I would call a leadership class or a number of people who've been in office for a long time who really haven't had their feet held to the fire.
And let's be honest, especially in red states, right, where the Republicans are in charge and have been in charge for a long time, they haven't had to do much, right?
And we don't have the luxury for that anymore.
So both nationally and at the state level, we need to find leaders who actually understand where the base is, where the people is.
People are in front of their leaders right now.
And that takes a while to catch up.
And the only way that we're going to have people who really represent the people and protect the Republican base is if the Republican base pushes for new and better leadership.
And I will say that you have to model this locally.
It doesn't matter if you live in a state where you think everything's kind of fine.
If you poke around, it's usually not fine.
And so you need to join the growing numbers of people who are doing something in their own communities.
You know, city council, school boards.
This is not a joke anymore.
This is very important.
But especially, you can't just accept the garbage leadership that you've often had.
You have to, we have to press as a group and say, we demand leaders who will represent us and take the fight to the enemy and protect us from increasingly the criminalization of dissent.
Yes, that's exactly right.
And so many Republicans are just, well, it's going to go away.
They're going to stop coming after us.
They have no idea what they're dealing with.
They have no idea.
I just think deep down at a fundamental level, they might be able to admit to it, but they're just the eat me last Republicans.
Please just eat me last.
Just go after all the other people, not me.
The Democrats openly campaign like Letitia James when she ran for office in Attorney General of New York in putting political opponents in prison.
She ran for office saying, I'm going to lock Donald Trump up.
I'm paraphrasing, right?
But that was the essence of it.
Matt, 30 seconds.
Tell everyone about your organization.
Oh, thank you.
So New Founding is a venture organization that's building what we need in media, tech, and finance.
Fighting Woke Capitalism 00:02:51
And I would encourage people to check out Align.
It's a free newsletter.
It's going to become a lot more soon that will just connect you to businesses, products, and services from people who don't hate you.
So, if you go to joinalign.us, it's an easy, free way to start to make alternative choices in what you buy.
Because what we have to do, Charlie, as you well know, is take billions of dollars out from under woke capital and start rewarding any business that just refuses to go woke and that is worried about helping their fellow Americans and bringing back supply chains here.
That's exactly that's well said.
Matt Peterson, thank you so much for joining us.
Great as always.
Thank you, Charlie.
Hey, everybody.
This common sense is brought to you by the folks at secondvote.com, amazing people who are fighting back against woke corporations.
Subscribe now at secondvote.com, promo code Charlie.
Good afternoon.
I'm Rebecca Hatfield, president of Second Vote.
We've had uniquely American common sense since 1776, but now we're in the age of common nonsense.
Today's common nonsense comes from the left's radical agenda.
Inflation has reached a 40-year high, and we're headed into a recession.
If you have common sense, the causes are obvious: extreme environmental policies, massive government spending, and woke fund managers.
The left has spent years trying to kill domestic fuel production, and now energy prices are skyrocketing.
But instead of talking to American energy companies, Joe Biden is in Saudi Arabia begging Middle Eastern dictators to increase supply.
When the far left and woke corporations push extremist environmental policies, they have serious consequences.
According to research from the Heritage Foundation, American families have lost $6,800 per year due to inflation, and we'll all feel that.
When government gets bigger, our paycheck gets smaller.
And inflation is the inevitable result of massive government spending.
But inflation doesn't just affect the dollars you spend, it also affects the dollars you invest by destroying the purchasing power of your dollar.
The Wall Street Journal recently exposed how so-called ESG funds cost between five and 15 times as much as other funds, but perform worse.
This is why secondvote.com scores hundreds of companies on whether they support the leftist extreme environmental agenda.
For 10 years, Second Vote has been looking out for conservative consumers helping you to shop your values.
I'm Rebecca Hatfield reminding you that your first vote is at the ballot box, but your second vote is with your wallet.
Make sure you go to secondvote.com and subscribe now using promo code Charlie for just $40 for a whole year.
That's secondvote.com, promo code Charlie.
I want to highlight for you here what I consider to be a legitimate conundrum, and I want your help with this.
Voting With Your Wallet 00:12:07
What do you do if there is a candidate that you like that is receiving support in a primary from Democrats?
If you kind of look below the surface, this is a major story that is happening all across the country.
Since Democrats are so flush with cash, since Democrats have more money than they know what to do with, Democrats are now playing outwardly and publicly in Republican primaries.
And I'll be very honest, this is not as easy as you might think.
So on the surface, your initial reaction is probably similar to mine, that I wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that receives support from the Democrat Party, but it's actually more complicated than that.
So for example, in Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano received major support from the Democrat Party.
Now, Doug Mastriano is no fan of Democrats.
In fact, Doug Mastriano was the Trump endorsed candidate.
And Doug Mastriano is a fabulous person.
So why is it that Democrats are weighing in on Republican primaries, spending huge money when they are candidates that are totally diametrically opposed to their values?
Well, the way that they look at it is they want to pick their candidate that they think that they can beat in the general.
And these are not small amounts of money.
This is happening in congressional races.
It's happening in governor's races.
It's happening in Senate races.
Claire McCaskill, who lost to the wonderful Josh Hawley in Missouri, said, quote, this type of intervention has to be done very carefully.
She's told NPR last month.
In 2012, Claire McCaskill's reelection campaign, you might remember, spent $1.7 million on ads against Todd Aiken, who then Todd Aiken had one of the worst gaffes in the history of modern Republican politics, who said something he should not have said, something of the sense of if something around rape, it was awful.
I'll think about it.
Accidental rape or something was awful.
It was terrible.
It shouldn't have been said.
And that lost him the Senate race in Missouri.
So this is a question I'd love to hear from you, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Are you still planning or would you still vote for someone in a primary that receives money from the Democrat Party?
Now, I might say, Charlie, give me some examples.
Okay, I will.
So for example, there is a raging primary happening right now in western Michigan.
The snake, the serpent, Peter Meyer, who's no good, a total rhino, is running in Michigan, and he's the congressman.
He is being primaried by John Gibbs.
John Gibbs is a phenomenal black patriot.
He's terrific.
We had him on this program, endorsed by Turning Point Action, by the way.
But you know who now is now coming in with a massive ad buy to support John Gibbs?
The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.
Why?
Because they think John Gibbs will be easier to beat in a general election than Peter Meyer.
So the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee is coming in and said Gibbs, who has basisly questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election, was, quote, handpicked by Trump to run for Congress, adding that Gibbs is too conservative for Western Michigan.
And this is a serious quandary for me.
And I'd love your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If the Democrats come in to support a candidate, how does that make you feel about your choice?
I'll be honest, it makes me, I'm torn.
If the Democrats so badly want a certain candidate and they're willing to put their money there.
Now, the counter argument that I think is rather compelling is that be careful what you wish for, Democrats, which I think is a good argument.
For example, back in the Florida governor's race, back in 2018, it was a two-way race between Congressman Ron DeSantis and I believe Agricultural Commissioner Adam Putnam.
Adam Putnam, nice man, but far more establishment than Ron DeSantis.
If the Democrats would have been doing the same thing they're doing now, they would have easily said, Ron DeSantis picked by Trump because they thought he would have been easier to defeat in a Republican, in a general election.
And Ron DeSantis squeezed by, squeaked by, and is now America's greatest governor.
What I'm getting at here, though, is something that I think we should all be aware of, which is when you make decisions in these primaries, you got to ask yourself the question, why would Democrats want that person to run?
Now, Democrats, I think, are making a mistake here.
Democrats, I think, are missing the target because I think they believe that some of these more conservative candidates are destined to automatically lose in a general election.
So I'll give you an example.
So in Western Michigan, this ad is running, paid for by Democrats in support of a Republican trying to gin up support for him.
Listen carefully, play cut 98.
John Gibbs is too conservative for West Michigan.
Handpicked by Trump to run for Congress, Gibbs called Trump the greatest president and worked in Trump's administration with Ben Carson.
Gibbs has promised to push that same conservative agenda in Congress.
A hard line against immigrants at the border and so-called patriotic education in our schools.
The Gibbs-Trump agenda is too conservative for West Michigan.
DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Now, that's not an attack ad.
How many, I mean, showing pictures of him with Trump, too conservative, wants to strike down an immigration.
Now, they're doing that to try to boost John Gibbs.
Now, it comes at a massive risk.
And some of you might believe, and I want your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com, let the Democrats spend money on our candidates.
By all means, make the Republican Party more conservative.
Now, this is actually coming under huge backlash in Democrat circles.
It's very controversial.
TheGuardian.com reports Democrats split by boost bid to boost election denier in Michigan Republican primary.
And so it's not very clear-cut.
I can see it both ways.
Some of us might think, like, hey, if they want to come in and support the people that we like, more power to them.
Be careful what you wish for.
You're going to regret it.
All the while, doesn't that feel a little dirty to go receive Democrat support for a certain candidate?
But I think the operative way to answer the question is why?
Why are Democrats doing this?
They're doing this because these are actually the candidates that they fear the most.
In a bizarre and ironic way, they're deploying resources to support the people that if they actually end up winning, could actually end up having the greatest amount of impact.
Why would they run ads for John Gibbs?
Because Peter Meyer is not a threat to them.
Is that Peter Meyer is actually an ally?
That they aren't that worried about Peter Meyer.
Peter Meyer squeaks by like whatever.
But they think that John Gibbs would be easier to beat in a general election.
I want your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
And we're getting a lot of emails on this.
Raymond says this, Charlie, if your competitor is making mistakes, do not interrupt them.
That's really wise.
It goes both ways, though, because we also don't want to lose in the general election either.
Now, I'm under the belief that you got to nominate the most conservative candidate that can win.
Know the district, know the state, and generally, almost always as a rule of thumb, if the media says they're too conservative, that means they're probably right over the mark of what you actually should have.
But this is not just happening in one area.
This is happening also in California.
It's happened in Colorado.
It happened in Maryland.
It happened, as I mentioned, in Pennsylvania.
Democrats, the new Democrat strategy right now is to deploy resources early against candidates that they think are easier to beat.
Look, every election in some sense is a base election in a post-Trump era in most districts.
And I believe, after consideration and looking at all of this, I think Democrats are going to deeply regret the deployment of valuable resources in these primaries that will only elevate the more conservative grassroots candidate.
I think that their metrics are all wrong here.
Our base is animated.
We have the momentum.
I think the Democrats are making a massive and catastrophic mistake.
And I'm not going to be one to stop them here.
But albeit, it does make me feel a little bit, there's some murkiness to it when you see Democrats start running ads for Republicans.
It should make you pause.
Like, wait a second, that doesn't make any sense.
The Democrats think the more moderate candidate is harder to beat.
That's not always true.
If your base stays home, then you can lose very, very winnable races.
This is happening all across the country.
I want your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
If you found out a massive Democrat group is coming to support your preferred candidate, does that impact your choice?
Or does it reaffirm that they actually might be the biggest threat because they think it would be easier to beat in a general?
There are many examples of Republican establishment candidates that have lost over the last couple of years because the base stayed at home.
Martha McSally would be an example twice in Arizona, two winnable races.
We're blessed to live in the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world.
Luke 12, 48 says, quote, to whom much has been given, much will be required.
We as Christians can shape our world.
One of these ways is how we steward our finances and our money.
If you have money and stocks, you have the power to affect change through your investments.
Jesus spoke about money in roughly 15% of his teachings and 11 out of 39 of his parables.
How do we follow his teachings about money?
Well, my friends at PAX Financial can help.
I've opened an account with them.
I think very highly of them.
They are fiduciaries that will make sure you have a responsible plan to retire.
I trust them with my money, and I hope you will as well.
But look, they will also help you invest in companies that align with your beliefs.
No companies that engage in pornography or in excessive drinking or in a degenerate lifestyle.
If you have $150,000 to invest, please text my name, Charlie, to the number 74868.
And even if you don't have $150,000, maybe they'll make an exception for you.
I don't know.
But just learn more about them.
Look, text Charlie to 74868.
Take advantage of the power to make a difference with your money.
PAX Financial.
It was great for me.
I think it will be terrific for you.
You've got a lot of interesting response here.
Roger says, hey, Charlie, thanks for all you do.
If people don't do their homework, don't let it affect your decision making.
It's simple.
Roger, Trump supporter.
Reed says, I don't care if Democrats win, same as a rhino anyway.
Vote for the good guy every time.
Don't vote for party rhinos with Democrats.
Same as Democrats while they're here.
They count on people voting party over logic.
Colleen says, I've often thought of registering as a Democrat to vote in their primaries for the same reason.
Western Michigan is very conservative.
It's often considered part of the Bible Belt.
That's right.
A lot of good Dutch folks out there.
I love Western Michigan.
Holland, Michigan is great.
The Ukraine Reality Check 00:05:52
It's literally called Holland for a reason.
Got a lot of immigrants from the Netherlands.
Got to love the Dutch.
Fabulous people.
I have a lot of friends that live out there.
Greg says, Charlie, I see it this way.
It doesn't impact my choice.
It just proves to me that there is a uniparty.
Think of it this way.
The DNC and RNC prefer the establishment candidate over America First.
I'm overfalling for the argument that conservatives can't win.
I prefer to watch Democrats destroy the world, then continue to be stabbed in the back by Republicans, helping them do so.
I want your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
I don't love doing the I told you so segments, but there is definitely, and tragically and unfortunately, the need to just kind of give a little bit of an update of something I find to be morally reprehensible and also something that is just kind of getting swept under the rug.
We came out early, first and foremost.
We are very clear on moral terms that Vladimir Putin is a thug.
You can call him a war criminal.
You can say all these different things.
He should not have invaded Ukraine.
Invading a sovereign country is not defendable, period.
Especially a stronger country invading a smaller, weaker country.
However, we've been very clear on this program that Western intervention into Ukraine through funding and arms and weapons is a big mistake.
There are several thought crimes that could be said about Ukraine.
We had this conversation with Senator Kramer, very respectful, but it was a disagreement.
And Senator Scott from Florida, very respectful, but a disagreement.
That eastern Ukraine should have had its own elections, of which the people in eastern Ukraine are ethnically Russian.
They speak Russian, and this entire conflict could have been avoided.
Many senators will say, well, Charlie, we can't allow Russia to border NATO.
They're already bordering NATO.
There is a sliver of land called Kalingrad Oblast, of which there's a million people and a military base that already borders Poland.
It's its own island of a nation, you could say.
It borders Lithuania and Poland, and that completely destroys the argument that Russia can't border a NATO country.
They're already bordering a NATO country.
The entire Western fascination with helping the corrupt Ukrainian government, in our personal opinion, has always been unclear of what success looks like, has turned into a massive funding trough, all the while having sympathy and having support for the Ukrainian people.
This recent development that we have seen shows the following: that despite $56 billion being spent by the American government to Ukraine, of which we questioned on this show, and we were one of the only shows to do so, alongside Tucker Carlson and a couple others, has showed the following: the ruble is soaring, and Putin is stronger than ever.
Our sanctions have backfired.
Simon Jenkins wrote rights for the Guardian.com.
The more money we have put into Ukraine, Russia is richer than ever before.
Putin is more popular than ever before.
Putin is stronger domestically than ever before.
And there is more suffering in Ukraine than ever before.
The tragic suffering and the plight of the Ukrainian people.
War is not something to joke around with.
Yet, Western forces, led by America, we've been pouring money into Ukraine and seemingly indifferent about the civilian suffering, saying we just have to keep going till we defeat Russia.
Newsflash, the only way you defeat Russia is if we put 400,000 American ground troops in Ukraine and be willing to put up to 4 million, potentially getting into a nuclear war, and then maybe we could push them back to a border, of which is artificially drawn as is.
Is that a cost that you want to be able to endure?
The lack of prudence and wisdom when it has come to this situation is maddening.
But I want to tell you what really frustrated me.
I saw this Vogue magazine cover.
The front page of Vogue, Olena Zelenska, Vladimir Zelensky, and Olena Zelenska, while Ukrainian citizens are being massacred, they are refugees.
They cannot find food.
They can't find water.
The tragedy of war continues.
Zelensky finds time to go pose with the hair perfectly done and the perfect lighting for not the Wall Street Journal or not the New York Times, no, but for Vogue, which is a fashion magazine.
While the people of Ukraine have become refugees, our money is funding a photo shoot in Kyiv.
And there's this picture of the first lady surrounded by what could only be called their bags.
They're sandbags.
Thank you.
They're sandbags.
And she has her hands crossed.
This is nothing short of a propaganda photo campaign.
And for every single Ukrainian citizen that has suffered, this is an open and public middle finger to all of you.
The Zelenskys are able to do a photo shoot glamorizing their struggle.
The people of Ukraine continue to falter.
What is it about these photo shoots that are so necessary?
Fauci does it, Zelensky does it.
And it's also a throbbing middle finger to America that is funding this entire thing.
We don't even know what's happened to the weapons.
What we do know, though, is Zelensky has the time to pose with his wife, not in a regular news magazine, but in a fashion magazine.
That should fire you up.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection