All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 15, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
36:03
The Surprising Advantage of a Narrow GOP Majority with Mark Meadows and Gabriel Finochio
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Winning By More Or Less 00:14:31
Hey, everybody.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Mark Meadows joins us.
He says something that has really made people confused.
Do we want to win by less or win by more?
Mark Meadows probes this.
I do my best to explain it, but then we have Matt Gates coming on the program later in the week to really build out this argument.
And then Gabriel Finocchio talks about how wokeism has infected the American church.
If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA and our phenomenal work that we are doing on high school and college campuses across America, go to tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
At Turning Point USA, we are leading the charge to educate the next generation about America, the Declaration, the Constitution, freedom, liberty, and pushing back against the radical left.
That is tpusa.com.
And if you want to support Turning Point USA and get my latest book, go to tpusa.com slash book.
That is tpusa.com slash book.
Buckle up, everybody, here.
We go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
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.
Welcome, everybody.
Email is freedom at charliekirk.com.
Emails are flooding in, and you agree that this is one of the most bizarre legislative announcements we've ever seen.
And I say this as 100% pro-life, unapologetically pro-life, wanting to end abortion completely and totally, except for the exception of the life of the mother and other medical extenuating circumstances.
But why we're introducing a federal bill 55 days out from an election while it just got kicked down to the states would do nothing more than excite the Democrat base.
That's all it does.
It's not about abortion.
You don't have the votes to even introduce this into committee.
And you do this at the most fragile political moment when MAGA candidates need the most help.
And I say this again, I just want to reemphasize the pro-life credentials because people are going to email us otherwise if I don't do this.
If this election is just about abortion, we are not going to have a red wave.
It could be partially about life.
It could be about many other things.
But we need a broad-based coalition.
I said this before.
The country is not nearly as pro-life as I wish it was.
We're going to work on that.
We're going to have cultural deals, educational.
We're going to push forward.
We're going to have to convince people, but we have 55 days.
You think we're going to convince people on the issue of abortion in 55 days?
27 days out from ballots.
Feels like a MAGA sabotage campaign is what it feels like.
Joining us right now is one of the smartest people in the Make America Great Again movement, Mark Meadows, great American patriot.
Mark, welcome back to the program.
It's great to be back with you, Charlie.
And, you know, it's interesting.
You have this unbelievable podcast.
People are streaming it.
They're listening to you.
But I can remember a Charlie Kirk that actually did the homework sitting in the back row of an oversight committee many years ago when I was serving in Congress.
You were fighting the fight back then.
So thank you for staying in the fight.
And we need to win not only this November, but we have to really bring the authentic solutions that you were fighting for back then front, home, and center today.
And I'm glad to join you.
Thank you.
I remember that committee.
It was all about government overreach and federal bureaucracies that were out of control.
And when I had spare time, I used to just kind of go sit in these committee meetings and you just learn a lot.
So, actually, I want to start with that, Mark.
One of the things that I think Republicans need to pledge to their voters is starting in January, if we take power, is a church and pike committee equivalent to oversee the abuse of the IRS, especially and federal law enforcement.
I mean, you served in Congress.
You know how this works.
Talk about what it's like to retake a majority from the Democrats and how we need to act with urgency, but also focus on things that matter because we might have some bandwidth issues.
We might not be able to take on every issue.
Do you agree that IRS oversight and government overreach is something that this new Republican Congress, if we win back, which I think we will, is something we should focus on?
Well, I do think we'll win it back.
It is not only what we have to focus on, but we have to focus on it in the first 100 days, Charlie.
Here's the interesting thing: you don't have a honeymoon period when you take over in the midterm.
And many of the members of Congress that have been serving over the last few years, they've never been in the majority.
And so what all of a sudden happens is the committee staffs change.
You go from having one-third the committee size to having two-thirds of the budget for committee staff.
And so sometimes what happens is a Democrat staffer just takes off their hat and puts on a Republican hat.
We don't need to be doing that.
What we are doing, I know some of the work we're doing is trying to provide good staffers there.
But here's the, you mentioned one other key point, a church commission kind of approach to oversight.
Russ Vote's working on some of those outlines already.
We're trying to make sure that the members of Congress have the tools together, but they need two things.
They need the tools, but the other thing is they need the courage.
If they think they're going to come to Washington, D.C., and the swamp is all of a sudden going to drain by itself.
It's never happened before.
Even Donald Trump, when he was working hard to drain the swamp, as you and I both know, what was happening is he was getting pushback within the administration.
They will see that.
We're electing some great people.
I think it will be a number of people coming in with, I don't know that I see a huge red wave, but I certainly see a red majority.
And what people want are members that are committed to their constituents back home.
I think, Charlie, you would agree with me.
We don't want them committed to you or me or anything else.
We want them committed to the American people.
And if they'll represent their district instead of special interests here in Washington, D.C., it'll go well.
I think that's right.
And also, it's exciting the work you're doing at the Conservative Partnership Institute with Jim DeMint.
I'm very hopeful because I think there's now an infrastructure, and Russ Vote is doing this, that will be able to help shepherd this new Congress to make the appropriate decisions, especially when it comes to oversight.
We got Jim Jordan, who obviously is one of your closest friends, who I think is going to be probably one of the most important people in the country coming up in the next couple of years.
But can you talk about Pelosi started this January 6th committee and the way it was founded was awful and terrible.
But do you think it's a good idea, Mark, to start a special committee on, let's say, IRS oversight, not just have it be part of oversight, but actually start its own chartered committee to publish a report that doesn't happen very often, right?
That happened, I think, with Major League Baseball, maybe after 9-11, JFK assassination.
Do you think that's a good idea to have a spin-off committee to have oversight of these federal bureaucracies?
Without a doubt.
And I think if the leadership and the Republican side of the House, assuming that they take over, are willing to spend the kind of dollars, they could spend a fraction of what's been spent on the January 6th committee and actually make a real impact.
But if they're laser focused on the IRS, you know, listen, anybody who sees that they've just passed this and they're going to hire 87,000 new IRS agents.
Listen, it's not about just going after the wealthy.
It's going after the people that are tuned in right now.
That's exactly.
And candidly, every single aspect of your life will start to be under a microscope.
And so I think it's time that we turn the microscope on these agencies and say that you're accountable to the American people and having a committee that does exactly that.
Listen, for every Jim Jordan, we have a number of members who are not.
And I'm saying that nicely without calling out any names, but I could give you a list of names.
But here's the thing that we need.
We need 10 more Jim Jordans out there.
We need people who are laser focused on a particular thing.
Instead of everything defaulting back and saying, well, let Jim Jordan take the lead.
Hopefully we can grow a group of members of Congress who are willing to do that.
I know I met with a few members earlier today, actually, where I was saying, you got to be ready for the majority.
It's going to switch immediately and you can't wait until January 3rd.
You need to be on November 9th, planning out exactly what you're doing and hit the ground running the minute you're sworn in.
No, I think that's really smart.
And I like Byron Donald's from Florida.
I think he's great.
I think we have a new leadership class that is coming in.
But the Uniparty, Mark, as you know, they're not going to want to disrupt too much.
I do think, though, that IRS oversight might be a good place of agreement with leadership.
I don't even, do you agree that that might be a good place?
I mean, there's other topics they don't want to talk on, but maybe that's a place where we could start.
One minute and then we have a break.
Yeah, for sure.
They could start there.
They could do it.
I think that whoever the speaker may be would follow in and be able to put together a team there.
But really, it's about giving them the resources and the ability to actually do real oversight.
We can't have these fake committees that actually supposedly are going to look into it and just put forth a report.
It's got to be real.
And hopefully we'll see that.
And I think we can work with leadership on that.
Yeah.
The church and pike committees were bold.
They were bipartisan.
I don't think we're going to get bipartisan right now, but they had a huge impact on revealing some very treacherous practices and behavior by federal intelligence and federal law enforcement, COINTELPRO, all sorts of different types of Operation Mockingbird.
We know there's treacherous behavior happening at the IRS.
We get emails here, Mark, of conservatives, private emails.
The audits have already begun.
The IRS is on March.
Oh, sure.
They're doing their big blitz creek.
And so this is something that they have to realize, the weaponization of the IRS against normal, everyday people, 87,000 new IRS agents.
That's the entire Oklahoma sooner stadium of new IRS agents.
Mark, tell our audience again about the book you wrote so how people can support you.
You know, it's the Chiefs chief and would love for anybody who wants to get a view of what happened in the White House during the Trump administration and really some of the finer points of Donald Trump and how he was able to accomplish so much.
Would love for them to do that.
But the more important thing than going out and getting that, Charlie, I want to come back to one other thing.
If they're tuned in right now, when Congress, when we take over, and I say we, when the conservatives take over Congress this fall, the House in particular, they need to be tuned into you listening because we don't have a honeymoon time.
And the minute that they get sworn in, they need to be lighting up the switchboards and saying, We demand action right now, whether it's a church commission oversight type of format for the IRS or anything else.
It is time to get to work.
We don't have time to waste.
We can have a Jordan committee.
It will go down in history of a one-year investigation, comprehensive, and you could pick three agencies, right?
You could pick FBI.
Obviously, there's plenty there.
You could pick IRS, and then you could pick maybe just DOJ more broadly.
And then you issue a report, and then you go through interviews.
You do subpoenas.
You put these people on defense the same way that they've run this January 6th committee in this public spectacle.
We have a right to know what's going on here.
Now, Mark, I want the most realistic answer possible because I've been telling our audience, once things get passed, it's hard to reverse it.
But is it realistic to say that we could get rid of these 87,000 new IRS agents?
Because they haven't technically been hired yet, right?
It's just the money that's been appropriated.
Can we get rid of this?
Yeah, we really can.
And I think it's going to be up to conservatives in the House to really be firm in this.
Listen, just a couple of days ago, Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and Senator Scott talked about doing a continuing resolution that actually didn't come due right before Christmas and actually came due when the new Congress is sworn in.
That's the first step that we have to do: make sure that we don't fund the government with a whole lot of lame duck votes right before Christmas that gets out.
But the other is we can hold it up and basically say, here, IRS, we want the money to come to you, but perhaps it's to get rid of your old legacy computer system so that you work it more smartly and not hire a whole lot of big 87,000 and just build to the bureaucracy.
So the answer is yes, and we can do it, but we have to show courage.
Yeah, this is a really important point.
Yeah, because so what Mark is talking about here is that the current strategy in D.C. is punt till after the elections of any consequential vote.
And then as we know, there's that lame duck period because Congress doesn't get sworn into what, January 3rd or 4th or 5th or whatever it is.
That's correct.
And so then there will be this window of time from November 9th to January 3rd, which will be a feeding frenzy.
I mean, they will pass the worst stuff you could imagine because there will be no election to check and balance them for a couple years.
So what Lee and Cruz are doing, and they have the clairvoyance to see it, is like, hey, we have to make sure that we still have a constitutional check and balance because if you think Pelosi's dangerous now, wait till she has 60 days where she knows she's not going to be speaker anymore.
It will be the last days of a falling regime.
Okay, Mark, I want to ask you, though, about something.
The Power of a Small Majority 00:05:17
Is it better in the interest of the America First Conservative movement to have a big majority or to have a 20 or 30 seat majority?
I know you're chuckling because this is a debate on the right.
What are your thoughts here?
Yeah.
So on the right, let me just tell you, I want a smaller majority.
I want a majority, but I want a small majority.
I appreciate the candor because not everyone's willing to say that.
Yeah.
Well, here's the deal: if you have such a large majority, what happens is the conservative voice gets really diluted and you end up with a whole lot of moderate Republicans forming the agenda.
And so I want to have the House, but I'd like to have a more modest and not an overwhelming 40, 50 seat majority.
That's a very honest answer.
And I think you're exactly right.
I think 15 to 20 seats is just perfect.
I think you would agree.
That way, you have the really good ones that are dictating the agenda.
Because if you get to 50 or 60, which I don't think is in the cards right now, I don't see the preconditions for that.
All of a sudden, you would have all these districts that would be one that you'd have to try to rewin, and then you would have people that are total moderates.
You would have like a Kinzinger-esque type legislative agenda because they'd say, well, I have to vote my district, and you'd have 35 of those people that would sway us in a very moderate direction.
Whereas if you have a 15 or 20-seat majority, then also leadership has to reflect the swing voters, which would then be the grassroots conservatives.
20 seconds, Mark.
100%.
You're 100% right.
And we don't want California and New York deciding what the agenda is for the rest of America when we have a smaller majority.
I've been saying that we're going to have a 12-seat majority, but 15 to 20 seats would be fine.
It will make a big difference, and America will win.
They'll be right within the margin of making sure that we actually get stuff done, not just win and we take over the speaker's office, and nothing consequential actually happens.
The book is the Chiefs, Chief.
Mark, great to have you on the program.
Thank you so much.
Great to be with you, Charlie.
Take care.
Thank you.
Email us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
So I'm going to do my best to clarify this.
And then tomorrow we're going to have Congressman Matt Gates, who I think is the most articulate person to explain this.
Because Mark Meadows said, Hey, I actually want a smaller majority than a larger majority.
And some of you say, What are you talking about?
Don't we want the biggest majority possible?
So let me do the best I can to explain this.
And then we have a very exciting guest in just a second here, Richie Heron, who has something very important to share with you.
So let me do my best to explain this.
The larger the majority, the more Democrat districts will have been won by Republicans.
Chances are, and history is our guide in this, when Paul Ryan took the speakership, and so did John Boehner, that those districts are then occupied by people that would be called rhinos by you and I. If you get a 40 or 50 seat majority, then the decisions are made by the biggest block, otherwise known as a rhino block, because they have to vote their district, and the MAGA voice in Congress would therefore be diluted.
So by definition, if you have a 12-seat majority, therefore you have 12 more seats than Democrats, and every conservative wins their district, and then you win just enough to get the majority, by definition, conservative representation just fractionally is a higher percentage than if you were to win 40 more, and then you would get far more rhinos occupying.
Now, some of you might say, well, Charlie, wouldn't the rhinos then just vote for all the conservative stuff?
No.
Then leadership would not have to win over the conservative Make America great again, Jim Jordan Freedom Caucus base.
They would just pander to Adam Kinzinger types.
So when you have leadership elections, and I'm doing my best to explain this because Matt Gates is much more well-versed in this than I am.
When you have leadership elections, let's just use round numbers.
Let's just say it's 200 when it's not.
It's really 213 to get to a leadership position.
But let's say it's 200.
You have 200 Republicans.
About 100 of them are going to be rhino-type establishment sympathizers.
About 70 of them will be Freedom Caucus Make America Great Again, which then makes about 30 up for grabs.
So leadership has to make a decision, the establishment.
Do I go after those 30 based on their composition of are they more conservative or are they more establishment?
The more conservative they are, that dictates the legislative agenda, the committee agenda for the entire Congress.
So, if Republicans are going to win a 40 or 50 seat majority, that's good because it actually might make us in the majority for longer, but it actually will make the quality of our legislative framework, our oversight, our language, the impeachment proceedings against Majorkis and otherwise far less likely to happen.
If you want a Jim Jordan Congress, you want a 12-seat majority.
If you want an Adam Kinsinger Congress, you want a 50-seat majority.
I know that sounds paradoxical, but that's the way our system is designed and how it works.
We're going to dive deeper into that.
What Would Woke Jesus Say 00:04:58
If you have questions about it, emails freedom at charliekirk.com.
And there's a debate on what the sweet spot number is.
Okay.
Are you like every one of us that thinks our country has gone nuts, whether it's Russia Gate, market crashes, or selling oil to China or this insane inflation?
Well, right now, you need a financial mind who understands your concerns, but at the same time, has a Christian worldview of money.
That's why you should talk to my friends at PAX Financial Group.
Look, I've given my money to PAX Financial to Manage.
If it's good enough for me, I think it's good for you.
Like all of us, they have concerns, but they also have hope.
In this market, you must have a financial person who shares your hope and at the same time can help you with biblical responsible investing, B-R-I, biblical, responsible investing.
That's why I want you to text the word Charlie to 74868.
That is Charlie to 74868 to connect with my friends at the PAX Financial Group.
Biblical responsible investing.
So take out your phone.
Just text Charlie to 74868.
That's 74868.
Text Charlie to connect with my great friends at the PAX Financial Group.
One of my favorite Instagram accounts, people text me these images all the time.
I actually don't go on Instagram, is this awesome account about woke Jesus.
So what it is, is it's kind of a obviously a joke.
It's a comedy account that's playing this idea of what would Jesus say if he was woke?
The creator is Gabriel Finocchio.
He's a great American.
And boy, does he get a lot of people in Christian Incorporated upset?
Let me just focus on one of them.
Let's focus on the last one here.
For example, it says, if you promise not to talk about abortion or LGBTQIA, I'll bring celebrities to your church.
Woke Jesus.
Deal.
One of my other favorite ones here is Jesus praying and he says, Father, please give me a blue check mark, designer clothing, endless wealth, celebrity friends, a world where abortion is safe and legal and everybody is vaxed and LGBTQIETC.
Amen and a woman.
Woke Jesus.
Gabe joins us right now.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Charlie, how are you?
Good.
I'm doing great.
So tell us about this account that you run and then let's talk more broadly about wokeism in American Christianity.
Thanks.
Yeah.
And thanks for having me on.
Big fan of your show.
Big fan of you.
Thank you for what you're doing, what you've done.
Thank you.
And yeah, you're a hero.
So I'm not a great American, unfortunately.
I'm Canadian.
Oh, there you go.
I wish I was a great American.
Polite.
That's why.
Yeah, I just had to correct the record.
I did have loyalist ancestors who unfortunately took land up in Canada during the Revolutionary War, but I'm trying to make amends.
And so I'm not sure.
This is part of reparations.
This is part of my, this is part of my repentance representing my family, cowardly family lineage who were loyalists during the Revolutionary War.
But anyway, so yeah, the woke account was just, you know, everybody's heard of things Jesus never said, right?
And, you know, that was a big trend, you know, like a decade ago.
But with the woke tidal wave that we experienced in like 2020, I guess I was just hanging out one night.
I think I was making some music with my brother in our studio.
And I was just like, trying to kill time, really.
And then I thought, you know what?
Let's do some, let's do some like things Jesus never said things, but then we'll just like tag like, this is woke Jesus, you know, things woke Jesus would say.
And just, you know, it kind of took off.
I made, I think I made, I don't know, I probably made like 20 or 30 that night.
And then it kind of blew up and people were like, you got, this is an account, bro.
And so I just ran with it.
I just, I just, it was wind in my sails.
And I just, you know, set sail.
And yeah, now I got, you know, a few thousand people, you know.
I get it.
I get it.
I get it sent to me all the time.
So, Gabriel, talk about the reaction that some of the wokeys in Christianity give you when they start to read this stuff.
Yeah, I mean, it's amazing.
It's enjoyable.
It's wonderful.
It's, you know, because it hits a nerve, right?
And that's really the point, I think, of satire.
You know, I think they say, you know, the comedians, they're hanging out with the hare, but the satirists are hunting with the hounds.
And, you know, you're basically trying to evoke a reaction.
Theological Liberalism and Satire 00:04:07
You're trying to, you're playing upon the frustration of the self-contradictory remarks that they make and positions that they take.
And it's very, obviously, you know, it's biblical because you see the prophet Elijah, you know, mocking the prophets of Baal in the big show down on Mount Carmel and in the Old Testament.
He's mocking the prophets of Baal, you know, and they're cutting themselves and freaking out and saying, you know, where's our God?
You know, and he's like, I don't know, is your God, you know, taking a dump?
Is he on the John?
You know, like, what's he doing?
You know, and you're basically, I hope that's, you know, family-friendly, you know, commentary there.
But the idea is that he's mocking them and he's using satire and sarcasm to get his point across that the prophets of Baal are false prophets worshiping a false God.
And that's really what wokeism is.
You know, it's a false ideology, a false philosophy, a false religion, and worshiping false gods.
Why is it so attractive to institutional Christianity to embrace this wokeism, especially over the last couple of years?
Well, you know, wokeism, look, you know, we might differ on definitions here, but I really do think that wokeism is just an iteration of theological liberalism.
I don't disagree with that.
I think it, in the Christian sense, that's true.
There is a secular version of it too, but I think that's fair.
Yeah, it's just, these things come in different forms.
They're repackaged, you know, like Jehovah's Witnesses are repackaged Aryans, you know?
And so basically, you know, these things, they just morph into these things.
And each generation makes it its own, you know, and so the idea being that this woke thing, it's definitely worse than ever before.
It's certainly, you know, an extension, a logical extension and a continuance and a progress down the wrong path.
So we're definitely further down the road of secular humanism than ever before.
And wokeism is just this latest, you know, iteration.
Iteration and in, you know, along the highway to hell.
So, the way that they would define liberal theology, I'm reading from the website of the gospel coalition.
You know, them.
Oh, we love them.
Yeah, liberal theology is rooted in modern secular theories of knowledge and has moved towards participation in the work of the church as the priority for Christians at the expense of delineating theological belief, which has led to the abandonment of many Orthodox beliefs in many mainline denominations.
A really wordy way to say that we use modern secular humanism as our guide to interpret scripture.
Is that right?
Well, certainly, yeah.
You know, wokeism takes the form in religion, I would say, as theological liberalism.
Um, and in politics, it takes the form of secular humanism.
And so, you know, these are different categories, these are different uh layers in reality.
And uh, obviously, the deepest layer is religious.
You know, I like um, I think John Henry Newman uh talked about theological liberalism as being this idea that all religions are equal, you know, which was this is this is you know, he's writing in the 19th century, right?
And um, and just this notion that you know, it's it's like religious relativism, like everybody worships the same God.
You know, it's like John Henry Newman was dealing with wokeys back then, you know, it's like and he was, you know, so these aren't necessarily again, these aren't necessarily new ideas.
Um, in my opinion, I think, you know, just we've got ourselves into this cul-de-sac, right?
Where we're just circling and circling and circling.
A New Credit Card for Conservatives 00:03:47
And these ideas they never really die, you know, because we're in a cul-de-sac.
I think, um, and I think the way out is Christ.
I think the way out is Christianity ultimately.
And the truths, philosophically, you know, and politically that Christianity has really dogmatized around in our society, you know, life and liberty and property, family, you know, these truths are really the things that Christianity has preserved.
And but we need Christianity to preserve them, in my opinion.
And with the decline of Christianity, you know, we have a decline in culture.
We have a decline in society.
Hello, everybody.
Charlie Kirk here.
Super important announcement.
Look, when you swipe your credit card, you're funding liberal causes dozens and dozens of times a month.
Every time you swipe that card, you might as well do BLM, LGBT, Clinton Foundation.
But now there's a choice.
I got to know these guys.
I vetted them, checked out the technology.
I'm a partner with them.
I'm all in.
It's called Coin, C-O-I-G-N.
It's a new credit card built for conservatives.
I'm moving all my credit card activity under Coin.
And the Coin credit card is an unlimited cashback Visa credit card that is just like every other credit card you've ever owned, with one huge exception.
Every time you use the Coin card, they contribute to conservative charities that support your values.
I'm using it, and you should too.
Remember, we have to create a parallel economy, and this is a great new option.
Act now.
Go to COIGN.com right now to sign up to get a conservative coin credit card.
That's COIGN.com.
Join COIN and let's start spending right.
Gabriel, how far or how deep has the woke mind virus pathogen penetrated American Christianity?
How serious of a threat is this?
Well, I think if you look at the fact that it's taken over all the institutions, I mean, the institutions themselves have been compromised.
You know, you have, Obviously, you have universities that are compromised everywhere, Christian or not.
Many of them are just Christian in name, and they are fundamentally and substantially woke.
But so, and if you think about that, you know, you're talking about people who are still forming their brain and still forming their minds, certainly their conclusions about life, going off and being indoctrinated.
And you would know this more than I would, since your work is primarily, you know, at least substantially in education institutions.
And didn't you just write a book on this?
Yep, don't go.
Wrote a whole book on it.
Yep.
Yeah, basically, The College Scam.
It's actually right here.
So I want that.
Can you send that to me?
I'll send it to you.
Yes.
And everyone.
I want to read it.
You can get it for half off at tpusa.com/slash book.
But yes, continue.
Well, anyway, so you know, you've got the institutions, right?
The crisis in education propagating and propaganda and that.
But then you have woke capitalism, you know, and that's a big deal, Charlie.
I don't know how, you know, if people are so much aware of this, but like, you know, you have Pride Month and then all the businesses that you patronize are, you know, doing pride stuff.
And it's like lockstep, Charlie, it's lockstep with government.
So the government says this is what we do.
And then the businesses are like, yes, master.
And it's, that's, that's communism, bro.
Like, that's, that's how communist, that's, that's how it works.
But let me ask you, let me ask you, Gabriel.
Burning Bridges to Make Points 00:03:21
So you're, you're very well networked in the Christian world and you're, you're a very well-respected pastor and well-respected speaker and thought leader.
What do kind of the cool kid pastors say when you confront them with this?
Because they usually don't talk to me.
Yeah, I mean, you do, you know, you do kind of burn bridges, really.
You know, I've turned myself into a bit of a dynamiter, you know, a bridge dynamiter.
I say, my brother builds the bridges and I blow them up.
I would say, I mean, really, you know, I look, look, at the same time, look, we, you know, we should always be, you know, as charitable as possible, right?
Jesus tells us to love our enemies.
So there is a point where, you know, we shouldn't be malicious towards people, trying to destroy them, even though we are supposed to hate evil, right?
And to hate evil.
If you love God, you must hate evil.
It's a commandment.
Yes, exactly.
So we have to be able to make the separation between people, people's intrinsic worth and dignity and the actions that they take.
Or even worse, their stated beliefs.
Actions are one thing.
Stated beliefs are completely different.
You can make a mistake, right?
You can make an action.
You could fall short.
But if you have a publicly stated evil standard, that's even worse.
Totally.
Totally.
Yeah.
When things go public, that's a big, big deal.
That's a big, big no-no.
And so, you know, in the church, you know, excommunication even happens once sin becomes public and once it becomes particularly, you know, something that is stubbornly held on to.
I think Thomas Aquinas once said that people aren't excommunicated for sin.
They're excommunicated for stubbornness, which is a great point.
It's like when, you know, if you can't receive the correction and you're stubbornly holding on to it publicly, something's got to be done.
That's great.
So the issue, I think, is that, you know, sorry, what was the question again?
I apologize.
Well, just real quick.
It was just kind of what do you, what happens when you confront the cool kid pastors with saying this is Marxism, this is bad theology.
How does that go?
Okay.
Yeah, we just have to be as reasonable as possible.
You know, if we're if we're emotional, um, you know, and you know this from debate and things like that, that uh, you you blow, you know, Chesterton once said uh that uh the problem with a quarrel is that it interrupts an argument, and so you can't make things personal.
The idea of making things personal is going to interrupt the argument, and you're trying to make an argument and you're trying to convince as many people as possible to come to the conclusion and the conviction that these things are evil.
So, we should be focused on ideas and focused on you know the heresies.
And it's it's much better to be a heresy hunter than a heretic hunter.
I think the heretic hunting is kind of you know a nasty business.
There you go, Gabriel Finocchio.
You're welcome back anytime.
Keep up the wonderful work.
Thank you.
Thanks, brother.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me 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