Elon Musk Is Buying Twitter… AGAIN with John Ratcliffe and Dr. Scott Jensen
With all the talk about nuclear war from Republicans, Charlie welcomes on Former Director of National Intelligence of the United States John Ratcliffe to discuss what the intelligence community likely knows about the Nord Stream sabotage. Fmr. DNI Ratcliffe also breaks down who could have done it, and who stands to benefit, including the US. Charlie also welcomes on Dr. Scott Jenson, a Republican running for Governor in Minnesota and who stands a very strong chance of winning in what RealClearPolitics founder Tom Bevan calls his sleeper race to watch. Then, Charlie reacts to the breaking news that Elon Musk is buying Twitter… again!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Manufactured Problems in Washington00:14:22
Hey, everybody, today's Charlie Kirk Show.
John Ratcliffe joins us, and then Dr. Scott Jensen, who is running for governor of Minnesota.
And finally, Elon Musk is going to be forced to buy Twitter.
We unpack the implications of all of that.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Get involved with TurningpointUSA today at tpusa.com.
Start a high school chapter or college chapter today at tpusa.com.
As always, you can email me, freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with turningpointusa, tpusa.com, and see us when we are on tour at 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 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.
I've said before that under President Trump, this catastrophe in Ukraine never would have happened.
Let's play cut 54.
Defense Secretary Gates standing by his comments that Joe Biden has been wrong about every single foreign policy decision in his career.
Play Cut 54.
And you said in your memoir, I think he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.
Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think I stand by that statement.
Stand by that statement when we see the results of what Gates tried to warn us about.
Joining us now is former head of DNI and great American John Ratcliffe.
John, welcome back to the program.
Hey, Charlie, good to see you.
So I want to kind of begin by framing this.
We did a whole hour on, quite honestly, how frustrated I personally am and our audiences on how people in Washington, D.C. seem to be escalating the conflict in Ukraine unnecessarily.
What is it that when you were there at the Trump administration, how did you guys handle this to try to keep things at least at bay with Putin and with Ukraine?
Where obviously Putin would have loved to have done this earlier, but there were decisions that were made by the Trump administration that obviously Putin made a separate, a different choice.
Why do you think that is?
Well, one single biggest reason, Charlie, and that was who was in the Oval Office and who was calling the shots.
Because it's not just what Putin is doing now that he wasn't doing or had stopped doing in the Obama-Biden administration and then continued miraculously in the Biden administration and didn't do during the Trump years, but it's also President Xi Jinping.
It's also, you know, mullahs in Iran, all of these people acting badly now in ways that they weren't during the Trump administration.
And the common denominator there is Donald Trump.
And so it was a president of the United States who, you know, call it what you want, Charlie.
Some people would say respect, some people would say fear.
But either way, the bottom line is it was all about the fact that, you know, President Trump made clear to foreign leaders that things like this wouldn't be tolerated.
And so, you know, the example is the removal from the planet of Iranian Revolutionary Guard cuts force General Qasim Soleimani in a very public way, you know, to make sure that Iranian bad actors stopped acting badly.
So it was those types of things.
So Putin knew that he couldn't get away with it during the Trump administration.
And it's not a coincidence that it was just two months into this Biden administration that he starts mobilizing troops in the Donbas region.
Yeah, so then we have the Nord Stream question.
And I know you have to be probably careful in some ways how you answer this, but just kind of talking more broadly, I don't quite understand, at least from a logical perspective, why Putin would bomb his own kind of cash supply.
Despite that, though, I'm being told that it was Putin from Brennan and all these other people, or at least they're alluding to it.
How should we think about the Nordstream incident?
What are the facts and the prerequisites we know in how we try to unpack this act of industrial sabotage?
Good.
So I approach everything in an apolitical way and try and let the intelligence dictate it.
So here's kind of what we know, Charlie, from a big perspective.
We know that this was a deliberate act of sabotage.
So there were two explosions, not one.
So it wasn't an earthquake or some geologic or weather-related event or something that caused it.
So two separate explosions in proximity to Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2.
So again, a deliberate act.
And given the capabilities that would be required, it would be a state-led attack.
So having said that, who could have or why would this have happened?
So let's start with Russia.
To your point, the first question is, yeah, why not just turn off the gas?
Why blow up a $20 billion pipeline project to accomplish this?
And what John Brennan would say, or some folks in the intelligence community fairly, unfairly would say is, well, it's a Russian, it's a classic Russian false flag.
It's done to throw everyone off.
I don't know that that would be the motivation so much as I've tried to look at it and say, okay, if I were in charge of the intelligence community, we were in the process of determining attribution.
One of the factors could be for Putin doing it is, look, in the old days, that natural gas had to transit through Ukraine.
And so with those pipelines out of place, if Europe wants Russian natural gas, it's got to go through Ukraine.
And for it to go through Ukraine, there has to be a peace agreement.
So would there be some sort of, would this be some way of sort of forcing an off-ramp and some sort of agreement where everyone would get on board so that that could take place and give Putin an out to a war that's not going well.
But the other way to look at that is who else would benefit from that?
And an off-ramp and an ability to end the war would be Zelensky and Ukraine.
So for the very same reason.
So that is a possibility.
And then, of course, there's the United States.
If Ukraine isn't providing natural grass to Europe, the United States for decades to come, you know, would be a huge profit center.
And when you couple that with the things that Joe Biden has said or Victoria Newland, who worked for him, all of those things, can we rule that out?
No, but what I would say is this, Charlie, we'll know this answer in short term because attribution for this is not going to be particularly difficult.
It's likely that the United States has or will soon determine from the intelligence community, from our assets, our ability to determine who pulled this off.
And if it's not the United States, then we would make that clear publicly.
We would want to make sure that that was communicated.
And so I would expect that the Biden administration would have the opportunity in the coming weeks to be able to say, look, we've determined attribution and this is who it was.
So we should know that answer definitively.
So those are the possibilities.
That's how I would look at it.
I have my own personal opinions, but I'll hold those until there's further attribution from actual intelligence, current intelligence sources.
Yeah, I mean, I guess what's concerning is that the United States hasn't denied it.
I mean, they sort of have.
But then Tony Blinken talks about how it's this big opportunity.
And then you have the Polish ambassador, whoever this guy is, government official, tweeting out thank you.
Thanks, USA.
What is that all about?
How are we supposed to read into that?
Yeah.
And so, you know, and so that would be one of the factors.
And it's fair to look at is when we perform, I say we, when I was in charge of the intelligence community and when we engaged in covert or clandestine activities in proximity that were going to other countries and were going to influence them economically, militarily, and whatever, it would be appropriate to give them a heads up, you know, obviously in confidence.
So that would be a factor to look at.
And this guy's one of the reasons not exactly, you know, well schooled in the intelligence espionage world.
Geez.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I will say this, Charlie, because I get this question a lot.
And, you know, I know you're concerned about escalation.
All Americans are.
We talk about nuclear weapons and would Putin use a tactical nuclear weapon.
And there's been a lot of speculation about that.
One thing I've been disappointed in folks out of the Pentagon, you know, not sort of spokespeople not talking about this issue is, look, when it comes to nuclear weapons and nuclear protocols, Vladimir Putin has wide latitude to use certain weapons of mass destruction, and he has to the detriment of populations around the world.
And that would include chemical and biological.
But I will say this: when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, ever since the Cuban Missile Crisis and the old Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev, the old Politburo stepped in and said, when it comes to nuclear weapons, we don't want a crazy person making a one-off decision.
And so they've got some pretty rigid protocols when it comes to the use of actual nuclear weapons that Vladimir Putin wouldn't be making those decisions by himself.
And that's something that I think should give everyone some comfort as this thing goes.
Yeah, I mean, I'll be honest, I just, that's one factor.
I don't trust the fools that pulled off Afghanistan right now in our own government.
I mean, Lloyd Austin and Mark Milley, they gave us the Afghanistan debacle.
And I'm supposed to, I mean, I want the checks and balances on our guys.
Not to say they're going to use nuclear weapons, but I mean.
To your point, I mean, the world is on fire.
I mean, look, we talked about Russia's doing things they weren't doing.
China's doing things with Taiwan that they weren't doing.
North Korea is doing things that they haven't done since 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.
I mean, all of these things are because of what you said, Charlie.
Who's in charge?
Who's making the decisions?
Where the deterrent factor is or the lack thereof.
So should you have confidence?
Absolutely not.
So, John, one of the reasons why I'm so frustrated with Republicans right now sending $70 billion to Ukraine, and we've kind of been toying around with this, is I have zero faith in the current national security apparatus.
People like yourself, people like Rick Grinnell are no longer there.
We have Jake Sullivan and so many others that just seem to be funding and strengthening this very corrupt and foolish group of people.
How should we think about this?
And I mean, I know that Donald Trump's heart, because I spoke to the president recently, would be try to broker peace here, not trying to further a conflict.
Is it the Americans' position right now?
Is it the position of the American government to get us closer to peace?
It certainly doesn't feel that way.
It seems as if we're creating another quagmire in a far off distant land.
Well, I think we are.
We talked about it across the board.
I mean, you know, you're absolutely right, Charlie.
We have a war in regardless of who wins at this point, Ukraine or Russia.
This war didn't take place in the Trump administration, wouldn't have taken place, you know, with strong leadership.
You know, we could say the same thing about what's happening with Taiwan and China.
You know, the things that China has started doing to Taiwan in and around Taiwan, you know, weren't taking place during our administration.
And so, you know, do I think that it's, you know, that it's likely that we could have conflict in the Taiwan Strait in the Biden administration?
Absolutely, for the same reason that we have a conflict in Ukraine.
You know, so these are a factor of the people that you're talking about.
And so, you know, it's Joe Biden in the White House, but it's also the national security apparatus and the people like Blinken and Austin and Sullivan.
And they do not inspire confidence because they've made one bad decision after another.
I mean, you know, from Afghanistan that had a ripple effect everywhere.
So, you know, the thing I would say is, like so many of the crises that are happening, you know, from a foreign policy standpoint, we started out with Robert Gates, and we know the answer now, Robert.
Joe Biden would not make a good president.
He's made that clear.
But it's not just foreign policy.
It's our border security.
You know, it's economic issues.
It's inflation.
But I will say this.
You know, people ask me all the time about things are going so terribly wrong.
But in all of those instances, Charlie, I think what people have to keep in mind is if you send the right people to Washington, these problems are all manufactured.
They're not organic, meaning they are reversible and they are fixable with the right policies.
So, you know, policy at the border, you know, remain in Mexico.
Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I guess our frustration is, though, currently Republicans are funding these people, right?
It's $70 billion to Ukraine.
Like, what does success look like in Ukraine for America right now?
Frustration With Loaded Spending00:02:07
Right.
Yeah.
And, you know, this is a problem.
As you know, Charlie, before I was DNI, I was a member of Congress.
And if you go back and check my record, you know, at the end of the year, as we approach these things, there'll be some sort of an omnibus that probably gets loaded up with all sorts of stuff.
And, you know, in this case, with a potential change in Congress, even more so, because what you'll have is Republicans, you'll have Democrats wanting to spend money and leave a mark.
But will you have Republicans go along?
So this is not just a Democrat issue.
It's a Washington issue and Republican issue.
So, you know, why did 10 Democrats or why did 10 Republicans go along with Joe Biden's infrastructure bill?
And what they would say is, well, it's the right thing to do.
But we've heard Democrats now use that and say, well, it's part of our string of successes why you should vote for Democrats.
My fear, and you're right, Charlie, and the frustration was one of the things I hated about Congress, which you had people, particularly as they're, they'll say, you know, a continuing resolution is no way to run an end, you know, a military.
And so therefore, we've got to pass an NDAA and we've got to load it up with all kinds of stuff.
And I'm for a strong military, but all sorts of other things get loaded in these omnibuses, you know, that will fund the defense industry in places like Ukraine that most Americans are tired of supporting.
Why aren't we spending this money on border security issues?
Why aren't we spending this money to help all of the people in Florida that have been now hit by Hurricane Ian?
You know, all of those things are good.
They're good questions.
And unfortunately, on that standpoint, there aren't great answers in terms of what will happen.
We have retiring senators that want to leave their mark and all of that kind of thing.
So I think there'll be a lot more bad spending in the next couple of months.
Yeah, I think you're right.
John Ratcliffe, thank you.
I think the frustration, though, is that these Ukraine bills have been one-offs.
They haven't been part of CRs.
And so it's not, they have a chance to do it.
And I guess our leaders care more about Ukraine than about America.
Thank you so much.
Awesome commentary.
Good to see you, Charlie.
Thanks for having me.
Relief Factor History and Crime00:08:56
Charlie Kirk here.
Look, I've told you about producer Andrew and how Relief Factor has really improved his life and relieved the pain in his knees and back.
Now, let me tell you about Yvonne in California.
She says this: quote, both my husband and I are in our 70s and so grateful to have found Relief Factor.
We tried so many other solutions, but none of them have given us the freedom from aches and pains like Relief Factor.
I hear you, Yvonne.
Relief Factor works for me too.
Relief Factor is a 100% drug-free solution developed by doctors based on scientific research to help your body attack the underlying inflammation causing you pain.
Three weeks from now, you could be doing the things you enjoy doing.
Your first step to becoming pain-free could be just to order the three-week quick start for only $19.95.
After trying Relief Factor, over half a million people have gone on to order more.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 8004Relief to find out more about this offer.
That's relieffactor.com or call 8004Relief.
Live your best life and feel the difference with Relief Factor.
One of my favorite states in America is Minnesota.
Love Minnesota.
Great people.
And I just don't think it gets the attention it deserves.
It really is, it's a beast of a state.
It's a huge state.
It's one of the nation's largest states and has really made a favorable, phenomenal contribution, I should say, to America in more ways than one.
Some of America's great companies were founded by Minnesotans, and it's just gone off the rails in recent years politically.
Minnesota is very similar to other Midwest states where I believe it has been so just abused by corrupt politicians.
Illinois is very similar.
But I think that there's still a lot of opportunity and a lot of life left in Minnesota, the great state of Minnesota.
And joining us now is someone who's trying to turn the great state of Minnesota around, Dr. Scott Jensen.
You guys can check it out, drscottjenson.com, running for governor in the great state of Minnesota.
Dr. Jensen, welcome to the program.
Thank you, Charlie.
It's good to be with you.
Tell us about your campaign.
You are 35 days out from Election Day.
How are things going?
Things are going well.
I think that we've used the same polling company that Glenn Yunken had used.
And I think we're even closer now than he was about a month away from the election.
So we're very encouraged by that.
The last two polls have shown us about two and a half to three points down.
We're within the margin of error.
Real clear politics has come out and said it's a toss-up.
Tim Walz is involved in one of the largest COVID relief program frauds in the entire country.
$250 million gone.
And the Tim Walz team can't tell us when he learned about the fraud.
They don't know if it was in the spring of 2020, the summer, or November of 2020.
And Minnesotans are getting tired of his strategy.
He seems to be following Joe Biden's playbook.
He's hiding in the basement, denying the opportunity for debates.
Minnesota Public Radio came out yesterday and was disappointed.
I think, or maybe perhaps it was Minnesota Public TV, but Tim Walz has said, no, he won't do a debate with me on their program either.
So we think that the momentum's definitely shifted.
It's coming our way, and we're excited.
So I love Minnesota.
It's a very interesting state.
And I think it has gone radically out more left-wing than Minnesota values.
It's very interesting, though.
There has always been this kind of working-class, you know, Minnesota tradition, Democrat farmer-labor union, if not mistaken, DFLs, which I think are spending a lot against you, if not mistaken, right?
Even though ironically, a lot of their kind of interests align.
Talk about kind of the history of Minnesota politically.
It was one of the only states to vote against Ronald Reagan, if I'm not mistaken, either 84 or in 80.
At the same time, it's a very kind of conservative state in other ways.
Talk about that, Charlie.
Minnesota's always had a strong work ethic.
And I think that that's really been the thing that's kept us from being entirely a blue state.
But you're right.
In 1972, that was the last year that Minnesota voted for a Republican presidential candidate in Nixon.
The DFL party, though, is has lost the F and the L.
The farmers are absolutely fed up.
That's exactly right.
Heavy-handed, if you will, departments and agencies of Minnesota government.
The MPCA has been out of bounds.
The DNR has slipped at times, to be sure.
The Met Council is responsible for the largest cost overrun of a project in probably the history of Minnesota with a light rail project that's gone from $2 billion to nearly $3 billion.
The labor is also leaving the Democratic Party because, frankly, the Democratic Party's heavy on promises, but short on, if you will, actually producing what they said they would do.
And we're seeing the same thing, Charlie.
And I heard earlier on your program with the Latino Hispanic community.
They're fed up.
They're saying, you know, we're not buying what you're selling because you just come in every four years, make a bunch of promises, and then you're nowhere to be found.
And frankly, your policies aren't helping us.
People are furious with Tim Walz for hooking our wagon to the California car mandates.
And in so doing, he's helped drive inflation higher in Minnesota in terms of our gas prices, our fuel, our oil prices, our groceries are 20% up.
People are just saying, listen, Tim Walz might be hiding in the bunker.
He might spend $12 million to demonize Scott Jensen as some sort of extreme character.
But the fact of the matter is, Charlie, six years ago, I was family doctor of the year in Minnesota.
I'm not an extreme guy.
I'm a family doctor who likes to solve problems.
And I really think that governance in Minnesota is broken.
Yeah, no kidding.
And there's some incredibly radical elements.
It'd be one thing if the Democrat Party in Minnesota would kind of weigh both options and govern from the middle, but there's been some extraordinarily radical ideas that have been implemented.
And just one that's so fundamental towards human flourishing, which is crime.
You know, I've visited Minneapolis my entire life.
I have family from Minnesota.
I have family that are the biggest Minnesota Viking fans, I think, ever.
And we always have fun with that because they just don't win very often.
Sorry, no offense.
It's just the way it is.
And but when I visit now, and I just mean this from a loving kind of posture, Minneapolis is not the city it used to be.
It's full of crime.
It's more depressed than I've ever seen.
And I know a lot of people that are moving out of the Minneapolis metropolitan area because of that.
Can you talk about the rise in crime and what really kind of what triggered that?
Tim Walz arguably is the godfather of lawlessness that's crept across Minnesota, but it's also, if you will, poisoned our nation.
Tim Walz in 2020 during the riots was more concerned about making certain that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and Maxine Waters were happy with his performance.
Was more concerned about the hard left base.
He didn't put the National Guard on the streets.
And when he finally did, after three days, he called on a bunch of 19-year-old cooks.
He tried to blame the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Fry.
But if you actually look back, Charlie, at Tim Walz' history, in 2005, he quit on the National Guard.
He had been promoted to the highest rank that you could get as an enlisted officer.
He was the command sergeant major, and he was supposed to go with his battalion.
But when they found out they were getting deployed to Iraq, Walls quit.
15 years later, when it comes time to let the National Guard restore lawful behavior in Minnesota, Tim Walz quit on him again.
Three days later, on May 28th, when Tim Walz made the decision to stand down and let the third precinct building burn and absolutely surrendered to the rioters, he quit on the cops.
He has done this over and over again.
And what we're seeing now is the downstream problems where we're seeing women in Minneapolis-St. Paul targeted rape, robbery, carjacking.
We didn't even used to keep track of carjacking, but I think in 2021, we had almost 800 carjackings.
And many of these are women being targeted as they're coming out of a daycare center or a grocery store.
People are literally having to decide how far back they want to come to a stop before a stoplight so that they have a little room to wiggle if all of a sudden someone's coming at them in terms of a carjacking attempt.
Minnesota has fundamentally changed.
And this is because the godfather of crime is Tim Walz.
Minnesota Politics and Public Safety00:03:08
And he has been slow to act.
And every time he's called on the lead, he quits.
It's almost as if he's lazy.
He's not doing his homework.
He should have, with this $250 million fraud in terms of feeding our children, he should have gotten on it once he saw that there was a problem.
But he let hundreds of millions of dollars continue to be paid to these fraudsters.
And now he's trying to blame the judge.
He's trying to blame the FBI.
He's trying to blame the Department of Agriculture.
And Minnesotans are getting tired of it.
And for those of you listening in the national audience that might say, oh, I don't know if a Republican can win in Minnesota, play cut 56.
My sleeper is actually Minnesota governor's race.
I think given the way that that state has moved over the last couple of cycles, and you've got Tim Walz there, the incumbent Democrat running against Scott Jensen, who's a doctor, Republican.
That race is one to keep an eye on because you'll see if the electorate, if Republicans turn out on Election Day, that could very well be an upset.
So keep an eye on that one.
So there you have it.
That's Tom Bevan from Real Clear Politics.
A Republican can win.
I remember Tim Palenti.
That was a little while ago, but Republicans can win statewide.
It's happened before.
Charlie, we've set all records for raising funds for Republican gubernatorial candidates.
By the time it's all said and done, we'll have raised over $5 million.
We've got 110,000 people that have joined our email team.
We've got thousands of people door knocking and phone banking for us every weekend.
We have over 35,000 unique donations come our way.
There's an energy, there's an excitement in Minnesota, and there's a recognition that our Constitution that calls for a government that's devoted to the security and the benefit and the protection of its people has got to be restored.
And I think that's why we're going to win and we're very excited.
Well, it seems as if it's kind of the final push.
Talk about your website and how people can support you, doctor.
drscottjenson.com d-r-s-c-o-t-t-j-e-n-s-e-n.com.
And I think one of the things that's separated us from Tim Walz is we've put out 10-point programs for the last four months.
We're trying to combat inflation, energy, public safety, education.
And we've even gone so far as to say, listen, we want people to be physically fit themselves.
So we put out a 10-point program with Matt Burke, my lieutenant governor candidate.
He had to go to Baltimore to get a Super Bowl ring, but we forgave him for that.
But the bottom line is we're trying to help people take charge of their own health and recognize that there are things they can do when we're in the midst of a pandemic as well.
They can lose five pounds, walk every day for 15, 20 minutes.
And we put out a 10-point program to help people get motivated.
And to all of this, Tim Walz has been crickets.
There's nothing coming forward.
He just, and now he won't debate us.
Typically, we've had half a dozen debates each election cycle.
Tim Walz and I have one debate, and he said he'd allow one more, but no live audience.
And he doesn't want it to be in a Minneapolis-St. Paul TV market.
Walz Avoids Debate Challenges00:02:53
This is such an important thing.
And as we close our conversation, this is not the only state this is happening, though.
I can point to at least five or six gubernatorial races across the country, Arizona, Kerry Lake being one of them, where the Democrat just doesn't want to debate.
It's their new thing.
They're going to just hide under this barrage of money.
They're going to, and John Fetterman in Pennsylvania refuses to debate till late October.
That's so unhealthy for our country, isn't it, Dr. 30 seconds?
I mean, you can say what you want about Republicans or conservatives or whatever, but if you're not going to have a conversation, you shouldn't be in office.
What they're telling voters is we really don't need you.
We're just going to rely on the machine, the money, and the media.
And they're going to get us across the goal line.
But what they don't have this time around, Charlie, is the movement.
I think a lot of people recognize there's a moment right now.
And in that moment, what we're doing is we're telling people the millennials and the Gen Zs, the minorities, the moms and the dads, the mama bears, they're rising up and they're going to do exactly in Minnesota and in Arizona what they did in Virginia in 2021.
Win.
Yeah, I think you're a problem solver that can really help fix the great state of Minnesota.
I really do.
I love that state.
It's phenomenal people.
Thank you for running.
It's not easy.
There's a lot of ads being run against you.
And please run and win and clean up that great state.
Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Charlie.
I love to see regular people run for office.
It's just, he was against lockdowns early, too, by the way.
Very, very important.
Look, if you don't want to accidentally take a laxative and have the worst day of your life, listen to this.
If you're currently taking a magnesium supplement, chances are you're literally flushing it down the toilet.
I experienced that.
It's not fun.
You see, the most common type of magnesium is actually used as a laxative.
So if you're taking it, you're probably, let's just say, depositing it in a place you shouldn't be.
With 80% of Americans who are actually magnesium deficient, what if I told you you could be making that deficiency worse by actually taking the wrong kind of magnesium?
Sort of paradoxical, isn't it?
The worst part about magnesium deficiency is how it affects almost every aspect of your health.
Your metabolism suffers.
You can't lose weight.
Your blood pressure goes up and a whole lot more.
And the worst part is your sleep suffers.
So what is the solution?
It's called Magnesium Breakthrough.
It's my favorite magnesium product that I continue to highly recommend.
It's the only full-spectrum magnesium supplement with seven unique forms of magnesium that your body can actually absorb.
And this month they're including free bottles of their full line of digestive health products on select orders while supplies last.
That means you're getting free products to try that will support your digestive system.
Having an optimized digestive system means less energy, trying to digest foods and absorbing more nutrients from the foods you eat.
This special offer is only available at magbreakthrough.com slash Kirk.
Visit magbreakthrough.com slash Kirk.
Enter code Kirk10 for 10% off any order.
You need magnesium, go to magbreakthrough.com slash Kirk.
Elon Musk and Censorship Concerns00:04:52
Okay, I do want to just reinforce this point before I go to some Elon Musk news here.
It's so telling, isn't it, of who's willing to debate and who isn't.
So Josh Shapiro won't date Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania.
Katie Hobbs won't debate Kerry Lake in Arizona.
Tim Walz won't debate Scott Jensen in Minnesota.
And John Fetterman allegedly will debate Oz at the end of October once all the ballots are out.
So it's too late anyway.
What does that tell you about the health of the Democrat Party?
Well, it tells you that they're in a very compromised position.
They must be so certain of the federal government's ability to censor voices like this program, so certain of the ability to raise money synthetically and artificially to run ads to destroy their political opponents.
It's a very, very troubling thing for our republic, though.
It is not healthy to be able to just hide from reporters and hide from political opponents and run political ads.
That is a bad, bad, bad sign for the country.
And honestly, it shows that Republicans are in a position of truth.
You know, the next time I come across one of the degenerates that work for the New York Times and they want to ask me questions, I'm going to ask them, like, hey, what do you think about the idea that you guys never press Democrat candidates that are running for office that refuse to debate?
Now, in all fairness, some of the local media here in Arizona, they've been going after Katie Hobbs for this.
I want to say going after her, but they've been covering her pretty negatively, saying, why won't she debate?
I don't understand.
It's because Katie Hobbs can't put together a coherent sentence.
Talking is not her thing.
And look, if I was in Katie Hobbs camp, I'll be very honest, I wouldn't debate Kerry Lake.
I mean, can you blame her?
Kerry Lake is on television for 30 years.
And plus what, Katie Hobbs is going to defend homelessness, vagrancy, open-air drug use, CRT, the sexualization of our children, and open borders?
I don't think so.
It's something very interesting.
If any of you have Democrats in your life, you should ask them, why is it Democrats that are afraid to debate?
Why do Democrats not want to debate?
Why do Democrats not want to debate?
I think it actually gives us the opportunity to be on the moral high ground here.
Some breaking news.
Elon Musk is now going to buy Twitter.
Trading has been halted of Twitter.
Looks as if he is backed into a corner a little bit here to buy it.
I'll be very interested, though, to see what he does with it.
Maybe merges it with Rumble.
There's been some whispers of that.
That would be quite interesting.
Look, Twitter has huge opportunity, huge upside.
But I think the first thing that Elon Musk has to do, if he does end up buying Twitter, is to purge it of its bots and trolls.
Secondly, I want Elon Musk to publicize all of the communication and actions that Twitter has agreed to via federal enforcement of censoring political opponents.
For example, since Elon Musk now will own Twitter after this lawsuit, maybe he can get into the story that showed that this program, the Charlie Kirk show, and my own personal social media sites, Twitter, were censored by third-party groups for the reason of the federal government insisting to do that.
I wanted to learn more about that.
So, look, Elon Musk has an opportunity to liberate American discourse.
And I said yesterday, and I'll say it again, I'm not trying to put all of our eggs in the Elon Musk basket because he does some stuff I really don't like.
Elon Musk's recent artificial intelligence stuff, not a fan.
Elon Musk's China stuff, not a fan.
But him buying Twitter and turning it into a legit marketplace of ideas and pushing back against the woke mind virus, I will be the biggest Elon Musk fan in that regard, especially if he can turn Twitter into a place where censorship is no longer the norm.
And I said it yesterday, I'll say it again as I finish my thought here.
Without censorship, I don't think the Democrats win anything.
If Elon Musk is legitimately able to get Twitter, I don't think it'll be done in time for the midterms, but if Elon Musk is legitimately able to get Twitter into a marketplace of ideas, at least the semblance of free speech, a Republican will win the White House in 2024.
If Twitter is able to be a place that is fair, open, and transparent, where the algorithms aren't hidden, where censorship doesn't happen because the FBI wants it to happen, or the Department of State wants it to happen, or the DHS or DHS wants it to happen, a Republican will in the White House in 2024.
And more than that, we will be a happier country and our politics will be de-radicalized.
So I certainly support Elon doing this.
Am I going to say that it's our great hope?
No.
It is a hope, and I hope Elon pulls it off.
This is some very, very good news today.
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.