All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 7, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
36:17
1984 on Steroids with Genocidal Maniac Michael Knowles and Tracy Beanz
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Winning the 2024 Election 00:11:27
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Michael Knowles and Tracy Beans join us.
Michael Knowles to defend himself against the charge that he's a genocidal maniac and Tracy Beans talks about what we need to do to win going into 2024.
Email me your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Open up your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show and get involved with Turning PointUSA Today at tpusa.com.
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.
Joining us now is Tracy Beans.
You can check her out on Twitter at Tracy B-E-A-N-Z.
She's the editor and editor-in-chief of Uncover DC.
And there are several topics I want to explore with her.
Tracy, welcome to the program.
Hey, thanks for having me.
Good to be here.
So, Tracy, we just had Carrie Lake on the program.
You did a great job of researching the Carrie Lake legal challenge in the Arizona Supreme Court case.
Just kind of walk our audience through that as we begin.
Sure, it's something.
And Carrie was right when she said that, you know, this could affect all of Arizona elections moving forward because what the law, you know, so we had the trial, right?
We went to trial for the first time ever.
We saw that trial.
Everybody watched it.
It was sort of ridiculous, the ruling that came down.
So then they appealed that decision to the higher court.
And then that court also reaffirmed what they had said in the lower court and added their own flair to it.
But the problem is that the flair that they added to it makes it so that Arizona election procedure and law in some cases is just completely moot, you know, ruling against basic things.
For example, Carrie Lake was challenging the procedure they used to verify signatures in the election.
And the lower court said, oh, you've brought this challenge too late.
It's something called latches.
You know, when you bring it, they say that you brought it too late, you brought it too early.
This is the standing kind of juggle we do in every single election case.
Well, if she were challenging the procedure's validity and how they implemented it, then yeah, it would have been too late.
But that's not what she was challenging.
She was challenging whether or not they followed the procedure.
And they didn't.
They didn't follow the procedure.
So that was kind of tossed aside.
You know, another thing, the chain of custody issues, Charlie, we're absolutely off the chain.
If there is not chain of custody requirements, why bother with anything at all at that point?
So what basically happened was they said, Maricopa County, we've got far too many ballots here.
And there's no way that we could follow our own procedure to count these and catalog them the way we need to before we send them to the accounting center and run back.
So they scan the ballots there.
They do the signature stuff there, all kinds of stuff.
So we're just not going to do that.
And we're going to send them along to run back anyway.
So there's a point of contact from one place to another.
That's not, you could insert anything into those ballot stacks at that point, and no one wouldn't be the wiser.
And the higher appeals court said that's okay.
They were overwhelmed.
They get the benefit of the doubt.
If that's allowed to stand and the Supreme Court of Arizona decides not to take this case, what's the future for chain of custody on ballots in Arizona?
Specifically, if you're going to continue with this mail-in balloting fiasco that they've got at Dropboxes.
So those are just a few of the things that are in front of the Supreme Court now, along with two other claims that are federal in nature, which would then allow this case, if necessary, to go to the SCOTUS.
So, Tracy, this is important because we saw a similar behavioral pattern in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, Georgia too, but that's a little bit less clear as far as the procedures.
There were so many other issues that in Georgia, even beyond that.
But Pennsylvania is the one that comes to mind where there were very specific regulations in the Pennsylvania Constitution and the federal constitution, the U.S. Constitution, about changing election law.
And what I am learning and what the Democrats are showing is that if you move quick enough and you have enough corrupt people in place and you just keep pushing and get the election certified, it really doesn't matter if you follow the rules.
You're 100% correct.
Pennsylvania was an absolute nightmare.
I covered it back then.
You know, they were ballot harvesting when they shouldn't have been.
They were doing all kinds of things in Pennsylvania that they openly admitted in court filings that they were doing that were contrary to the law.
So that's exactly right.
I mean, we had in Arizona, in Maricopa County with this election, literally when their expert Clay Perik went in to do his ballot review that he was granted, those ballots that were stuffed at draw three were supposed to be duped, right?
Because they were a 19-inch image printed on a 20-inch paper, something they told us was absolutely impossible.
They were not.
And if they were, they were not held properly with the ballots that they duplicated.
So there's no way to know what even happened there.
And to your point, if you push something through the certification, threaten the people that they need to certify an election.
Otherwise, you'll go to jail, which is what Katie Hobbs did as Secretary of State before the election was certified, then you can do anything you want.
The Arizona Supreme Court has a chance to actually, you know, nail this down finally and make it happen.
And, you know, there's legal technicality in there too that's really important.
Things that they were obfuscating that they, you know, they the lower court just accepted because they seem to err on the side of criminality, apparently.
But, you know, it's an important case.
It's really important.
Yeah.
So then I suppose the question is, and this is what's so interesting about going through the courts.
So the best case scenario is if they rule and they say, hey, this was an illegally administered election and maybe you call for a new election.
I think that's a very unlikely scenario, given the lack of spine from our judges in America.
But I am not seeing the evidence yet that any of this is fixed going into 2024 at all, especially in Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin might be the only exception.
Wisconsin seems that they've made some legitimate changes on ballot drop boxes and outside funding.
I mean, just another example, Zuckerberg comes in with $400 million and was breaking state law by doing it and nobody cared.
Pennsylvania changed their election law without going to the legislative branch.
They just did it unilaterally.
And so I guess, are we supposed to count on the courts so that we could have a 2024 election that we can trust?
You know, we've gotten to a place right now where people don't trust the courts, which means there's no law and order.
You know, when the courts are ruling because they're weak or they don't want the backlash, or clearly there's a fact case here that we can look at and say this is true.
You know, it's not like we're coming in from left field with nonsense and there's an actual fact pattern here that's clearly visible to anybody with two brain cells and any integrity in their body.
If they're ruling against things like that, the American people start to get very frustrated and not trust the courts anymore.
There's been a smattering of cases across the country where judges, some judges are doing the right thing, other judges aren't.
It's very lopsided and not even killed.
I don't know what the answer to your question is because you're right.
And, you know, so I heard in the previous segment you talking about the, you know, taking up their mantle and kind of running their legal schemes that they run to make sure that they win elections.
I'm not necessarily opposed to that.
I want to win.
We need to play the game.
My, I say this often, my political philosophy is to win.
Okay.
I don't want to cheat.
That's what the other side does, but I do want to win.
And if I have to compress all of our voters into one day where they're obviously going to sabotage the process and you can't fit them all into voting centers, and let's just say we go through this again and we got to like, well, you know, we fell short in 24, but at least we didn't vote early.
Like, that's silly.
I'm not going to put up with that.
And I want to win.
We all want to win.
And if we have any hope of winning, something needs to change.
You know, everybody's like, well, we can't move on from 2020 until we fix what happened.
We can't move on from 2022 until we fix what happened.
Well, when are we going to fix what happened?
And I think that's the question that everybody's asking right now.
The biggest thing is, as frustrated as you get, it's my opinion, you can't just stop voting because then you just hand them what they want.
There's not even a fight there at all.
So I mean, whatever we need to do.
I had a really interesting roundtable in Boise, Idaho last on Friday, and they're such amazing patriots.
And some of them were very upset.
They didn't go as far to say they weren't voting.
Two people said, Charlie, I don't know a good reason to vote anymore.
They said, I really don't.
I think it's a waste of time.
I don't trust the system.
And they said, we're probably still going to do it out of loyalty to the country and we want to set a good example, but we don't believe any of our votes count.
And Tracy, just 30 seconds remaining, how many millions of people now believe that on the right?
Are we disenfranchising ourselves?
We're disenfranchised, but it's not because of ourselves.
I think it's the system.
We've witnessed some of the most absolutely terrible nonsense go on.
I agree.
From the FBI down to the vote, down to the DOJ.
I mean, the whole country is basically a mess right now.
So, no, we're not disenfranchising ourselves, but it would be a lie to pretend that people aren't rightfully frustrated.
If we don't show up, we are disenfranchising ourselves.
I think that's fair to say.
If we don't vote, then we have basically given, we've given up.
And I think it's the wrong choice.
I'm not saying you have to trust the system, but don't necessarily just walk away from it.
That doesn't help anybody.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Thanks to your support, Patriot Mobile has emerged as one of the leaders in the parallel economy, and they have big news.
Patriot Mobile now offers services with all three major networks.
This means if you're with the big three and like the service, but hate their values, you can access them with Patriot Mobile.
They also offer a performance guarantee.
If you're not happy with your coverage, then you could switch between the three major carriers for free.
Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, offers nationwide coverage of the best 4G and 5G networks.
So you get the same great service while supporting a company that fights to preserve our God-given rights and freedoms.
This new year, resolved to stop supporting companies that don't align with your values, their 100% U.S.-based customer support team helps make switching easy.
Just go to patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call them an 878-Patriot.
I think very highly of Patriot Mobile.
I love their team, Glenn and all of them.
They do a wonderful job.
Get free activation today with offer code Charlie.
States Sue Federal Government 00:04:42
That is patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 878Patriot, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.
Tracy, you have an article here.
Bombshell court order outlines proven government big tech censorship.
Tell us about it.
Yes, this is Missouri versus Biden, one of the biggest cases that's going on right now in the country.
It is so huge.
Well, basically, the states of Missouri and Louisiana decided they were going to sue the federal government because they said the federal government was stepping in to censor American speech on a myriad of topics from COVID to vaccines to the Hunter Biden laptop to election integrity, all kinds of different stuff.
They stepped in, they asked the judge if he could file a temporary injunction to stop the government agencies from discussing this stuff any longer with the social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, all of them.
So, in order to get there to grant that temporary injunction, the judge gave them expedited discovery and deposition power, which is almost unheard of generally.
But to do it at such a high level of all these government agencies was absolutely bonkers.
They did it.
They granted it.
The government kicked and screamed and fought.
But ultimately, the heads of CISA, the CDC, Anthony Fauci was deposed.
Elvis Chan from the FBI was deposed.
All these people were deposed in this case.
And today, we're getting the filing finally from the states of Missouri, Louisiana, and various plaintiffs to make the case for that temporary injunction.
The judges already said they've basically made their case because the discovery they've received has been absolutely off the charts, insane.
So, remember that disinformation governance board that they tried to spring up?
Yep, Nina Jankowitz, who's now begging for money.
Yeah, that's right.
Yes.
Yes, she is to sue what, Fox News.
Is that what she's doing?
100,000 bucks.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So she, that, that disinformation governance board was actually just a cover for what they're already doing at CISA.
CISA declared, they learned through this lawsuit discovery, your thoughts, cognitive infrastructure.
So CISA has declared that your thoughts, the things you type on social media and what you think, are part of their infrastructure.
Therefore, they can regulate those things as they would any other piece of critical infrastructure that they are in charge of.
So that's 1984 on steroids.
And, you know, the judge is not having it in this case.
He's not.
He's not having it.
He's not having the government arguments.
He's not having the, you know, there's, we're not forcing them arguments.
They're clearly forcing them.
They're clearly threatening them.
They went through lengths to try and stop Jen Saki from being deposed because she stood up at the podium.
I don't know if you remember this and basically threatened the social media companies with Section 230.
So at the same time as Twitter is releasing the Twitter files, this case has been ongoing with all of this mountains of information from all the social media companies and their interactions.
The White House is involved with this.
The White House is asking Twitter to censor people.
The White House is asking Facebook to stop people from talking.
In one weird thing, Charlie, Instagram was implementing new algorithms to stop the vaccine talk from happening on Instagram as per the White House's direction.
And Flaherty, who's in charge of social media stuff over there and media stuff, reaches out to Instagram and says, Joe Biden isn't picking up any followers.
What's going on?
Well, it turns out he was swept up in the censorship algorithm that they had forced Instagram to implement.
So now, I just want to just zero in on this because this is a theme that we're going to build out on tomorrow's program.
We're learning all this thanks to the Missouri Attorney General's office suing.
Is that correct?
And why is it that every red state is not engaging in legislative blitzkrieg against the regime?
Sue at every crack, every single place.
You got to do amicus briefs.
You got to do whatever.
I mean, we're only learning this because of lawfare, correct?
Yes.
And it's because we have weak Republicans in office all over the country.
That's correct.
They're not even Republicans.
Keep going.
Yep.
Yeah.
I mean, we have weak people in office that are not standing up for their constituents and they're not doing what the will of the people suggests they should do, which is to fight back against this absolutely Orwellian state that we are starting to become, you know, entrenched in here in this country.
If it doesn't stop now, when is it going to stop?
You know, they're literally working with the federal government, the breadth of the federal government, from the CDC to CISA to, you know, the State Department, every agency is working to stop Americans from able to be voice their opinions on social media because they don't want that, quote, wrong thing to disrupt their power structure.
That's what it is.
Bad ideas don't rise to the top.
They don't.
Say It With American Meat 00:02:31
Yeah, and so, I mean, every, this is a huge opportunity.
Eric Schmidt, who's now the U.S. Senator from Missouri, who was not my first choice in the primary, but whatever, he's actually deserves credit.
He was the one that began these lawsuits.
He started them.
Why is it that every attorney general across the country in a red state is not just relentlessly suing the CDC, the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna.
Find the complaint, get it done.
This is what the left does for quite some time.
And every so often, all of a sudden, you're going to get traction.
You're going to learn a lot through the process of discovery.
It's just so obvious.
And Missouri deserves credit for revealing all of this.
It's just so incredible.
And the media is ignoring it.
Tracy, we're out of time.
Thank you so much.
Thanks so much, Charlie.
All right, everybody.
I had Good Ranchers send me a box of meat.
And I got to tell you, it blew me away.
You know, I've been using Good Ranchers for a while that I said, come on, you guys got to send me it.
And I need to really get into it and prepare it.
It blew my mother-in-law away.
It's great stuff.
It really is.
Now, look, you got to check it out.
How do you say I love you?
Is it flowers, chocolate?
Can jewelry express true love?
Well, in the end, they all fall short.
The only thing that could be completely communicate the depths of your affection as Valentine's is, look, it's meat, obviously.
And not any meat, though.
Over 85% of grass-fed beef sold is imported from overseas.
That's why it has to be Good Ranchers.
100% American, hand-trimmed, steakhouse-quality meat delivered to your door.
Don't say it how you always have.
Say it with meat.
Right now, you can get $30 off when you order any box from Good Ranchers and use my promo code Kirk.
Look, I use Good Ranchers.
I love it.
In fact, I just told Good Ranchers, you got to send me another box.
It's amazing.
This is a gift, sure to add sizzle to that special day.
Whether on the grill or in a pan, nothing simmers like prime cuts of beef, pasture-raised chicken, and premium-quality seafood.
You can get it all at goodranchers.com.
Perfect for the lady, the man, or yourself this Valentine's Day.
Good Ranchers are the gift that keeps on grilling.
And look, if you want to support the Charlie Kirk show, if you want to eat, if you want to support American ranchers, you got to go grocery shopping anyway.
So go to goodranchers.com and save $30 on your unique gift this Valentine's Day by going to goodranchers.com, promo code Kirk.
Say it with American meat instead.
Again, the sizzle, the quality, the succulence of Good Ranchers will blow you away.
Goodranchers.com, promo code Kirk.
Check it out.
Goodranchers.com, promo code Kirk.
The Transgenderism Debate 00:14:55
Joining us now is Genocidal Maniac, Catholic thinker, somewhat of a theologian, and podcaster, Michael Knowles.
Michael, welcome to the program.
Charlie, it's great to be with you, though.
Now that I have been dubbed a genocidal maniac by the liberal media, I would like you to refer to me by my new name, which is Malco.
Or I will also accept Benito Michelini.
You know, you and I were texting this morning of what your new name should become now that you are entering that of the despot, the dictators, or that of the third world.
So, Michael, let's just take pause here because, you know, whenever the cacophony of people I hate start going nuts on Twitter, I immediately know there's more to the story, especially with you because you're a super smart person.
And I saw the headline and I say, huh, okay.
So I watched the video.
Nothing wrong with what you said.
Let me say that again.
Nothing wrong with what you said.
There might be something wrong if you didn't actually listen to the video and you imply something you didn't say.
I defended you on Twitter.
And then I think finally people started to get the courage to step up.
Let's listen to you in your own words.
I wish we didn't have two pieces of tape here, but let's play cut eight because the buildup is actually really important.
But let's start with cut eight and then we'll go to cut seven.
Play cut eight.
If it is false, then for the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
The whole preposterous ideology at every level.
Now, let me play the lead up to that, though.
Now, mind you, Michael is calling for the end of a public pathogen, no different than calling for the end of a virus from public life.
Immediately, people said, you want people dead and transgender people should be eradicated.
That is not even close to what Michael believes or what he said, obviously.
Instead, from a place of compassion, you said these poor people, they're suffering under a mind virus, a delusion.
Here is your lead up, and then Michael, I'll let you loose.
Play cut seven.
There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism.
It is all or nothing.
If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages.
If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody too.
And if it's false, then we should not indulge it.
Especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people.
Bingo.
Michael, ism.
You said transgenderism, which is an ideology.
The floor is yours.
And not only did I use the suffix ism, which refers to doctrines and sets of beliefs, but I went even further to explain exactly what I meant by transgenderism when I said it's a preposterous ideology.
And so I'm not surprised that a lot of people got the impression that I am a genocidal maniac only by reading the headlines in the liberal media, all of which said, I called for the eradication of transgender people, the transgender community, all of this nonsense.
I don't blame people for falling prey to those headlines.
It's just that those headlines were fake news.
And the people I do blame are the news editors there, because I don't think this was a simple mistake.
I don't think they just misheard me.
I completely.
I try to choose my words very carefully.
I actually wrote a whole book called Speechless about how important it is to choose your words very carefully.
And so I don't think there was any way to listen to that sentence, that one single sentence, and say, okay, for the good of these people, if I'm talking about the good of these people, I'm probably not talking about murdering them.
When I say transgenderism, and then when I say in public life, not to say in private life, not to say in the recesses of one's own mind, but in public life, and then to say an ideology, a preposterous ideology.
I don't think that any of these news outlets could have misunderstood what I said.
I think that they were upset that I said it.
I think that they were upset that I am not going to go along with the transgender ideology, as unfortunately too many people on the right are.
There are now many people on the right who are fine with transgenderism.
They just don't want to trans the kids.
Or in some cases, they'll say, we don't mind transing the kids.
Just wait until eight.
You know, just wait until a certain age and then in fourth grade.
Age of enlightenment, nine.
That's right.
That's right.
And so I think that these news editors intentionally lied about me.
I think that they demonstrated actual malice and they clearly libeled me.
And I was so pleased to thank you, Charlie, for coming out.
You defended me right away.
And there were a number of other people, too.
Senator Mike Lee, who is a very well-known constitutional lawyer and Supreme Court litigator and obviously U.S. Senator.
He looked at those headlines and he said, this is libel.
They are libeling you.
Another friend of mine, Bivek Ramaswamy, who's a presidential candidate now, graduate of Yale Law School, he looked at that.
He said, this looks like they have actual malice.
So I immediately demanded that these news outlets, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, I said, change the headlines right now.
You are defaming me.
I demand a retraction.
And I'm pleased to say, I don't know exactly what went on in those newsrooms.
I suspect their lawyers at those outlets called the editorial team and said, change this headline now before we get sued rather into the ground.
So they all changed their headlines immediately.
A lot of them didn't want to post corrections, though the Daily Beast just posted my favorite correction.
I guess the lawyers got on the phone with them again and said, guys, you're going to get us sued if you don't do this.
So the Daily Beast posted a correction which said, we have, editor's note, we have changed the headline of this article to more literally reflect Michael Knowles' words.
So you've got literally my words instead of what?
The nonsense that you lied about me saying.
And so for the news outlets that haven't changed their headlines yet, I would strongly recommend they do it because this is a clear-cut case of lie.
You don't want to do it because they can't take on the argument.
You don't want to go up against the Daily Wire.
That does not end well.
They actually have a very good track record in the courts.
So let me ask you, though.
So Michael, we experienced something similar on this program.
We had this amazing young lady, Riley Gaines, who was she was exposed to male genitalia against her will because Thomas is a sociopathic narcissistic freak who can't compete against other men, but he wants to cheat.
He's a cheater.
And so he goes into a locker room and exposes himself.
I say, quote, in the 50s or 60s, men would not have put up with this and we should deal with it the way we used to deal with it.
Immediately, the other side, they say that I call for lynching.
I call for all this.
No, no, no.
But I was very clear.
In the 50s or 60s, the local DAs and prosecutors would have come in and arrested him.
That's what I meant in the 50s or 60s.
And they say, oh, Charlie's calling for violence against.
And by the way, even re-emphasized I wasn't.
The Daily Cost platformed a community post member saying Charlie Kirk calls for lynching of trans people.
I was just at it can't, I never even would remotely think or get close to that.
And I was just on campus, University of California Santa Barbara, and I had three people come up.
They said, Charlie, why do you want to lynch trans people?
I said, well, where do you get that from?
They said, you said it on your show.
I said, no, I did not.
And so, but this, you know, Michael, you and I, thankfully, we have a different spirit of how to fight back and counter punch.
We lean in.
But this is a very serious issue of how these lies get into zeitgeist.
And I saw it, where people come up to, when I was just taking questions on campus, they actually believe Charlie Kirk wants to lynch trans people because they read it on the internet.
Well, the reason they do it, Charlie, ironically, is because if they can take a perfectly peaceful, ordinary thing that you've said and lie and say that you are inciting violence, then ironically, that will justify violence against you.
And so that's why they keep doing it.
But you're right, that we have a little bit of a different spirit about this, which is I think if I'm being called nasty things by the liberal press, that's good.
It means I'm doing something right.
I had not been called genocidal before.
That's a new one.
But if they start to say mean things about you, that's good.
If they start to twist your words a little bit, that's better.
When they are outright lying about what you have said, I think that means you're right over the target.
And the target here on transgenderism is really important because we can't just keep working around the fringes and allow the left to keep pushing us further and further to the left.
We have to draw a line and say no at some point.
So what does it look like to eradicate transgenderism from public life?
It looks a lot like 2014.
People forget that transgenderism as a political issue did not exist in this country until Barack Obama tried to insert it into military policy and some liberals in North Carolina started passing bathroom ordinances.
This was 2015, 2016.
And the reason that we have to draw a line here is because I know a lot of conservatives want to now retreat and fight this fight on don't trans the kids, but it's not five-year-olds who are going into the women's bathroom.
If five-year-olds are going to the women's bathroom, they're doing so with their mother while they're traveling or something.
It's 50-year-olds that are going into the women's bathroom.
It's not five-year-olds who are taking women's trophies in college sports.
It's not five-year-olds who are going in and depriving women of public spaces.
Either transgenderism is true or it's false.
If a man really can become a woman, then there's no reason not to trans the kids.
Actually, it would probably be compassion to trans the kids because you're born that way, right?
But if transgenderism is false, men really can become a female.
That can't be exactly right, Michael.
No, I mean, we have a minute remaining.
So, in my dialogue with the soon-to-be Mensa members of University of California, Santa Barbara, one of them said, wait, Charlie, and this is why I was so clear because I had a sign that says transgenderism is a delusion, right?
Mind you, ism.
It is a delusion.
And I think that word is actually more effective and not as commonly used because that idea of being under a delusion actually has a compassionate tone.
It's not going to break you.
No one's live under a delusion, right?
It's actually not compassionate, not caring.
But somebody said, Well, Charlie, the problem is that if you have a 19-year-old that's competing in female sports, we should have just started the transition earlier.
And so, their argument to trans the kids is that it actually helps for a whole-of-life approach because, and you're exactly right.
If something is a lie when someone is nine, it's also something aligned when they're 20, when they're 25.
I will say, though, from a communication standpoint, it has allowed us to at least get into this topic for people that say, okay, it goes too far with kids.
They're not willing to say it goes too far with all people because they don't want to be seemed decent and impolite.
Or, I don't want to tell people how to live.
And people say, it doesn't affect you.
Why do you care?
Yeah, okay.
Hear that all the time.
Michael Knowles, who is a great man and being labeled by the media, literally, Daily Beast article said, genocidal maniac.
I hope you sue and you sue him to high heaven, man, because you got a case here.
What do you say to the critique that you're just telling people what to do with their lives?
So we're all telling people what to do with our lives.
That's called self-government.
So there's no neutrality whatsoever, and we all have standards and norms.
And this is because politics rests on applied morality, which rests on a broader, more abstract morality, which rests on epistemology and anthropology and ontology and ultimately theology.
And so the part that we're focusing in right now on is anthropology.
And it's what is human nature?
Are men and women different and distinct and complementary?
Or are they basically the same and one can become the other one?
We have to come to an answer on that question.
You can't live in a society where nobody is communicating and nobody agrees on anything.
That's just anarchy.
And so community and society breaks down.
You have to come to an answer just to know who's allowed to use the women's bathroom.
So the question is not, are we going to impose one view or another view?
The question then becomes, what is true?
And once we come to an answer about that, we should pursue truth.
You know, there's a question we get a lot, Charlie, how do we change things?
We've talked about the states.
We've talked about the states.
And this is something that should just be plastered everywhere in the story, needed to be told and repeated and studied by every wannabe Republican change maker.
Okay.
So Matt Walsh comes out with the movie, What is a Woman?
Brilliant film.
I've bragged on it.
He did our event at our Women's Summit, which was hilarious in front of 2,000 women talking about what a woman was.
But then Matt Welch came out with an explosive piece of journalism, more journalism than CNN and these other maniacs have done about how Vanderbilt was profiting in extraordinary ways off of medical mutilation surgery.
Tucker Carlson, to his great credit, platformed this for 20 minutes at the opening of one of his programs and started a total fire, basically, in Tennessee, especially amongst the ruling class who sat on the board of Vanderbilt.
But, Michael, what's so interesting, though, is now this is how the Overton window is supposed to work, because this then went from something that, okay, we want to do something about the trans thing, but as of a couple days ago, Tennessee has now signed a piece of legislation, Governor Bill Lee, where you guys are headquartered, that no longer allows the medical mutilation of minors.
Am I understanding that correctly?
That's right.
And so it shows you the truth of that old maxim that politics is downstream of culture.
But it shows you the inverse as well.
And this is why the law is so important here.
And it's why it's so important that we draw a hard line in the sand on transgenderism.
When we say that we're concerned about the poor people who are laboring under this delusion, it's because if you have a disorder in which you think you're the opposite sex, it's a terribly unpleasant way of life, and it can lead you to all sorts of terrible things like stress and anxiety and suicide and self-mutilation and a whole host of other problems.
So it would be good if we could fix that problem or at least attempt to treat it.
But what happens is that the law is a teacher.
And so when the law did not recognize that.
That's literally what Torah means, by the way.
Teacher.
Continue.
It's interesting.
That's right.
That's what I mean.
So when the law did not accept the idea of transgenderism until about 2015, 2016, even a little bit later, you saw this problem relatively contained.
Now that the law is encouraging this, in some cases, if you disagree with transgenderism, you're going to lose your job.
You can be kicked out of school.
You can face all sorts of consequences.
Well, ever since that happened, what do you know?
More and more people are identifying as transgender.
There was one poll that came out a little while ago that showed that more than one in five Zoomers identify as LGBT.
So either Alex Jones is right and there's something in the water that's turning all the freaking Zoomers gay, or there's a social aspect to this, and that social aspect is encouraged by the incentives and disincentives.
A New Generation of Truth Tellers 00:02:40
So it's important to take it on in the government.
Yeah, it's a social contagion.
But talk for a second, Michael.
So it's been one calendar, not even a calendar year since What is a Woman came out?
That was last June.
And so here's Daily Wire, a growing media company headquartered in Tennessee, that has more effectively been able to get legislation from concept to policy done than all these other waste-of-time lobbying groups.
And by the way, now other states are following.
Mississippi looks like they're going to follow.
There's other states that are going to follow it, the same sort of pattern.
We're watching all these different states, but it started with a movie.
That's right.
And it's so important because you're drawing this comparison to a lobbying group.
But the crucial distinction here is we don't need to lobby.
It's not like we set up meetings and have dinners and all sorts of things with politicians.
That's what lobbyists do.
No, we go out and make movies and state our opinion and try to present these issues as clearly as we can.
Yes.
Then it's the people who listen to it.
And then the people listen and they call their congressmen and they call their representatives and you see responsive government.
So huge kudos to Governor Lee, huge kudos to the Republicans in the Tennessee legislature because what they're doing is they're representing the desires of the people and they're restoring a little bit of sanity, even as much as the rest of the country goes off the rails.
So here's what's important, everybody, as we kind of put a little bit of a bow on this.
People say, how do we get our country back and all this?
You need young, articulate, entrepreneurial truth tellers that are empowered to push the status quo, to push tired old dogma, and you're going to start to see legislative wins and courage happen because of it.
I've said this before, the media hates when I say this.
Politicians are only reading off the script that we give them.
And the script is largely made sense of by articulate podcasters or radio show hosts, Tucker Carlson, Michael Knowles, Candace Owens, Shapiro Walsh.
And all of a sudden, now Tennessee has accomplished something that would have been a pipe dream a couple years ago.
We went from a conservative movement that was afraid to do bathroom bills in Indiana, North Carolina, to now banning the meta-commutilation of children.
What changed?
What changed is now the people who are processing, no, that are communicating the truth are no longer just the talking heads on TV.
There's a new generation of truth tellers, and it has liberated the conservative movement.
Michael, we're out of time.
Best of luck on your genocidal campaign.
And I'm kidding, Media Matters.
I'm kidding.
Thank you, Michael.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts as always.
Freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection