Andrew and Blake take the questions you email them at Freedom@CharlieKirk.com including: -What’s the best strategy for pursuing civil disobedience against the left? -Who benefits most from the J6 intrusion, and does that point toward who is responsible? -What rainbow flag in Obama’s past are people finally starting to notice?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
Ask Andrew and Blake Anything00:02:02
This is producer Andrew Colvet filling in for Charlie on this special Ask Me Anything, Ask Charlie Anything, but in this case, Ask Andrew and Blake anything.
We take your audience questions that you send us to freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
And we talk about a lot of things, including Barry Sotero, otherwise known as Barack Obama, and a new article that came out that alleges some very interesting things.
We also talk about, hey, what's the right way to be civilly disobedient and not cause a civil war if things get really bad?
We talked about, was J6 an inside job?
Was it a Fed surrection?
Was Occam's razor at play here?
What's the most likely explanation for what happened?
We talk about the Joyless Reed, the not-so-smart MSNBC anchor who thinks that Trump is about to face a demographic reality.
You're not going to want to miss that clip.
It's explosive and stupid.
But we address it and so much more right here on an Ask Me Anything, a special edition with Andrew Colvett and Blake Neff.
Don't go anywhere.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
This is executive producer Andrew Colvett and I am pleased to be joined by Blake Neff, one of our other producers on the show, resident historian, Dartmouth grad, Ivy Leaguer, inside the Beltway, lived in the swamp for years.
Explaining January 6th Chaos00:09:07
But actually, folks, he is from the Dakotas.
Are you not, Blake?
Yes.
You're a Dakota man.
I was born in Fargo, North Dakota, and then grew up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
So feel free to mix those up because everybody else does.
Yeah.
So you're not all bad, right?
You're not a swamp creature.
I mean, I definitely don't talk like Raheem Kassam just because I went to school at Dartmouth.
When I was a Dartmouth lad and only were attended.
We went out to visit Yale College after the regatta.
The regatta.
Yeah, that's how, man.
As a West Coast guy, none of that makes any sense to me.
Nor does prep schools.
I don't get that.
Anyways, here we go.
So I have a question here.
We're going to do this AMA all hour long.
We're taking your questions.
Blake's a very smart guy, very up on it, and on a lot of inside chatter.
So he's got a kind of a beat on a lot of things and going to add a lot to the conversation.
He's also a little contrarian, so we might disagree a little bit here.
It's going to be fun.
So I've got this.
You mentioned Raheem Kassam.
We just had him on talking about Steven Sun, the chief of the Capitol Hill Police on January 6th.
He was basically the Patsy, the fall guy, after everything that happened.
And he's claiming that he was denied a lot of intel leading up to J6 and that there's been a cover-up before and after.
Okay, so we got a question here from Pam from Grayslake.
She says, Let me ask you this: who benefits from halting the procedure on J6?
Trump, who wanted the evidence from the state presented, or the Uniparty covering up a fraudulent election?
I think you are all looking at it from the wrong direction.
And this is Grammy Pammy.
So, Blake, in this context of this larger discussion, you know, do you, I mean, you are not a conspiracy.
I'm on so many chats with you.
You are not a conspiracy theorist.
Every time we kind of like float one of these speculative ideas, usually you're the guy in the room going, that doesn't make any sense.
You guys are overthinking this.
Like things are probably more simple than you realize.
But you were even talking when I was discussing Michael Fanone, this creepy, you know, celebrity police guy that seems to be completely astroturfed, by my estimation.
You were saying it was making you feel a little crazy because you're like, there feels like there actually might be something here.
Is there something here, Blake, or not?
I go back and forth on it.
I like the phrasing from Pam's question, like, you know, who benefits?
And it's sort of a useful question because I do think that you see that phrase used a lot, who benefits?
Qui bono.
And I think it sometimes can lead people astray because the right, especially, like, we love to try to find like who's behind the scenes, who's the puppet master.
You'll hear that a lot, you know, with theories involving Soros or Obama or anything else.
Like, what, you know, who could have, who could have planned what was going on here?
And I think the truth in a lot of cases is who benefits is actually who reacts best or in the smartest way to events that unfold.
And what I've always had trouble with January 6th, like theories that it was, you know, centrally planned, that it was this, you know, anti-MAGA operation, is it's just you'd need a lot of people in on it.
And it's so inherently, like, incredibly risky.
Like, okay, there were lawmakers there.
Like, what if it actually does get out of control?
What if a lot of them have guns?
What if a lot of people get killed?
And the idea that they centrally planned all of that just doesn't seem likely to me.
Like, when we have cases where the FBI is, you know, instigating things, we definitely have cases where the FBI acts as agent provocateurs.
You know, we have the Gretchen Whitmer case.
We have other examples.
And it's always that the plan is sort of they're supposed to swoop in before anything happens.
And then if something does happen anyway, it was like, whoa, it wasn't supposed to go this way.
We were supposed to just be monitoring them and swoop in.
And I don't think we have conclusively proven cases where they literally let some big incident happen.
And that's why I've always been skeptical of this.
But it is so weird, like with this Fanon guy or Fanoni, Phony, Phoney Fanoni, that he, as she says, like, it's like he has this whole slick background that is suddenly all dressed up and they're perfectly ready to make this hero out of him.
But I do still lean in the direction that the most plausible explanation is: well, we had this big opportunity pop up for us where they made themselves look bad by parading through the Capitol.
Let's really milk this.
Let's find a few cops who are ready to go on TV.
And then this guy, being kind of a creepy psycho-sociopath, is the kind of guy who will just dress up his whole personality.
Oh, what do I need to do?
Oh, I need to say I had all these medical calamities.
I'll exaggerate everything and talk about what a huge hero I was and really play up my role.
And the media is ready to rush along with it.
Democrats are ready to rush along with it.
And then they suddenly have this hero that they can put on television.
And I always think that's where I always lean in terms of how I'm going to interpret it: that they see an opportunity and they exploit it well, as opposed to everything was centrally planned in advance because that's just so difficult to do.
I don't disagree with you, but here's where I will sort of push back a little bit.
I don't think, okay, so I don't think the smoke-filled backroom, Blake, is the way most of these things get hatched.
I think when we envision this centrally planned scheme ahead of time, I genuinely don't think it's like that.
I think it's like maybe a couple people in a casual meeting being like, you know, hey, you know, these guys are about to make fools of themselves.
You're like, yeah, listen, I'm not going to get in their way.
Like, just don't send Stevenson the briefing.
Just don't.
He wants it.
He's yelling at it.
Tell him to go pounce in.
You know, like something a little bit more sort of casual, less sort of 3D chess and more checkers, but it's pushing towards, hey, we're just not going to make life easy on them.
Like, if they want to make fools of themselves, it's fine.
That's on them.
These guys are crazy.
Like, we're not going to help them.
You know, don't let the door hit you.
And then, sure enough, it kind of like plays into this way, into this visual of this chaos, where even the people that might have been part of the conspiracy where they were just sort of obstructing, getting in the way, making life difficult on somebody like Stevenson.
Yeah, maybe they did want something to happen.
Nobody knows exactly how it's going to happen.
But if you pair that with the fact, and Raheem is reporting that there were agents on the ground, there were intelligence assets in the crowd.
Now, there are to be careful here.
There are reasons to have intelligence assets on the ground that would not be to provoke the crowd, right?
I mean, our intelligence community has reasons to have assets in many places.
Yeah, that's the thing.
And, you know, as they say, never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake.
And that's often a frustration of mine with January 6th stuff is even if there is, frankly, even if there were actual provocateurs in the crowd, like the thing that is undeniable is a lot of people did very stupid things.
And sometimes I do feel with January 6th, there's this element of like, man, why did they have to trick me into committing this crime?
And you kind of hear the same thing with like BLM, to be honest, is they'll be like, oh, well, you know, actually, the system made me rob this store.
The system made me burn that thing down.
And too often, I do worry, like, you know, there's people in January 6th who just indisputably did assault cops who really did like, all right, lay the beat down on people.
Blake, this is a good point.
The CIA probably, I don't know if you agree, but was involved at some level with the assassination of JFK.
How do we explain things like that if they're if they're not actually sort of you know conspiring in a dark room?
How do you explain that?
Well, I mean, CIA's involvement in JFK, maybe.
There's other forces that could be involved in JFK's assassination.
I agree.
Like, stuff with Jack Ruby, it's really, it sort of does defy likelihood there was nothing bigger.
But on the other hand, there's just so many conspiracy things that get repeated a lot, but are actually just like not true.
Like after we discussed it during Thought Crime a week ago, I went and like went down this rabbit hole of reading a lot of JFK stuff.
And a lot of things that get claimed all the time are actually not that true.
Like we brought up like the, you know, the parade route that Kennedy was going down and the allegations that this was changed last minute to enable an assassination.
And it's actually just not true.
It's based on a misreading of a map that got published.
And really, if you read about it, that was essentially the only route he could be taking to get onto the highway he needed to go on.
And, you know, there's just a lot of things like that.
It's easy to go down a rabbit hole, and a lot of people want to do it.
And my bias is always actually towards like it's Occam's razor.
Like the simplest explanation is often the best one.
Yeah, I know that's how your mind works.
Facing Demographic Reality00:03:56
Welcome to our inside chats here.
Blake throwing cold water on some of our speculations.
Let's go ahead and I want to play this clip.
We got a couple questions about demographic change.
One in particular is kind of interesting.
A Chicago listener, actually, one of our many, talking about can Trump win again.
Was 2016 sort of the last time demographically that somebody like Donald Trump could win?
So it sort of ties in here.
This just came across the wire.
Play cut 164.
They oppose that venue for many reasons.
The demographics of it are interesting.
This judge's name, I believe his magistrate judge, is Mokshila Opadiya, or Opaidiya.
I might be pronouncing it wrong.
A woman of color, the judge he will be facing in the trial, Jamaican-born woman of color.
He seems to be facing sort of demographic reality, legal reality, and situational reality.
He is.
So that's Joy Reed, not a smart person.
MSNBC, affirmative action pick.
Admittedly so, by the way.
So Blake, I'm just going to throw to you, what does she mean by Trump is facing demographic reality?
I mean, it's exactly what it looks like.
It's like she's dumb enough that she sort of says what you're not supposed to say out loud, where she's just like, you know, yeah, we're going to win because we have like, you know, they will say that the right is like the one that is obsessed with race, but it's like, it's no, like you guys are the ones who are obsessed with assigning like blame, like good and bad status based on race.
And so then you just gloat where it's like, well, now we will, like, we're in charge and we're going to make, like, we're going to make Whitey pay for it, essentially.
To use the term that they used to use back in like the 60s, like, we will hold the whip hand.
And it's very, like, it's very thuggish how she phrases it, like, the glee that she has with it.
And she's like that all the time.
Yeah, did you see her little smile?
She had a little smile in there, too, like when she said a woman of color.
And then she smiled.
And then I thought Justice was supposed to be blind, but yet she says he's facing demographic reality and legal reality.
It's like you're, you know, I think the charitable way they would frame it is like, well, what they really mean is like, you know, racist white people can't bail out Trump.
But I think the reality comes through so often.
Ezra Klein, who's this, you know, liberal journalist, he's been at the New York Times.
He founded Vox.
He had a piece that he wrote a few years ago where the tone of it is amazing, where he's like, well, white people in America are okay with mass immigration as long as you sort of lie to them about how much it will change the country.
And you tell them, you know, nothing big is going to change.
It's not going to change how the overall structure of American society.
And then he sort of lets on, but it actually is because we're not going to be able to have the same political power structure in America when white people are not the majority in the country anymore.
And every so often you just get that slip where they'll just openly say like, well, white people aren't going to be able to block reparations.
They're not going to be able to block this or that change.
Like we're going to need big changes in this country once we're minority majority as they kind of nonsensically call it.
And a lot of brighter people will keep a lid on it and they'll just say like don't talk about it.
But then dumber ones, which is Joy Reed or Joe Biden, old Joe, he sometimes says that it's so great that now white people are going to be a minority.
And the reason they say this is because they actually just do have like a sinister, very racialized agenda for what they want to do to America.
Vivek Ramaswamy's Letter Claims00:15:18
It's the exact opposite of what they claim of like wanting to be, well, they used to say they wanted to be post-racial.
Now they are more glaring.
Like they're like, you can't be post-racial.
In fact, your race is the most important thing about you.
Just this week, NBC News had an article where they're explaining like, there's these people who claim that you can be transracial.
And that's not true.
And they literally have the line where it's like, even though race is based on nothing and is a social construct, you also can't change it because it's actually super duper important to everything about you.
And that's really their attitude is they switch back and forth on what they say about it based on whatever is most useful for essentially pulverizing their designated political enemies.
It's very sinister.
I'm looking for a question here that I wanted to get to.
Need advice.
John from, let's just say, yeah, from Minnesota.
What form of civil disobedience do you recommend if things get really bad with the treatment of Trump?
For instance, if he is assassinated, put behind bars, or is excluded from running, I feel we owe him the backup.
Obviously, we don't want a civil war.
John, what's your take here, Blake?
I think if you're going to do something, you want to pressure to like do it.
You want to act at like the state level, if you possibly can.
So don't just like go out and like block the street by yourself.
Like what you can really do is take inspiration from blue sanctuary cities, sanctuary states.
Get your attorney general to stop cooperating with federal law enforcement.
Be like, the DOJ is rogue, so we're going to not send them information about suspects.
We're going to not cooperate with them to the extent we possibly can.
And if you get enough red states doing that, you really gum up the system as it's supposed to work.
And I think you kind of create a political crisis rather than one where they can just easily swat you down.
Yeah, and when Blake's saying, get your AG to do something, obviously you don't snap your fingers, but there's groups that you can get involved with locally.
So find out which groups are most active.
If you can find a turning point, USA chapter, turning point action is involved, has boots on the ground in a lot of these swing states where a lot of these fights are happening.
So definitely do that.
But most of all, stay peaceful.
Don't take the bait.
I appreciate that John said we don't want a civil war.
We don't want a civil war.
Civil disobedience is cool.
Civil war is not cool.
Look what's going on with J6.
I don't even need to say more after that.
We've got a question here.
Have you guys looked into Vivek's business history, specifically Roviant social ventures?
Have you considered those details with the facts that he is part of Skull and Bones fraternity?
He says the right things, but what if he's a snake in the grass?
Would love your guys' take on this.
Let's go, Brandon.
I have not looked into specifically Roviant social ventures.
Blake, I don't know if you have.
I can tell you this.
I know Vivek personally.
I've known him now for a couple of years before his run for the presidency.
He might have been planning that run even when I knew him.
So I can't say that this isn't something he's been working on and sort of dealing with.
I can say that I do believe him because I've seen him behind the scenes when he's sort of speaking candidly and not from a script and not campaigning.
He's been like this for a long time.
I think there's another line here I actually skipped.
He's also not a Christian, yet loves to quote the founding father stating, we are all created equal and endowed by their creator.
I actually think this is the most important line of this question.
I do think, Blake, as much as I like Vivek and as much as I would support him having a role in a future Republican administration, I do think that his whole vegan thing, I think that his being a, he's Hindu, right?
I think that that is going, that is a political liability on the right to some extent, right or wrong.
I am a Christian.
There are certain things that only other Christians are going to understand and relate to.
So I do think it's going to be a political liability.
Whether it puts a ceiling on how far he can go or not is certainly a question, but I certainly respect Vivek and what he's bringing to this presidential race.
All right.
Well, so, I mean, I don't know him personally.
I certainly can't read his heart.
I will say I've spoken to people who've known him from the business world, and the description they gave is like, you know, when he was an up-and-comer, he was like Steve Jobs, which I interpret as, you know, he was very focused on business success.
He was very good at wowing people and impressing them.
And I think it's certainly possible he could be bringing that to politics, that he's, you know, he kind of charted out a way.
He's like, I want to become a political figure.
This is the angle I can approach from where I can give myself credibility with this group of people.
And this is the way I can most rapidly raise my profile.
But you can also say, like, you know, whether he really deep down means everything he says to the full extent that he indicates, does it matter as long as he, like, you know, as long as he does what we'd want him to do?
And I doubt, I don't think he would become, you know, president or take this high role and then completely pivot to something completely different because that, you know, murders your political credibility with everyone.
And so, you know, it doesn't fully matter as long as he'll do what he says he plans to do if he's in office.
I tend to agree because, listen, if he was doing the just most rapid ascent possible, he wouldn't have chosen to do it through the Republican Party anyways, right?
Because he's a brown American.
He's a successful businessman.
He could be in Congress right now.
He can see value, I think.
And I think, you know, as a businessman, he can sense that Republicans actually do.
We really like it when there's someone who kind of goes against the look of the typical Republican.
And those people can rise very quickly.
And I think he may have recognized there was some value in that.
Again, that doesn't mean, though, he's not authentically against wokeness.
That's where he has the most credibility on.
I do think he is good at saying what will impress the crowd he is with in terms of what he'll choose to focus on.
So in Silicon Valley, he'll emphasize, I'm against this woke stuff that screws with your business.
But in Iowa, he's perfectly happy to quote the Bible a lot and kind of leave people with the impression that he might be a Christian when, as you said, he's a Hindu.
I don't think vegetarianism or veganism will matter that much.
I think that's the sort of thing that the right will harp on if it's a liberal, but if he's on their side, they're not going to care.
I tend to believe, you know, I think here's my honest take on Vivek.
I think he's super smart.
I think he's a great marketer, great communicator.
But here's the thing.
We need that in our political leaders to be a great marketer.
You have to be.
I mean, some would say that Ron DeSantis has the exact opposite problem, right?
Where he's a great operator.
He's run Florida incredibly well.
But as a marketer, you know, he's kind of weak on that front, right?
So he is struggling to get that message out when he's away from a press conference setting.
By the way, I think that's when Ron DeSantis is absolutely at his strongest is when he's in a presser going back and forth with belligerent members of the media.
Now, so you need that strength.
Again, I would say that to your point, he's not going to go straight against what he said publicly.
You know, we can't read the man's heart.
That's true.
But he's not going to just about face.
He would have zero credibility.
It would ruin his career.
He's too smart to know that.
So I think we have to be honest with ourselves about our political leaders, that they are making a calculation all the time.
And he's a guy who's trying to rise above, out of the fray, be noticed.
So he's going to pick a path that aligns most with his values, but he also knows going to make a splash.
And frankly, he doesn't just say what everybody wants him to say because he's kind of recently screwed up on the immigration thing, which is something you and I actually talked to him in between breaks.
I remember that day one time when we were sort of like telling him our POV on immigration, and he was like, I'm still thinking through it, you know, honestly.
So I thought that was an interesting insight.
But listen, I think Vivek's great in general.
I think he's going to be a great addition to our just the future.
He's 37, I think, years old.
So he's got a bright future in the conservative movement.
I do think he's authentic.
Next question here, Occam's Razor.
Andrew, your guest is off the rail on this.
Occam's Razor is the agent provocateur's planned and instigated the riot.
Ray Epps on video.
Andrew, come on, man.
It was obviously a Fed surrection.
So I just wanted to throw that in there for you, Blake, because Occam's Razor is that the simplest, most obvious explanation is probably true.
And so our audience thinks that it was a Fed surrection.
Blake, no comments here for you.
Go ahead.
Well, it's true.
Do you want to react?
I mean, I would just say, like, okay, if what's on camera is a lot of people who, you know, are chanting a thing and they go into the Capitol chanting that thing and they do stuff.
And then if your explanation is there's, you know, at minimum, several dozen people who are all secretly involved with something that they planned out in advance in something that's wildly unpredictable and involves tens of thousands of people.
I mean, be my guest.
I can't tell you what to think.
That's just how I lean on it.
And I think there would be slightly more proof forthcoming at this point, even though I think it's an interesting question and we should investigate it.
Yeah, I definitely am getting more and more on the Fed surrection side of things.
And even if it wasn't quite as creepy and as well thought through, it probably took on a life of its own at some point where even the people that were kind of, let's just say, in the mastermind aspect as we think about it.
But it probably took on a life of its own and surprised even them.
That's my current running theory.
And you got to remember, Blake, where is the pipe bomber?
Why can we not fight in the pipe bomber?
That one stands out the most to me, too.
I'm stunned on that one.
That's definitely the shadiest part of the whole thing to me.
And Stevenson was, it's his job to keep the Capitol safe and they didn't empower him.
So that's super ton.
Okay.
So this is the Obama question.
Guys, you're missing the forest of the trees.
Joe Biden is a puppet president.
He was installed.
Obama is pulling the strings.
Everybody knows it.
You need to focus on Obama.
Stop ignoring the biggie on the eye chart.
Okay.
Blake, do you agree?
I think you actually might agree with that.
Well, so what's been going viral the last couple days is there's an article in Tablet magazine, which is kind of funny because it's going viral, even though there's not much new in it per se.
It's an interview with David Garrow, who's a historian and biographer.
And about six years ago, he wrote the biography Rising Star, which is about Obama's early life up to, I think, when he gets elected president.
So it's not about his presidency.
It's just young Obama.
And he found all this interesting stuff that no one noticed because essentially the book was a thousand pages long and who has time to read that stuff?
You know, so they're interviewing him, but they also bring up, they're like, just some obvious things.
They're like, most U.S. presidents, when they leave office, they leave D.C. That's their tradition.
Like, you get out, you're not still in power.
New president's in charge.
It's kind of, it's a democratic tradition that we have, not Democrat Party, but, you know, okay, I said our democracy, which I know Charlie hates, our Republic, our Republican tradition, if you will.
But Obama didn't do that.
He stuck around in town.
They said the reason was so that their daughter, Sasha, could finish high school.
And then she finished high school in 2019.
And they're still in D.C.
They still live in D.C.
And Biden's White House, where we know Biden himself is not all there all the time, is full of all of these old Obama veterans.
Obama still visits the White House.
When he does, they're all hanging out with Obama.
And Joe Biden is literally talking to the curtains.
There was a video of that a while ago.
And so he just, this piece brings up the relevant question.
What if Obama basically is still, you know, not necessarily the shadow president, but this very much big man in Democrat politics and we're just not talking about it.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's interesting, too, when we think back to this very famous clip.
Go ahead and play 167.
What you know now, do you wish you had a third term?
And I used to say, you know what?
If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in, and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony.
I'd be fine with that.
This piece is very fascinating.
There is a very explosive part of this.
Now, if you are like Blake and I, and you've been sort of aware of this stuff for a while, there are allegations here.
And you're going to have to explain this to me, Blake, because I skimmed this piece.
I think you've read it in depth.
There's allegations that this guy went back into college records and found a letter where Obama said he fantasizes about, you know, essentially being gay.
Am I reading that?
This is what's so weird about it.
This thing is going really viral.
I mean, Chris Rufos tweeted about it.
Our friend Jack Pisobic's been tweeting about it, I believe.
Like, everyone's noticing this.
And what's so funny to me is it's not new.
This book, Rising Star, had a lot of content about this.
I think the specific letter they're talking about was published in the Emory archives around 2019.
You can find articles in like American Thinker talking about this, but it didn't get wider play for some reason.
But there's all these just very strange letters that Obama wrote when he was, you know, a young man in college.
And one of them is he literally wrote a letter to one of his girlfriends in which, and then what's great is this Garrow guy in this interview, it's that he described getting the letter from this girlfriend.
And then it's with Alex, that's the name of the girlfriend.
I think she wanted to have her role known.
So when Alex showed me the letters from Barack, she redacted one paragraph in one of them and then just said, quote, it's about homosexuality.
And then they go to, eventually they surface in Emory.
And he literally has this line in this letter where he's like, I make love to men in my mind, in my imagination.
And that's a letter he wrote to a girlfriend.
I can't remember if it's the same letter or a different one, but this is described in the biography.
It says that Obama had, quote, considered gayness, but he opted for the greater challenge of a heterosexual relationship, which, I mean, maybe he did.
I feel like that's not the usual explanation given by straight people for why they are straight.
I can't speak for all of us, but that's the claim that he put forward.
And it just is making everyone suddenly raise an eyebrow.
Like, wait a minute.
And I think it's so funny.
One, that, you know, the right is often very interested in Obama's origins with the birther thing, with, you know, kind of the roots of Obama's rage stuff that Dinesh J'Souza did.
And then they sort of took a few years to notice this.
Like, you know, what if a lot of the mystery of Obama is just, what if he's just gay?
So I have a whole take, like psychological make on Obama.
The Psychology of Obama00:04:56
I think he was just a confused kid who came from both backgrounds.
He very well could be gay.
That's chosen heterosexual relationships.
I don't know.
I do think that he looms large within Democrat establishment politics.
I think that he's absolutely become more racialized.
Even his girlfriend that he broke up with that kind of starts out this tablet piece, that is sort of one of the explanations that he gave, right?
He broke up with her after seeing some documentary that was like, you know, American black experience.
It's part of his self-identification as a black man was part of this story.
So my take on Obama is that he was a very confused kid from mixed backgrounds, mixed geographies, didn't have much of a core or a center, and then sort of found this later in life with, you know, his pastor.
What was that guy's name again?
Jeremiah Wright.
His flirting around the edges with Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam.
For the people that this worked on, he was this embodiment of a new America, this sort of fusion of old and new.
And for the people that it didn't work on, it was like, this guy has no core.
He doesn't know who the heck he is.
And that's why Obama, frankly, sounded pretty reasonable.
If you go back to like 2006, 2008, when he was running for president, fast forward to now, the guy's a complete radical.
Like he's gone.
He is gone with the flow completely with the Democrat Party.
Well, I think the radicalism of Obama can be somewhat overstated.
I mean, his administration is vastly less radical than certainly than Biden's is now.
And I just don't think the Democratic Party going radical is a very top-down thing.
To the extent he wanted more radical, he just went along with the way the party was going.
Sort of, you know, took a slow play.
He's not pro-gay marriage until 2012.
As far as Obama's origins, one thing I do think is funny is we just don't seem to see this for a lot of other people.
Like I feel like we don't get psychological takes on like why Joe Biden wanted to become president.
We don't get psychological takes on why George W. Bush wanted to be president.
We just got ones on why he wanted to invade Iraq.
So it's just sort of like, well, what's Obama's origin?
He's an ambitious politician who wanted to become president.
There is a tension, though, with his upbringing because it's very telling about what drives the man, and it's very mysterious.
I mean, even this guy's in this.
I think it's not super complicated.
I mean, he has certain like, he has some racial sort of head stuff because remember, he is half black, but he was raised by his white mother.
His black father was not really in his life.
His stepfather was also not black.
He was substantially raised by his white grandparents as well.
So he has some racial, you know, like who am I type stuff, which he's discovering.
He also, you know, he becomes, he discovers he has a natural flair for politics.
He sort of becomes a man of very intense ambitions.
He rises very quickly.
And I think he deduces as part of that, he needs the authenticity of being like a black American when he, you know, is not a descendant of American slaves.
So he needs that authenticity.
That's part of why he feels he, you know, needs to date and marry a black woman to gain some of that authenticity.
And not saying that the whole relationship is a fraud like some people say.
I just think that influenced who he was interested in in the first place.
And then he's able to rise very quickly because he's still a very kind of white-coated person.
And that was really what he offered to people is he was a black politician who still kind of, you know, he talked like a guy who watched the West Wing and is, you know, kind of, you know, would fit in with the prep school crowd, as it were.
And that allows him to just rocket to the top of American politics so quickly.
I think you're right.
I think you're right.
But I do think back to the original question that we were asked, Barack Obama pulling the strings, 10 seconds.
I think it could easily be happening.
I don't think it means he's a shadow president, but I do think he's easily an organizing node for the people who still strongly influence the establishment of the Democrat Party and what they do.
Yeah, I think it's 100% right.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
If you like what you heard here, please consider getting even more of it in an exclusive way where we are creating a club only for our members.
And by the way, you can get these episodes without ads.
That's right.
We're going to be posting everything starting today.
So go to members.charlikirk.com, members.charliekirk.com, and for a small monthly fee, you guys can help this show out in a tremendous way.
And we're going to be bringing everybody over that already supports the show.
We're going to be giving you and emailing you login.
So if you're already a supporter of the show, we're going to get you logins.
Never fear.
We are grateful for your support.
Please consider doing that.
We'll talk to you soon.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.