THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 39 — Tucker vs. Israel? Abortion and 2024? Who Broke Marriage?
In this week’s ThoughtCrime, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Andrew Kolvet, and Blake Neff answer many crucial questions, including: -Who bears more blame for the declining state of marriage, men or women? -Is Tucker Carlson's critique of Israel's treatment of Christians fair? -Is abortion the albatross that will destroy the GOP in 2024? And if so, what's the fix? Become a member at members.charliekirk.com!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
Noble Gold Investments00:01:41
Hey, everybody.
Happy Thought Crime Saturday.
We sit down and talk at length about abortion and then Tucker Carlson on Israel and so much more.
Blake joins the program.
Andrew's on the program.
Jack's on the program.
We air this every Thursday.
We go live every Thursday on rumble.com.
So download the Rumble app.
Become a member at members.charliekirk.com.
That is members.charlikirk.com.
Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Start a high school or college chapter 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.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
Okay, it is thought crime time, everybody, in the studio.
We only have one person, producer Andrew.
Roe Wade Law Land Polls00:15:23
Hey, only me?
Well, just only one person.
Remote is Blake.
Blake, you're blocking the eclipse.
Yes, the eclipse is over.
It was great.
I know you just think it was a bunch of clouds.
It was like a dark object.
It went dark for a bit.
It gets dark every night, but it was actually pretty fun, I have to say.
It was a quasi-spiritual experience, some people say.
Jack, what did you do for the eclipse?
I made sure to look directly at it for as long as possible to gain the supernatural powers for the 2024 election.
Now, I didn't travel like Blake did.
People don't realize this, but Blake is actually part of a group of eclipse worshipers, and they travel to every single eclipse around the world.
It's a you know, kind of a Reddit thing that they do.
And, you know, when they're not, when they're not in their prayer circles praying to Dr. Fauci, they go and pray to the eclipses.
Well, speaking of supernatural powers, we might need it after the latest Supreme Court decision in Arizona.
Who wants to walk us through?
What's going on in Arizona?
What's that?
Something significant.
Who wants to walk us through it?
Blake or Andrew?
Andrew, you want to take it?
You know, I think, you know, we have a good rundown here, and let me just make sure I pull it up.
But yeah, I mean, basically, we have a okay.
So there was a 15-week law that was the law of the land in Arizona that was predicated on the fact that Roe v. Wade was also the law of the land.
But then Roe v. Wade gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which basically nullifies this 15-week ban that was in Arizona, Doug Ducey's abortion law.
And what that did is it sent it back to a Civil War era law when Arizona was still a territory.
And that law basically outlaws all abortion in the state of Arizona.
This obviously has massive political implications for a lot of reasons.
Arizona was polling in such a way that we were hearing rumors that Biden and the Democrats were not putting much hope in Arizona at all, right?
It's one of the key swing states.
You would have expected the opposite.
Their polling and their internals and the work that Turning Point Action is doing was all leading to a predicament for them where they were not investing in Arizona as you might expect.
Well, I think all that changed yesterday.
One thing that I think is important to understand.
So, this is the logic of the left.
They think if abortion now becomes the issue, that that will drive low-propensity Democrat, abortion-loving people to the polls.
And therefore, whatever deficit that Joe Biden was experiencing is now going to be made up by these low-prop, pro-abortions.
They're going all in on it.
And they're going all in on it, right?
So, what people need to understand is that there already was an abortion, the issue was going to be on the ballot via referendum in Arizona.
In Arizona, so there was already going to be an abortion issue on the ballot.
And the only other swing state where that's true is Nevada, which actually is very interesting to me, Charlie, with everything that we've been talking about with Nebraska and forcing Joe Biden to play in the Sun Belt.
Well, Nevada and Arizona have abortion on the ballot.
So, it's been a very chaotic last 24 hours, last 48 hours, because there seems to be a predisposition by conservatives to basically toss the life issue out, right?
So, Trump preempts this on Monday, right?
Or was that on Tuesday?
Maybe it was on Tuesday.
I apologize.
It was Monday.
Monday.
The day of the eclipse.
Yeah.
So, Trump preempts it, issues his statement, throwing it back to the states.
And incredibly, the next day, this Arizona Supreme Court ruling comes out and basically says that the law of the land is still this Civil War era law.
So, everybody's confused what it means.
Charlie, you've got some interesting ideas I think we need to get into.
And then, in the legislative session out of Arizona, all hell's breaking loose.
The Democrats are yelling shame and there's blood on your hands inside of the legislature inside the house here in Arizona.
I mean, it's a very wild scenario and a very live note.
This is, look, the Democrats have one, maybe two attack vectors.
The only other attack vector they have is taking Donald Trump off the ballot, and that didn't happen.
And number two was Roe v. Wade and abortion.
And our side is currently very disorganized on this, not unified.
And I mean, I'll tell you, I'm getting it from both sides right now.
And I've been, not me, because actually people respect my opinions on this.
I've gotten a little bit of ridicule and condemnation, but by both sides, let me explain.
I have pastor group chats of people that are incensed that the Republican Party is not saying the Arizona ban is not the best thing ever.
That's number one, saying that Kerry Lake and Trump should come out and say this is the best thing ever.
We should make it the law of the land.
Then I have other people on the other side that are patriots, donors, and activists alike that say we need to make this a non-issue or else we're going to get obliterated in November.
And so you kind of have these two factions.
And no, and they're all one sec, Jack.
They're all calling each other's names.
They're all calling, you know, they're all pointing fingers at one another.
And my position was: love the ruling.
I want abortion to not be the law of the land.
Bad timing.
Why?
It's not even a close fit to the will of the people.
And if you have something that is not in the fit the will of the people, it's not sustainable.
And it also creates massive political backlash.
So that's my position.
So I said, try to get something on the ballot that is a pro-life win, which would be a heartbeat bill.
And I think that we have the best, most prudent, reasonable solution that's been proposed.
But I am not afraid.
I don't care how much this gets clipped by the media to state this is a problem.
It's a problem.
And acting as if it doesn't exist is foolish.
Jack, please, sorry, I had to get that all out.
No, no, and we should, of course, bring up our positions.
But before we get to that on this, and I'll even say, you know, I said first and foremost, because this is such a problem right now that we should lead the show with this.
And we're not even planning to talk about it this week.
But here's something that, and I say this as a non-Arizonan that is confusing to me, that in the ruling from the state Supreme Court, if I have this correct, so Doug Ducey passes this 15-week bill back in 2022.
So even under Dobbs, or even under Roe v. Wade, I guess it was at the time, I think, Dobbs hadn't been finalized yet, that hadn't been issued yet.
And so wouldn't this 2022 law supersede the 1854 law?
And I guess the state Supreme Court, if I have this correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was talking to someone who's one of those law-talking guys and said, well, essentially, the 2022 bill doesn't include language that says that it supersedes it.
And essentially, the state Supreme Court said, look, we essentially say that it's a situation where both laws are now in effect at the same time because of the 2022 law, not including that language.
The court didn't want to interpret things into it that were not there and then basically punts it back to the legislature and says, look, you guys passed this stuff.
You go fix it.
Is that the situation?
Because I still don't quite understand why the 2022 law doesn't itself just supersede the original law.
Blake, do you have an answer on that?
I mean, I literally have the law open right now and I'm checking it.
But my guess, frankly, is this was the thing that you saw with pro-life activists in many states, which is obviously pro-life activists want to ban abortion, but they also were aware for 50 years that the Supreme Court has restricted their ability to do that.
And so there was always the pro-life push of pass the most pro-life law that will survive a court challenge, try to gradually undermine it by getting the Supreme Court to allow further and further bans.
So what you would get in states, I know when I was growing up in South Dakota, they would have things like this, is they would have laws that essentially are: this is the law because of the current Supreme Court situation.
If the Supreme Court's ruling were to change completely, if Roe were to go away, we would have a new law come into play.
Sometimes they would call these trigger laws, as in, so if they pull the trigger and get rid of Roe, a stricter law comes into play.
And that's actually why several other states do have strict abortion laws going right now.
And so I suspect that the way the Arizona 15-week ban was constructed is pro-lifers didn't want to repeal the stricter law they had if that suddenly became.
And I suspect that's what came into play here that made this happen.
Yeah.
So what I don't appreciate is some of the conversations I've had around this is punting.
Andrew, and you were, you were, you know, some of these conversations.
People say, oh, don't worry about it.
We'll just kind of figure it out.
I think that's foolish.
I think it's short-sighted.
And I think the Democrats are salivating at the one lane they have to overachieve a dismal record coming into November.
Yeah, if you act like this doesn't exist, then you're essentially creating a vacuum that Democrats are going to fill.
So you've got to come out with something that at least offers an alternative.
And there's a couple of reasons why, Charlie.
You know, I think that the Republicans can be guilty of taking the pro-life vote for granted.
And what you want is you want something that will inspire the pro-life vote, that will get the activists out and get them on board.
I think to your recommendation of a heartbeat bill, this is about the strictest laws that are getting passed.
It plays offense on the top.
It plays offense.
And actually, I mean, What's ironic about the psychology of this is because if nothing gets done, yeah, in theory, you could get the 1864 law, right?
But that's not going to happen.
Like this, if you do, if you do not have something else on the ballot, guess what's going to happen?
You're going to have unlimited late-term abortion because that's the referendum that's already on the ballot in November, right?
That's going to pass.
If you don't do anything, you're going to have late-term abortions.
So the heartbeat bill is about as aggressive as a precedent that we've seen set in the country.
We've seen it in Arizona.
Texas has something similar.
Blake, Jack, you probably know the other states.
But this is actually an opportunity to go on the offense, to get excited about it, get inspired by it, and actually, you know, sort of take some of the wind out of the other side's sales.
And here's the other thing.
And Jack, I'd specifically love your instincts on this, but the fact that Trump came out the day before and preempted that is either really just good politics or it just happened to be a stroke of luck, whether they planned this or not.
Knowing what I know about politics, I tend to think it was probably lucky.
But, you know, does that give us an opportunity from a messaging standpoint to sort of decouple top of ticket from down ballot issues?
For example, can enough voters in the state of Arizona separate the fact that Trump is saying, hey, I want to give it to the states, let the will of the votes, the voters prevail in the state, but I'm still going to pull the lever for Trump.
How many in a state like Arizona do you see people voting for maybe a pro-abortion stance, but also pulling the trigger for Trump?
20 to 30%.
Well, to answer your question, yeah, I think there's a percentage, but let's also point out that it's so even with Donald Trump kind of putting out his statement, which is, you know, it is not as saying it should be at the states.
It should be at the state level and saying that he doesn't want to get behind a federal ban.
Then, you know, people, you've got people on the pro-life side saying this is essentially pro-choice.
You've got other people saying, no, it's pro-life, just not at the federal level.
But I would also point out that Donald Trump isn't the only candidate on the ballot because there are definitely going to be two or potentially more than two candidates that are pro-choice.
So you've got Joe Biden, who's pro-choice.
Then you're going to have RFK, who is a, who's polling at, I'd have to pull up the latest Arizona poll to see, but he's polling at 12, 13% in a lot of these swing states.
And then you're also going to have Jill Stein.
You're going to have Cornell West.
So there's also, so it's not just a possibility of Trump pulling over some of that vote, but also how much of that vote is going to be split across these presidential candidates is something we're going to have to look at.
Yeah.
And look, I was texting with some pastors about this, and I can read a room really well.
And I've been saying this, I've been warning people about this.
If I go and speak and I talk about the reversal of Roe versus Wade, I get golf claps at churches.
If I say that we need to ban transgender care, enthusiastic response.
If I say that we need to deport illegals, cheering.
But there is a huge discomfort with rank and file Christians with the idea of banning abortion.
It's just too radical for Christians.
Or it's not.
Well, I think.
Yeah, go ahead.
Go ahead.
I just think that's a colossal failure on the part of Christian leaders.
Of course it is.
I think certainly within the Catholic Church, it's well known that there's a big split where you have some priests who are very adamant on it and you have some who are terrified to ever talk about it.
And morally, I think that's completely unacceptable.
And I think it has to be regarded as unacceptable in Protestant churches as well.
If, you know, if a pastor is going to be brave enough to defy a COVID ban, if they're going to be brave enough to oppose child mutilation, why can't they be brave enough to say, yeah, if you're a Christian, you have to regard abortion as extremely wrong and extremely evil and something that we need to get rid of.
That's just less than five.
And you have to say it all the time because otherwise people don't hear it.
And it's less than 5%, right?
It's less than 5% of pastors that would be saying that.
Well, yeah.
And I think you had a conversation with Matt Walsh that was really, really good on this.
And I encourage people to go back on the podcast and listen to it.
But, you know, we are constantly hounded as conservatives to retreat on these issues.
We don't have a choice right now.
We have to go on offense.
Yeah, no, we have to.
But here's the thing.
They told us they told us no proliferation on immigration.
Yeah.
They told us we had to give amnesty.
To win the votes, we had to go give amnesty.
Trump proved everybody wrong.
Now, I understand that abortion is a different issue than immigration.
And, you know, the trans issue is different.
Guns are different.
But at the same time, I do believe that if the conservative movement loses its moral clarity on the issue of abortion, we will pay for it tenfold.
That being said, this is why I like your idea so much.
If we put together an alternative, a heartbeat bill, not only are you going to give the base something to get excited about, you still might lose in the polls.
And if you lose the polls, then we have an opportunity to say, guess what?
We have more convincing to do, more persuading to do.
We know we have.
But hopefully, hopefully, that could, if we're going to lose a little bit on abortion, maybe we're going to make it up a little bit by just offering an alternative.
Heartbeat Bill Initiative00:14:02
And to Jack's point, I think looking at the polls, Jack, RFK is polling at an average of 10.4% in Arizona.
Right now, the numbers are, according to the Hill election HQ, 42.5% average for Trump, 36.6% average for Biden, and 10.4% average for RFK.
And I completely believe that with our ballot chase in Arizona, which we're trying to get like hundreds of thousands of votes in this ballot chase, we're hiring like crazy right now.
So this is a big operation.
If you couple that with RFK, you offer an alternative, you give something people to get excited about.
This, I mean, there is, do not press panic yet.
There's an urgency, but we can win Arizona.
There needs to be, and I don't think the legislature is going to do this.
What I think the Arizona legislature is likely to do based on just public reporting is I bet they're likely to capitulate and put something on Katie Hobbs' desk as some sort of bargain, like a 26-week limit.
That would be a mistake.
Or a 15-week limit to reinstitute what DoC had and only have the term status election.
Yeah.
What about go ahead?
What about just a compromise to say they're going to, and again, I'm going to come back to this because the heartbeat bill, that's a ton of work and a lot of time that we frankly don't don't have.
I'm not against it, but I'm saying that is that what about the compromise to just say we're, we're going to, we want the 2022 law to go in because that's the one we all voted for at the time.
Well, yeah, the 2022 law will, the Democrats will probably block that, though.
That's the point is that some of the Republicans are not going to, this is what, and I would love to see polling.
I like America's actually becoming more pro-abortion.
This is not a big surprise.
This is something I think, if there's a big failure of the pro-life movement, I think it was failing to anticipate this, but it's understandable because it happens a lot.
It happens so often, in fact, that this is something that political scholars wrote about in the past.
They called it the hollow hope, which is generally people, like activist groups, see a Supreme Court win as this culmination that will like burst.
You know, once they get their win at the Supreme Court, they'll get everything else they want too.
But controversial Supreme Court rulings usually create backlash.
If you want past examples, when you got like those pro-crime rulings from the Supreme Court in the 60s, Miranda versus Arizona, the backlash was we got tough on crime laws that massively increase criminal penalties, you know, how long people went to jail.
And so what you see after Dobbs is, you know, it's not a total wipeout, but you're seeing maybe like a 10% shift in terms of who identifies as pro-choice, who wants abortion to be legal in all or almost all circumstances.
Basically, I'd say you'd see like a 10 to 15% of people who in the past were signaling they were somewhat pro-life as like a tribal affiliation.
And then now that it's a live political issue, they're going, actually, just kidding, just kidding.
Please don't change things.
If I get my girlfriend pregnant, I want to make it go away.
And that just seems to be the situation as it is right now.
But I do agree.
I don't, I certainly, as someone who like you guys cares a lot about the pro-life movement, there's several things in play.
First of all, it's a very powerful moral issue.
And it's one that is kind of abstract.
You know, the unborn are kind of difficult to see for the most part.
It does require a certain sort of abstract moral reasoning.
And as a result, it's very dependent on people getting really, really fired up about it.
And so it's a difficult thing to handle because the only way we're ever going to get wins on it is to really whip people up to care a lot about it.
And the inevitable side effect of that is we're going to have people who care a lot about it, who are absolutists on the issue, who reject all compromise on the issue.
And if you want a good comparison, look at the abolitionist movement in the 1800s.
You would have, you know, people, abolitionists would attack Abraham Lincoln because he was not a true enough believer on abolition.
William Garrison, the founder of The Liberator, he would say, we need to throw out the Constitution.
We should, the North should secede from the Union because the Union has legal slavery.
You'd have, you know, you'd have John Brown who would try to, you know, kill people and start slave uprisings.
You would have these right radicals on the far end of the issue because that's how passionate it made people.
And it is going to be like, I don't want to, I think the big hazard right now is there are forces within the Republican Party that want the pro-life issue to go away.
They've never cared about it.
They find these holy rollers annoying.
They think they're the ones holding the party back from getting everything they want on taxes or whatever.
And they want to get rid of them and they think they can.
And this has happened in other countries.
So as someone who cares a lot about that issue, I do think we have to be aware that the big hazard right now is we lose this election.
They blame it all on the pro-lifers and we never ever get a pro-life bill introduced at the federal level or in any non-super red state again.
But Blake, the first part is actually a bigger hazard, which is the loss, right?
And we still have time to make sure we don't lose on the political issue.
So, Blake, in your wisdom politically, what can be done, if anything, to make sure we're not catastrophically obliterated on this issue and somehow 2024 becomes a referendum again on abortion as the country is collapsing.
Blake, what do you think we could do?
I think President Trump's statement on Monday was a very good start where he manages to say, I am pro-life.
I like the ruling that we did with Dobbs.
But at the same time, I am not going to come in and impose a law that is massively opposed by a large majority of Americans.
That's essentially what he's saying.
When he says, I'm leaving it to the states, he's saying, I am not going to come in and impose something only 30% or 20% or 15% of the public will back.
And I think at the federal level, you just have to say that.
Anytime they bring up abortion, you say, you know, an abortion ban is not on the ballot for president because President Trump says it's not on the ballot.
And so the only thing you can do is then, if you want to have, you know, the moral counterattack, you say the only person who's making abortion a huge federal issue is Joe Biden, and he wants it legal until birth with taxpayer funding, all of that, like the most extreme possible one, the other way.
And he wants to get rid of all choice on the issue.
And I think that's how you can counterattack to it.
You say there is no abortion ban on the ballot or president.
At the state level, I think that's a tougher one because it goes by state.
The Arizona situation is going to be complicated.
Like you, Charlie, I like the law.
I don't know that, I don't really know whether, you know, introducing some other vote as an alternative is the best strategy because you're really just, you're tripling down on, oh, there's all this abortion stuff on the ballot.
And then there's going to be reporting comparing, you know, the law with this middle thing with what the pro-abortionists want.
And it's already going to be on the ballot.
Well, I was going to say it's already on the ballot and this ruling just made it 10 times bigger.
It made it 10 times bigger.
So now every single young woman in Arizona will 100% vote Democrat out of fear because they're told to because there's an 1864 law that's going to put your best friend.
It's easy to blame.
It's easy to blame young women, but truthfully, I feel what really drives the problem is there's a lot of conservative leaning middle-aged women, you know, people who live in the suburbs in general.
Like we said, those women who go to, well, I don't even think it's actually, it's not overall in the polling on the issue, the split between men and women is not dramatic, but it's probably, if you're looking for women who would vote Republican and then have decided to switch their votes just this election over abortion, I would say the person you're looking for is like a upper middle class suburban woman.
So let me just say they're swing voters in general.
It's very simple.
The abortion referendum, as it is right now in Arizona, will pass and it'll probably pass by 10 points.
Therefore, if you want Donald Trump to become president, you need people that want to vote for no restrictions on abortion to also vote for Trump.
Period.
Period.
There is no other path.
Yeah.
The abortion referendum will pass based on polling.
They have so much money.
They have paid circulators and this Supreme Court decision will make it like way more likely to pass.
Yeah.
Like way more likely.
They're thrilled.
And so the question is, Charlie, yes.
So let me ask you that question, right?
You know, you guys are Arizona.
I'm from the other part of the country.
So are there people, enough people like who Blake is describing who might be for this initiative, but also decide that they, I mean, I mean, think about it, right?
You, you say, you, this is the ballot initiative.
You can, I'm for the ballot initiative because of X, Y, and Z.
But on issues like the economy, immigration, inflation, which is crazy right now, I think President Trump should be president.
So basically, I guess what I'm saying is, are President Trump's statements this week and his big statement earlier this week enough to separate himself from that issue?
We don't know, but that's where that's going to be the question.
Joe Biden's going to try to run as well as the ballot referendum.
Yeah, but that's just to point out, there are states where we lost votes related to abortion where we still won other offices in the 2022 midterms.
And that's even at this direct state, state level.
So I think if you just insist on Trump's statement, you just repeat Trump's statement every time it comes up at the federal level.
You say, this is what Trump said.
There is not like the Arizona referendum, whatever way you feel about it, will have no difference on what the president does after this election.
And I think if you're very adamant on that point, you have the added advantage that you can still call out the really radical stuff that Democrats want.
Because again, Democrats want federal funding for all of this.
They want to make it illegal for doctors to like not perform abortions or not be, you know, not have to learn how to do abortions.
They want all of this insane, deranged stuff.
And it is good to have the impulse to hit back on that.
But I do think the most straightforward way is every election that has the presidency on it heavily revolves around that presidential vote.
And so if you're able to say the presidential vote is not a referendum on abortion, say it over and over again.
The presidential vote is not a referendum on abortion because President Trump is not going to do this thing.
Then you actually even spread that out to other offices because how people vote on president is by far the most important determinant of how they vote on Arizona.
And there is a lot of evidence and data to show that in states like Arizona, people will split their tickets and they will have nuanced voting patterns down the ballot, right?
Well, yeah.
And I agree to the extent that his messaging that we're able to decouple this from a referendum on abortion state by state by state, including Arizona, so that people split tickets, a good indicator of just how politically savvy, even if the pro-life groups were grumbling, of how savvy his messaging was on this on Eclipse Day, on Rapture Day, was that they were really quiet about it.
The biggest critique of Trump's statement on abortion was he's lying.
We don't believe him.
Right?
That was the biggest critique.
He's lying.
So they knew that he didn't.
It's not going to work.
The best part is that won't work.
Like a big part, one of the best advantages we have is not just that they want to run against abortion, but that Democrats want to say Trump is a theocrat, a Christian nationalist thing.
And our best advantage is nobody is going to believe that because the idea that Donald Trump is a theocrat is absurd.
Charlie, are we going to lose any of the pro-life votes?
We could.
But I mean, the question is, how big a number and are they really going to go, what are they going to do?
Vote for Kennedy, go third party?
I mean, that's what's so insane about all of this.
I'll read you a text from a pastor and it's just the way it is.
I think they'll calm down.
But he says, in good faith, I cannot get me or my congregation.
This is a Battleground State pastor.
In good faith, I will not or my get my congregation to vote for Trump as long as he continues to say that Arizona and these other states need to change their abortion laws.
Full ban on abortion, zero compromise, end of story.
Yeah.
It's almost.
Yeah.
Go ahead, Jack.
I was just going to say, what's interesting about this, and Blake, you hit on the same thing I was thinking about, was that this really is, and what this law does is it provides a kind of the original law.
So the pre-Civil War law that just kicked in in Arizona, this is like the Joy Reid version of what she says the Republican Party today represents and what the conservative movement today represents.
This is the Christian nationalism thing, right?
Because if you watch Joy Reed, she claims as though, and this is something that's amazing that the left always does this, and it goes back to like their version of Marxism, is that, you know, they always claim that the right is totally in power, that, you know, it isn't that the left has been in power since the 1960s.
No, no, no, it's the right is in power and they're going to impose the, what's that show, the handmaiden's tail is going to be imposed if we don't fight harder and that it's, it's just behind every corner.
Christianity Israel Control00:07:28
It's right around every tree.
And normally it's just kind of silly because it never gains any traction because anyone in the real world can see that, you know, Trump is just isn't like that.
He's not a theocrat.
But what this law does is it gives them something to point at tangibly in the real world that actually feeds into their conspiracy theory about the Christian theocracy that is waiting in the wings to take over the country.
That's exactly why they love this thing so much and why they're satiating over it.
Okay, let's get to one of our partners here.
Let's go to the Wellness Company.
When it comes to staying healthy on the go, you can never be too prepared.
Whether you're a frequent traveler, a remote worker, an avid outdoorsman, or literally anyone with a pulse, the wellness company's travel emergency kit is here to be your new best friend.
If you don't have a pulse, by the way, you have bigger problems.
The Wellness Company's travel emergency kit contains six prescription medications, over-the-counter meds, a comprehensive guidebook, and crucial medical supplies, all carefully curated so that you get to enjoy every moment of your trip.
With a team of renowned medical professionals, including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Drew Pinsky, he's great, standing behind every kit.
You know that you're in trusted hands no matter where life takes you.
Don't leave anything to chance and head on over to TWC.health slash CJ and order your travel emergency food up, not food kit, but your kit today.
That's TWC.health slash CJ and use promo code CJ for an exclusive 10% off at checkup.
Check it out.
Your health and your journey matter.
Travel safe, travel prepared.
Kits are only available in America.
It is for a health conscious traveler and you want to make sure, look, traveling is amazing, but also comes with challenges.
So check it out right now.
TWC.health slash CJ.
You get all the different medications that you might possibly need.
So check it out right now.
Okay, next topic, guys.
Next topic is, so this is a video that's been seen last I checked about 13 million times.
It's Tucker Carlson responding.
He has a new video out about the war in Gaza where he interviews a Lutheran pastor.
I guess they have those in Palestine.
But he interviews a Lutheran pastor about the situation for Christians in the Holy Land.
To get a sense of the tone, how about we play number 94?
And in October, a Greek Orthodox church in the Gaza Strip was hit by an airstrike.
We're showing the video now.
The church is in ruins.
At least 17 people were killed that day.
And again, that was hardly the first time that fighting in that region killed Christians.
You'll remember the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem almost 20 years ago.
Oh, King.
Sorry about that.
I guess we lost the second half of that.
But the basic idea is if you watch this whole video, it's about 42 minutes long, but the tone of the video from Tucker, who's been probably the most popular voice on the right for, the pundit voice on the right for five years now, five, six, seven years now, is it's very, very critical of the Israeli government and essentially very sympathetic to the Palestinian side.
He asks a lot of questions where, you know, you can just tell by Tucker's tenor and such that he's very critical of, you know, the way Christian lawmakers in the United States support Israel and, you know, their approach to the entire thing.
So it obviously plays into what we've been discussing over the last few months that there is this very clear shift happening on the right on how on the unity of the right support of Israel and how they feel about it in general.
And I guess it stood out to me as a little bit jarring.
It's hard to imagine that we got to this point compared to just, you know, three, four years ago with all the discussion of them moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all of that.
Yeah, I can't.
And we have more clips from the interview, too.
Let's play another clip.
I haven't watched the whole thing yet.
Okay, let's do clip 90.
How free are Christians to practice Christianity in Israel?
We cannot deny that there are many freedoms in the state of Israel.
Yes.
But it's not as free as people think.
Do you know that evangelicals as churches are not officially recognized in Israel?
Not recognized by the government by the government of Israel.
Evangelism is illegal in Israel.
And I'm sorry.
Can I ask you to stop there?
What does that mean?
Evangelism is illegal. in Israel?
It's against the law to evangelize in Israel.
Yeah, I don't really know what he means by that.
I mean, I've been to churches in Israel.
I feel like I've evangelized in Israel.
It's a complicated thing.
So this is what it caused a lot of, obviously, I don't know.
It is a very broad statement.
So what it is, you will sometimes see it said by people of a certain persuasion.
They will say Christian missionary activity in Israel is illegal.
And this is not true.
You are allowed to convert to Christianity in Israel.
You are allowed to promote Christianity in Israel.
Now, what is also true is, one, Israel, obviously, unlike us, has control of its borders, and there is a history of them being like they don't like to let in people that they think are just going to be proselytizing in Israel.
They find it annoying for people to do that.
And a lot of you know, a lot of activist groups in Israel dislike it.
A few years ago, there was a push to ban Christian missionary work in Israel.
That law was retracted.
It got a lot of attention in the United States, so it didn't pass, but that was introduced.
When he says that they're not recognized, I look into this, and this is true in a technical sense.
Israel sort of has denominations that it officially recognizes as churches.
This matters a lot because, for example, marriages in Israel are handled through religious bodies.
They don't have civil marriage in Israel.
So they recognize 10 Christian churches in Israel, like Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, a few others.
And they don't have an evangelical church that they recognize.
That said, there are you are allowed to be an evangelical in Israel and you are allowed to practice it in whatever manner you wish.
But it is true that it is not recognized the same way that other faith groups are in Israel.
And that's kind of what stands out in this interview: there's a mix of stuff that is true with stuff that is exaggerated and I think can be maliciously reframed and often is by people who dislike Israel for a million other reasons.
Yeah, I mean, but I've been to evangelical churches in Israel.
It's the Jerusalem church, the Jerusalem Baptist Church, not to mention the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
So let's be honest, Israel knows who their allies are.
But exactly.
Well, but let's just also, what I don't like about that clip of I don't know that guy that was saying, if you're a 20-year-old serious Christian, you've never been to Israel, watching that clip, you think Israel is hostile to Christians.
My personal experience is the opposite.
I got like convoys and like really well.
Isaiah Jesus Prophecy00:04:17
They know who their allies are in the states.
They know that evangelicals are their number one.
What Blake has said is also true, though, is that there is a fear that too much proselytizing.
Well, that there could be a major come to Jesus movement.
Well, they're Jewish state.
They see themselves as a Jewish state.
So they see, but Torah observant Bible-believing Jews, Old Testament, are some of the easiest converts to Christianity.
And there is, and I don't know you have to fact-check me on this, but there is something called the forbidden verse, which is Isaiah 53, which is, I don't know if it's illegal, but it's really not.
You're not supposed to share it very much, which is like the gateway to Christianity because it is the most accurate.
What does it say?
It's by his stripes.
Oh, look, Charlie, come on.
You can't just leave us hanging, man.
You were pierced by your transgressions out of a root, a root out of dry ground.
You came.
It basically tells the entire from incarnation to compassion to ministry.
He grew up before him like a tender shoot and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering and familiar with pain, like one whom people hide their faces.
He was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our sufferings, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions and he was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
And yeah, let's go.
Let's go.
And it says there's a website called oneisrael.org, one for Israel, Israel53, the forbidden chapter.
In fact, there's a YouTube channel that I used to watch of Messianic Jews that would walk around the streets of Israel and approach Jews and ask them, Do you know about Isaiah 53?
And it's a very successful way to spread the gospel.
Well, that you know they know this for sure.
No, of course.
And so what Blake is saying is true, but it's also this guy that went on Tucker's show.
It's a complete misrepresentation of the reality of Israel.
Jack.
Well, I'll just throw out two one as a point, and then a question for Charlie.
You know, and just in case there's anyone listening to us that isn't aware of this, which I always try to think of like the guy in the back who has no idea about the subject material.
Isaiah is not part of what you would consider the Christian Bible.
Isaiah is part of the Old Testament.
Well, it's the New Testament or the Old Testament.
It's all the Christian Bible.
But yeah, I know, you're right.
Old Testament versus New Testament.
It's part of the word.
What Jews would consider the Christian Bible.
Correct.
That's what I'm saying.
So, but, Charlie, this is what I wanted to ask you, though.
When you say, you know, Torah-believing Jews are the most likely conversion.
Why is that?
Well, why is that?
Well, it's because Jesus is a fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecy.
And they're waiting for the Messiah.
And many Bible-believing Torah observant Tanakh understanding Jews don't have actually never read the New Testament scriptures.
And when they do, I've actually been able, the Holy Spirit led him to Jesus, but I've seen a Jew become a Messianic Christian.
I don't know if you ever have Andrew.
It's an amazing thing.
I know a bunch of Messianic Jews.
When they tell you the story, when they first read Matthew or John, which are the two best gospels, they start crying.
Well, I can't say best.
No, best gospels for Jews.
Oh, I see.
I see.
Matthew is the Jewish gospel.
I was like, I like them.
No, no, no.
Matthew is the Jewish gospel.
100%.
You're 100%.
Mark is not.
But guys, this whole 53 just keeps going.
They're all pretty.
Look at all of these prophecies that it touched.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth.
Like, that's a prophecy right there.
Remember, this was written like 1,500 years before Jesus.
Yeah, he was led like a lamb before the slaughter.
You know, yet who of his generation protested?
Oh, he was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, right?
Was it Nicodemus?
Washington Talks Pro Israel00:12:25
Yeah.
I mean, like, there's so much stuff here.
Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer.
And though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, there you go.
Offering for sin.
Exactly.
So Isaiah 53 is like the nuclear bomb chapter.
Yeah.
His wounds we are healed is literally.
I mean, I don't know if you could find any phrase that better sums up Christianity.
The actual miracle of the resurrection, the miracle of the atonement, the miracle of Calvary, all of it, right?
That sentence right there.
And it's found in Isaiah.
People need to understand that.
So if I would have had this guy on my show, I would have asked him whatever his name is.
I would have said, hey, like, why didn't you mention that Bethlehem is largely controlled by the Palestinian Authority?
So this was brought up a lot.
And I don't think it's the own a lot of people did because at least in the interview with Tucker, he's not saying like, oh, we face a lot of oppression in our day-to-day religious life in Bethlehem with the implication that Israel's behind that.
What he does talk about is he talks about the difficulty in going to Christian holy sites because obviously Israel has, again, they control their borders.
So they control, you know, they have the barrier with West Bank.
There's not a lot of free movement across that barrier.
You need an individual permit to do it.
So there's a lot of complaints about that, that they can't go to East Jerusalem easily because Israel's basically annexed that part of it.
So he talks about stuff like that.
He talks about the impact of the war.
He talks about financial support for Israel by Christian churches and the comparative, in his view, like lack of support for Christian sites.
Tucker actually complains.
I don't think we have it as a clip, but Tucker complains in the interview about seeing, I think, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and how shabby it is, that he thinks a lot of the churches, Christian churches in Israel kind of look like dumps and that he's upset that Christians don't seem to fret about that in comparison to other things that they financially from the 300 AD.
It's about a thousand years old.
There's also another 1700 years old.
But there's the current building is about it.
And has nothing to do necessarily directly because of the government.
It's actually because it's and I know Constantine used to be the Temple of Venus and he changed that.
And so the current building is about a thousand years old.
There's been a church there.
It's quite old.
But the issue there, the issue there is it's because it's joint, it's basically joint controlled by a variety of churches.
So the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics.
And so it shifts, it shifts who's in control of a certain time.
So basically, and this is an issue with a number of the holy sites where, yes, it's under the Israeli government, but it actually has more to do with an issue between the churches, people arguing over how it should be done, who should pay for it, all sorts of different things.
Not to mention the various arguments between the Catholics and Orthodox, believe me, you want to get into that.
But so it really is a management issue because it's shared jointly between these organizations that have so much differences of opinion.
I specifically asked that question when I was there.
It's not like, no, I agree.
Like, I wish that it was in better upkeep for sure.
I certainly agree with that.
But I don't know that you can lay the blame for that specifically on just the Israeli government.
There's a whole ton of issues there.
Let me just say just because we said his name and we haven't the name of the guy that Tucker interviews is Munther Isaac.
And so I just wanted to get that out there because we've always said we don't know his name, but it's Munther Isaac.
He's an evangelical Lutheran pastor.
So I think he grew up Orthodox.
There's not really a lot of Lutherans native to Palestine.
Yeah, and I was just asking, like, how's religious liberty in Jordan for Christians?
Like, not great.
Okay, it's fine.
I bet Jordan's better.
Yeah, there's always, there's always this element.
This is what gets learned about it.
Christians in Egypt.
There are millions of Christians in Egypt and not treated well, though.
A harder time and more danger than Christians do in Israel.
They're not treated well.
So I want to just say this.
I had a lot of people text me about this, really upset about this interview, really fired up about it.
A lot of pro-Israel folks.
And my response is the same as, look, you know where I like Israel.
I've had a great time there.
But you guys have to understand, you're losing the American people, right, Andrew?
And like, I'm trying to tell, but I'm not getting through to people when I say that.
And the Israel strategy is kind of like, we're white knuckling, we don't care, I guess.
It's using a lot of like coercive force is I think the way it feels like, right?
Like the ADL up to its own tricks.
But now they, you know, they, they feel like the conservatives and the liberal Jews are kind of bound together after October 7th.
But yeah, I agree.
I mean, there's no, there's no getting around the fact that as you go from older to younger, the support for Israel wanes, right?
I personally watched some of these clips.
I did not watch the full thing, didn't have time, but I've watched a number of the clips now just before the show.
And a lot of the issues I bring up, I actually have a lot of sympathy for Israel's perspective, right?
If I was not a Christian and there was all these Christians that wanted to come visit my holy sites that were in my land and I was the one Jewish nation on planet Earth, I'd keep a live eye on if they were trying to convert everybody.
Now, as a Christian, I think it's pretty great.
Like, I hope a bunch of Jews become Christians.
I think that'd be great.
But I certainly understand their position of being watchful of it.
Even this Lutheran, evangelical Lutheran pastor, you have to assume everybody on that side of the border wants you dead.
That's on them.
And so, yeah, if you could just fake being a Christian and then you get through, like imagine how many Christians would all of a sudden appear out of thin air on the Jordan side, right?
In the West Bank.
So I have a lot of sympathy for Israel, even as I'm hearing this.
But Charlie, you're totally right.
In general, this is a larger cultural movement.
And it makes me sad to your point, Blake.
I think a lot of people are using other grievances they have against Israel and they're attaching it to some of this stuff, whether or not you could have a really reasonable conversation and understand where Israel's coming from.
They're attaching other grievances.
They're reading into it what they already think about Israel.
And I think it's more endemic of the drift that we've seen even in some conservative circles.
Jack, really quickly.
I got to talk about coffee.
Jack, really quick.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I'll just throw out there that, you know, this, this has been one of those things where I think in the social media era, people are getting more information and direct information from battlefields and from places that, you know, a lot of, a lot of the times in the past, they thought had been kind of settled.
But then all of a sudden you'll get something like, you know, a guy, like a congressman, former Congressman Justin Amash, right?
So he's Palestinian, but he's, I believe, Coptic.
So his family is Christian.
And his family, as far as I know, was associated with one of these churches that was hit in a strike that was caught in the crossfire and one of these things.
He had someone who's like in his extended family was killed in this.
And so the power of that kind of thing going out on social media is 10 times more powerful than anything anyone has ever considered before from this area, because usually they just hear like, oh, you know, Israel good, Palestinians bad.
And so I think the impact of that to what you guys are saying is something that completely hasn't been addressed.
And there's so many blanket, you know, throwing out labels there of, oh, you're anti-Semitic if you criticize this.
Oh, you're anti-Semitic if you bring this up.
And it's like, well, wait, you know, people didn't even know that there were Christians in Gaza to begin with.
And I think that's where the issue comes from.
Been so detrimental, I will say, a lot of the overreaction.
Like, you know, Charlie, you've been called anti-Semitic in this, which is which, if you know, Charlie Kirk for seven years, I've been working with Charlie for, I guess, seven years now.
I, you are the most you send 150 kids to Israel every year.
Like, I'm under the Shabbats, yeah.
Like, I read the Torah and you send out like all our campus campuses through Turning Point USA have activism kids that are anyways.
The crazy thing is the fact that they would dare serious people on the internet, or at least formerly considered serious people.
Let me go even further.
There was an article in the Washington Times that said, I must be displaced as CEO of Turning Point USA.
Yes, I'm not kidding.
I remember vile.
I'm a threat to Jewry around the world.
The damage that this has done.
Now, I want to at least extend an Olive Branch that October 7th is extremely disruptive.
I've been resolutely pro-Israel, despite the names they're calling me.
But some of the weird overreaction and stuff that we've all observed, if you're not Jewish, I think we have to, you know, try our best to say, listen, what they went through was existential to them.
And so there are going to be reactions that don't necessarily make logical sense.
They're only emotional.
So I'm trying to give room for that.
But what the fact that somebody like Charlie Kirk could be called an anti-Semite, Jack, to your point, I'm just saying, like, this has been so detrimental to their ability to consolidate support in traditional places where they've had.
I've said this story publicly, and Andrew, you've just kind of mentioned it.
And, you know, it was when you talk about sending kids to Israel.
Charlie came to me a couple of years back and said, hey, we're doing this Israel trip.
Do you want to go?
And I said, you know, I'd love to.
But as a matter of fact, Charlie, I would love if I could get my family to come along.
Charlie said, don't even worry about it.
They'll all be taken care of.
And sent my entire family to go and visit the Holy Land.
It was the trip of our lives.
My family still talks about it.
And, you know, it was something where he didn't even ask for anything in return.
Well, thank you.
That touches me, Jack.
And that, I mean, to send people the Holy Land is one of the greatest things I believe we can do.
I just want to read this quote.
In addition to that, this guy, Jeffrey Shapiro, writes, Mr. Kirk should resign or be removed as head of Turning Point USA, or the right will and should suffer the consequences of its inaction.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington prosecutor who served on the board of advisors and he literally was a former DOJ prosecutor.
And he's like pseudo-threatening me in this Washington Times piece.
Remember the reason for them calling you an anti-semite, Charlie?
It's because you asked why the intelligence failed in the first place.
You can't do that.
But like, that's it.
That's it.
And this has made an astute observation.
We still don't have an answer to that.
No, remember, they ended up firing somebody in weeks.
We have tons of articles that show that they did have like a name for the potential breaking of the wall.
They didn't take it seriously.
We're not describing New York Times campus.
There was an analyst.
There was an analyst.
We're not describing motivations or intentions.
We're analyzing a fact pattern that doesn't click.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if you're upset at the U.S. government for letting 9-11 happen, does that make you anti-American?
You know who said he loved what I said?
The best?
Dennis Prager.
He said, he said, Charlie, you were spot on with what you said.
Yeah.
Well, love Dennis.
I think my best line, the best line from this Washington Times piece, I just found it.
Some might say Mr. Kirk's comments demonstrate ignorance, but he may just lack a conscience.
That's so ridiculous.
Like in retrospect, when pro-Israel people say, why are we losing the debate?
I'm like, because Jeffrey Scott Shapiro went out and attacked.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jack.
Out of all the major conservative Christian social media influencers, I think I'm one of the largest pro-Israel voices out there.
That's non-Jewish.
Yeah.
Here's another.
Ben Dominich tweeted: if Charlie Kirk remains the head of TPUSA, the right has an anti-Semite problem that will follow them into the coming elections.
Men Women Culture Viral00:15:23
What a dumb person.
What an absolute idiot.
He's either paid or he's mentally unfit to drive an automobile.
Like, that's how insanely dumb that person who you just mentioned is.
Like, I am so viscerally annoyed by that person because the idiocy that you have to possess within yourself to say something that retarded.
Sorry, cut that.
R-Slur.
Don't cut it.
That's what Taylor Robinson calls it.
Like, what a paid, filthy, stupid person.
What a paid, what a filthy human.
Okay, a last topic, guys.
What do we have?
All right.
Oh, so we have two options here.
We could approach this.
We have the OnlyFans influencer going Christian, or we have who's responsible for breaking marriage in response to your discussion.
That's probably the word viral.
I don't want to go marriage.
All righty.
All righty.
So I'll set the stage on this.
Last week, you, Charlie Kirk, the anti-Semite who's going to destroy us all in the elections, had some comments on marriage women contacting you, wanting to find husbands, and you say, you know, like, we waited too long.
Yeah, can we clarify something?
One of the things that bothered me about this story was Charlie's, like the direct quote.
And sorry, the audience, maybe you need to be caught up.
Jack, fill in the gaps where I missed this.
You're good at that.
But Charlie was talking at a church and he asked about this.
And he said the direct quote was, if you wait to get married until you're in your 30s, if to the females, you are, quote, less attractive in the dating pool.
You did not say they were less attractive.
There's many, many women in their 30s that are absolutely beautiful.
Okay.
That's not what you were saying.
You're saying there is a smaller pool.
There's less options.
They're also for men that want to have kids, you know, that kind of thing.
I mean, I'm not saying it was the most delicate framing of that sentence, but just to be, you know, very precise about that, you were not calling people ugly.
Okay.
No, I wasn't.
No, I was saying, again, what you said it fine.
So I don't need to.
Yeah, go ahead.
All right.
Go ahead, Blake.
Yeah.
So this, of course, fired up still from the last.
This started, you know, Charlie's, you know, once a month instance of being like the number one conversation driver in America.
And then this provoked a response, an article that I read.
And then we had a bit of discussion before the show.
So there's a writer, Scott Greer.
We've talked about the Greer Head Pledge before.
Like, should we not watch rap or get or listen to rap or get tattoos or watch the NFL, all of that?
But he had an article where he titled it, Stop Blaming Men for the Marriage Crisis.
And I'm going to read a quote from it, which I think you guys can put on screen.
He says, Charlie Kirk upset a lot of women last week in a discussion on unmarried women preferring Democrats.
He said, ladies in their 30s are, this is Greer's wording, past their prime and struggle to find a husband.
This is obviously true, but impolite to say.
Kirk's statement naturally inspired outrage among liberals as well as among conservatives.
That shouldn't surprise anyone.
Kirk's opinion runs counter to the prevailing conservative narrative about the decline of marriage.
Conservatives say that it's men's fault and we need to do more to shame males into stepping up.
But this male-focused answer isn't correct.
I won't read the whole article, but what he gets into is he argues, he cites Senator Josh Hawley, who we've talked to quite a bit, where you have this very male-focused thing that men need to get better jobs, stop doing, you know, stop playing video games, stop watching porn, stop doing all these destructive things, get improve, and then marry women, have families.
And what he argues is the reason marriage is in decline is mostly women driven, that they are encouraged to focus on their careers, to delay looking for a husband, and then they're fed a bunch of excuses afterwards that like, you know, it's the entire world that's wrong.
You didn't screw up if you wait too long and you're in your 30s and you're not able to get married.
And so our debate, which we're going to have here, is who broke marriage?
Men or women?
It has to be all one or all the other.
It can't be that.
Both of them have some responsibility.
I mean, I think it's both.
I think what Greer is pinpointing, what I was saying, is that men get all the blame and you're not even allowed to mention anything that women could do differently.
And I think that's totally fair.
Is that are there decisions and cultural norms and habits that women, specifically women in their 20s, are doing that make marriage rates go down and, you know, make it less likely for families to be, I think that was evident in the reaction to that clip, which, you know, it was.
How was the reaction, Andrew?
I don't know.
It was basically, I mean, actually, I will say, plenty of people know, a ton of people.
I would actually say what I was looking at, more people were defending it, but there was a couple of loud voices that were getting upset about it.
Plus, there was the whole birth control piece of it, which I think is like, you know, it's like a sacred cow for especially.
There's nothing I said was incorrect, unfaction.
No, I mean, there's a ton of, there's a ton of evidence behind that.
I think a lot of people just think that women should be the one that are talking about it.
And it's like, well, you know, how do you expect us, A, to know that that's the rule?
And B, why can't we be supportive?
I have a platform.
I'm talking about a topic.
There's no, anything where they say only men or only women can talk about it is like ridiculous.
Unless it's like a sensory phenomenon.
Like, what does it feel like to give birth?
Okay, men shouldn't weigh in on that.
Of course, I agree.
Any moral issue, any societal issue, so I can weigh in.
I've not really read too much of Scott Greer's stuff.
I did read this before the show.
I like, you know, first of all, let me say I actually endorse Senator Hawley.
Like, I think men respond well to being called up.
I think you have to call men up.
Called out.
And called out, but like called higher, right?
And to be better.
I know that the biggest leaps and improvements I've made in my life is when I encounter somebody that challenges me to do more, to be better, to be stronger.
And so I think that's just a part of the male experience.
But I do think it is weird, and he did call this out, that it's basically we've created a culture, especially on the right, where it's okay to call men out.
We could belittle men all we want.
But you can't do that with women.
And I think that part of that might just be because women receive criticism differently.
Emotionally, there's a different process that they tend to go through.
But it's a fair critique of the whole thing because what we're essentially doing, if you look at pop culture in Hollywood, Jack, I know you will agree with me on this.
A lot of people have pointed out that like fathers in Hollywood over the years have become dumber and like basically just shallow husks of the previous great fathers from the 50s and 60s, right?
And now we have Homer Simpson, right?
So what the conservative movement is essentially doing is we're just mimicking the larger culture that we're trying to impact, or at least ostensibly trying to impact.
And we're just putting all the blame at the men.
And I think that's ultimately why that clip, you know, created a conversation is because you broke that rule.
You put some of the blame at women and saying you should prioritize marriage more than your career and don't take birth control if it's going to delay those really, really important life decisions and your future happiness.
Go ahead.
Sorry, Jack.
No, no, I actually, so like, I agree and disagree with you, right?
In, and not that I disagree with anything that you say, I just mean in terms of, yes, it's true that women do need to uphold their fair share of this and they need to take their fair share of lumps the same way that men have taken their fair share of lumps.
And how many shows have we done talking about the decline of masculinity in America?
I think it's probably, if you went through like thought crime topics, it's probably our number one or at least top five themes.
But those don't go viral, Jack.
Why don't they go viral?
Yeah, funny enough.
But the minute you put it, but here's what I will say, though.
The other piece of this is that the reason, and this kind of answers Charlie's question, the reason that you got so much flack for those comments specifically, Charlie, even though there are lots of women who agree 100% with what you said, is that what you're really seeing is a power play.
You're seeing a power play whereby in these comments are valid if women make them, if these are choices that women make, because women are the ones that are allowed to make decisions.
Men are only allowed to affirm the decisions of the women that have been made.
That is society.
This is where people missed even greater.
I was talking to parents.
I was saying, parents, do not allow your daughters to get on this.
So I'm not allowed to give advice to parents.
And specifically Christian parents.
Which, by the way, or, you know, speaking as a Catholic, not exactly a radical position to take for young religious Christians to be against birth control.
It's a pretty, pretty standard topic.
And I would say that most people that are on birth control, they don't know all the risks.
They don't know all of the costs associated.
So, yeah, I mean, it's on both, but the way the dating conversation is presented, especially when I talk to young women, I say, are you happy with the pool of young men out there?
Oh, no, they're terrible.
They're self-interested.
They have no ambition.
I say, are you guys doing everything perfectly?
They say, well, we have our act together and we're not to blame for this.
There's an incredible amount of pride that young ladies have.
I'm surprised that that's been your experience.
I have never asked that question.
So I'm going off of your take.
I mean, that's a general shock.
It's just, but I, where, maybe I'm wrong, there's a major manosphere self-improvement movement.
Oh, man.
It's a whole industry.
Is there a female sphere self-improvement industry about it?
I just don't think it's as developed yet.
I don't think it's coming.
It's nascent.
It exists.
And some of it's really weird.
Like you can find the subreddit called.
There's a subreddit called Female Dating Strategy, and it's extremely mentally ill if you read it.
So I would, I would not recommend checking it out.
It has to mature.
Female dating strategy.
Be a woman.
But it's an interesting question.
You know, like one thing, the article I mentioned earlier highlights is another article by Brad Wilcox, and it's titled from the Institute for Family Studies.
And it's titled, Where Have All the Good Men Gone?
And that's kind of, that's often the framing that is popular if people want to blame men for the decline in marriage, that men are in decline.
Good men are not available.
And there's some merit to this.
If you go to a college campus, most of the students at most campuses now are women.
Most of the people who finish are going to be women.
The number of men, the number of people who are falling into like disastrous lives where they're not really fit to marry anyone, that's going to be more men than women.
They're the ones who live at home, don't have any job, aren't an education, or are doing nothing with their lives, are just addicted to games or porn or nothing in particular.
And I do think that fixing that probably, I lean towards it being a male thing just in that I think women naturally do follow men and look towards men.
And so if men are a disaster, a lot of things flow out of that.
And if you are making men a higher quality group of people across the board, that will spread throughout society.
But I could be wrong in that.
You could easily flip it the other way.
I believe women.
Sorry, sorry, but go ahead.
If women were more, you know, if you had a social change of women more concertedly encouraging like traditional morality, don't sleep with men as often and kind of shun people who do it too easily, then that would also encourage marriage.
That would encourage commitment.
What you very much have is you have the consequence of high individualism and basically anarchy in terms of personal decision making.
And so no one is held to account for bad behavior, basically.
And that's going to encourage lots of bad behavior.
So I believe that the most direct route from fixing this solution is to create higher quality men.
I do.
I actually do.
Because in some respects, the whole debate that was sparked was a tacit acknowledgement that men hold an amount, an immense amount of sway.
So because it was all sort of like, why are the men hijacking this conversation?
Well, okay.
Well, because it was an acknowledgement that that power exists.
So I do believe that if men become high quality, become worth following, endeavor to be men worthy of leading a family and being in a marriage relationship, obviously, that women will follow suit.
And then, you know, but I also do think as somebody who's married to a woman that is a conservative woman and she celebrates my masculinity, that's an important part of this discussion.
Women need to, obviously, need to give space for men to be men.
And I don't think that exists in enough measure in our current culture.
Yeah, go ahead.
Super quick.
Super quick point.
Men have to be able to say no.
Men have to be able to be in a relationship with a woman and say no.
Whoever came up with that phrase, happy wife, happy life, is an idiot.
And men need to stop believing that that is the only thing.
And the most masculine word in the English language is the word no.
Men being able to say no to women may be the one thing that saves Western society.
I mean, happy wife, happy life.
I agree with you, but it's totally fine to like use that as a little bit of a thing.
It's okay.
But I agree.
Jack, are you saying it's really unhappy wife?
Happy wife?
Unhappy wife, happy life?
Yeah, that's the good answer.
I don't think I can agree with that as a married man here, but maybe the reason.
No, the reason is because people take that to mean do whatever your wife says at all times.
Never push back.
Never stand up for yourself.
Always be a pushover or whatever she wants to say yes to, which is wrong.
I don't want to completely agree with those sayings.
But this is the issue that it makes men like, well, whatever you want, honeybear.
Yeah, I agree with you on that.
I do.
I do.
All right, everybody.
Got to run.
Thanks so much.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.