All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2026 - The Charlie Kirk Show
39:18
Stephen Colbert's FCC Hoax and Virginia's Democrat Power Grab
|

Time Text
Voting In Virginia Referendum 00:10:52
My name is Charlie Kirk.
I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.
My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.
But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful.
College is a scam, everybody.
You got to stop sending your kids to college.
You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter.
Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved.
Sign up and become an activist.
I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.
Most important decision I ever made in my life.
And I encourage you to do the same.
Here I am.
Lord, use me.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers.
All right, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Hour two is underway.
We are going to keep our eyes on Virginia.
Why?
Because Virginia is now the Democrat playbook.
It's the Democrat playbook.
We used to talk about the playbook in Colorado, how they turned Colorado blue.
Well, they're doing the same thing in Virginia, even though it was only a D plus six state in the last presidential election.
They're going full commie there.
And here to help us break down what's happening with the redistricting fight in Virginia is Glenn Steuervant, Virginia State Senator.
Welcome to the show, Glenn.
Hey, guys.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah, absolutely.
Blake, why don't you break down the stakes here?
Of course, of course.
So just to remind people what's going on in Virginia, they ran as affordability-focused moderates, and now they've won.
They want to redistrict the state from, I believe it's six to five, Democrat-Republican right now, and they want to make it 10 to 1 in a state that is blue, but not by that big of a margin.
And so you can look up their maps, and it's a bunch of snakes extending out of D.C. because they all need their chunk of Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax County, the big blue area.
But Glenn, we wanted to have you on specifically, among other things, we just want people to be aware of how far Democrats are willing to go to pass this sort of thing.
The understanding I've been given is it's essentially flagrantly unconstitutional what they are doing, the way they're going about this.
They're getting the courts to sign the Supreme Court to sign off on things that are incredibly suspect, basically for the sake of pure power politics.
Can you lay that out for our listeners?
Yeah, sure.
So five years ago, we had a referendum on the ballot to go to a nonpartisan redistricting commission to take gerrymandering out of the hands of legislators and to create this nonpartisan redistricting commission.
And people can debate the pros and cons of that method, but that's what we have had for the past five years in Virginia and is in our Constitution.
The Democrats brought us back in in special session right around Halloween of last year and began jamming through this amendment to the amendment, which would take gerrymandering back, give it back to the legislature for the drawing of the 11 congressional maps in Virginia.
As you mentioned, we currently have a pretty evenly divided congressional delegation with six Democrats and five Republicans.
That lines up pretty well with how Virginia voted in the 2024 presidential election.
I think Kamala got 55 and President Trump got 45.
So our current congressional maps match up with how Virginia votes in a statewide federal presidential election.
They began advancing this constitutional amendment process, though, as I said, around Halloween.
But the early voting in Virginia, we have some of the longest early voting of any state in the entire country.
We've got 45 days of early voting.
Early voting had already begun in our gubernatorial election leading up to this past November.
And the Virginia Constitution requires that there be essentially two elections before a constitutional amendment can be sent to the voters as a referendum.
And because Democrats had started this process after early voting had already started and a million Virginians had already voted, they didn't have the ability to assess their state house candidates based on where they stood on this amendment.
So long story short, Democrats have continued to strong arm that amendment process.
We filed a lawsuit and we prevailed in the trial court.
The judge, trial judge, found that Democrats had violated the Constitution and several provisions of Virginia law and how they went about doing this.
And of course, Democrats who are represented by the Mark Elias law firm, they appealed that to the Virginia Supreme Court.
And then we just found out last Friday that the Virginia Supreme Court is taking the appeal.
So they're going to address the legal arguments.
But what they said is that they're not going to hear the case and decide it until after the referendum vote, which is currently scheduled for April 21st.
So I want to pause there, Glenn, and just emphasize that for our listeners, that this referendum, a lower court judge has said it is illegal and it should not proceed, but they're going to let it go ahead anyway before ruling on whether it's legal or not.
There's this insanity to it because you just know once, let's say it passes, which they'll do everything in their power to pass it, then the Supreme Court has this excuse.
Well, we can't roll back this referendum and overturn the will of the voters.
And I want to also read the text of the ballot question.
This is what their Secretary of State has apparently decided as a fair ballot question to go from 6-5 to 10-1.
This is the text.
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census.
Should we pass this law to restore fairness?
Don't you love fairness, don't you?
Yeah.
Well, so that was ballot language that passed the Democrat-controlled General Assembly and that our new governor, Governor Abigail Spanberger, signed.
And what is timely about that is we filed a second lawsuit.
So once the Virginia Supreme Court said, we're going to take up this appeal, but we're not going to decide it until after the referendum happens, which as you mentioned, is putting a lot of pressure to just accept the outcome regardless of the legal merits.
But a second lawsuit was filed and they are actually in a hearing as we speak in Taswell County.
One of the issues in that new lawsuit is that ballot language and that it's obviously just a total joke and not a reasonable representation of what this constitutional amendment would do.
So we will see if the Supreme Court of Virginia hopefully does the right thing if they get another bite at the apple with if we're successful in this trial court again and it goes up on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
I think most fair-minded people, regardless of where you stand on it, recognize that the judicial branch exists for cases like this.
If you have a legislature that is breaking the rules, not playing by the playbook, violating the Constitution and the role of law, the whole reason we have a Supreme Court is to address issues like that.
And when they punt a case like this, it's very concerning.
Glenn, what is the ideological balance of that Supreme Court?
Is there any indication?
So in Virginia, the legislature, the General Assembly, appoints all of our judges from the Supreme Court on down.
And so I think most people would look at it, not that the judges have any particular ideology, but there are four that have been appointed under Republican legislatures and three that have been appointed under Democrat legislatures.
And so it's, again, concerning.
Just I'm a lawyer myself in my day job, in addition to serving in the state Senate.
And the fact that we have a trial court that said this is unlawful.
It should not proceed.
The Supreme Court has recognized that it's at least worthy of hearing the appeal, but to not hear it before the referendum doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Yeah.
Well, thank you.
And we just wanted to highlight this because this shows, this is how far they're willing to go.
They're very much stretching the limits, breaking the limits of what their Constitution says.
Meanwhile, we've seen our Republicans in Indiana with no constitutional barriers, just didn't want to do their maps, didn't feel like it, made them feel icky.
These are the stakes, and they're doing this along with all the other radical bills they're doing in Virginia.
Thank you, Senator Sturdivant.
We're going to do our best to support you.
If you're in Virginia, make sure you vote in this referendum.
That's right.
Thank you for coming on again.
Thanks, guys.
Listen, I'm going to be honest.
I love this time of year.
After the holidays, life slows down a bit, and it reminds us what matters most.
My wife and I have built a life full of memories and love for our kids.
And one of the most important ways that I show that love is by making sure she's protected.
This Valentine's, protecting the ones you love can be as simple as getting life insurance through Policy Genius.
They make it fast, easy, and affordable.
So if something ever happens to you, God forbid, your family has a financial safety net in place.
Life insurance doesn't have to be complicated.
Policy Genius is the nation's leading online insurance marketplace, trusted by thousands of families, where you can compare top quotes in minutes with licensed agents guiding your every step.
With Policy Genius, some families have secured 20-year, $2 million policies for as little as $53 a month.
That's real peace of mind.
Secure your family's future with Policy Genius.
Head to policygenius.com to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com.
All right, elections have consequences.
They certainly do.
Chicago Bears Controversy 00:08:33
So just to kind of finalize the point on our Virginia discussion, where the Virginia Democrats are showing just how far they're willing to go and exercise their power, even with just a D plus six, Boeing has announced it's moving its defense HQ from Virginia after Governor Spamberger's election.
Okay, so that's a huge loss to the local economy.
Top defense contractor announces major move weeks after Dem Governor takes office.
It's a win for the heartland.
It says the company said it is moving its multi-billion dollar investment in the world's most advanced combat aircraft production facilities to St. Louis.
So listen, you're going to enact anti-business tax regulatory burdens on companies.
They're going to move.
And that's not the only institution that is thinking about moving.
And we just had to cover this story because Charlie loves Chicago.
Charlie's from northern suburbs of Chicago and Wheeling, Illinois.
Grew up a big Bears fan.
And it looks like the Bears, the Chicago Bears, the Chicago Bears, are becoming the Gary Bears.
They could be moving.
I mean, I think it's still ongoing.
Nothing's been decided yet, but more and more likely that they will be moving to northern Indiana, which is a remarkable turn of events if that was going to happen.
It's about an hour and a half drive for some people to get to the base.
It would be a half hour from Soldier Field with no traffic.
27 miles from Soldier Field, which is just a remarkable thing.
Let's go ahead and play Mayor Brandon Johnson, the communist, talking about this.
559.
Is my face straight?
Okay.
All right.
Let me keep a straight face here.
The Bears belong in the city of Chicago.
The Chicago Bears belong in the city of Chicago, right?
And I've said repeatedly that the door is always open for conversations, you know, and, you know, Kevin Warren did call me yesterday.
We didn't get a chance to connect.
You know, and I still firmly believe that their best position is in Chicago.
And it's evidence.
The evidence is clearly speaking for itself.
We've got old Charlie Tweet.
He was a big long Bears fan.
You can throw up, you cycle through those.
You know, Bears, that's what you get for poor management and terrible coaching.
Cutler got what he deserved.
What an awful call.
Hashtag Bears.
Fantasy advice.
Find the team playing the Bears.
Trade for their defense and start them.
He was a long-suffering Chicago Bears fan.
And so I, of course, am a Packers fan.
I'm very torn here because on the one hand, I am a Packers fan.
So I enjoy seeing the Bears lose.
I enjoy seeing them get humiliated a little.
But at the same time, it feels weird to say.
I think the mayor's correct.
The Chicago Bears, they should play in Chicago.
They should at least play in Illinois.
There's something fundamentally messed up when a team is not even in the correct state of who they supposedly represent.
There's something way off about that.
I feel the same about the San Francisco 49ers.
Yes.
They're playing in Santa Clara, which is a massive drive.
It's so far away from San Francisco, but we still call them the San Francisco 49ers.
At least at least the New England Patriots aren't the Boston Patriots anymore.
Did you know that their stadium is literally closer to Providence, Rhode Island, a different major city than it is to Boston?
It's that far out of the city.
I think it's an unfortunate thing.
Listen, though, but this is what happens when you have an incompetent local government that can't put business first, can't put its own citizens first.
They had bought land in Chicago years ago, planning to develop that land and upgrade from Soldier Field.
Now, we could have lots of commentary around the fact that, you know, should local governments be supporting their local teams?
Should it be this sort of, it's an intermix of private public funds.
It never pays off to spend as much as these cities on what is a private for-profit endeavor in every case, except the Green Bay Packers.
It's a billionaire, a mega-billionaire who owns these teams, and their values have gone up massively over time, in large parts of local government.
Huge subsidies.
You'll get cities that will spend a billion dollars, $2 billion to build a stadium that is then, all the profits go to a private actor.
And then in 20 years, they say, oh, it's out of date.
We need to blow it up again.
Give me another $2 billion, or I'm going to move the team to San Antonio.
But this is just the competition that they have to deal with.
Mike Braun, the governor of Indiana, is saying, come in.
Come over to Indiana.
We want your business.
They're passing the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously passed an amendment bill, Senate Bill 27, creating a framework for Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority that would enable bonding, land acquisition, and financing for a new stadium.
So they're rolling out the red carpet for these.
Meanwhile, Chicago's like, we want you to stay, but only so much.
And by the way, we sort of resent you because you're rich and we're not going to roll out the red carpet.
The problem is, yeah, you could say that it's gross, these public-private partnerships, but there's always somebody willing to take your business and they're willing to roll out the red carpet.
So, listen, if you want to compete, you got to compete.
This is the problem with Democrats in general, they're not willing to think business first.
But above all, I think above all, it's a sign of how we can't, in cities, you just can't build anything anymore.
To build a city, it's the endless legal, regulatory, environmental roadblocks.
And then, if you finally do build it, it takes longer than expected.
It costs two or three times more than it should.
Every stadium, look them up.
Every stadium in inflation-adjusted dollars, something built in 1960 that cost $5 million then, and it would cost $50 million today.
And then the replacement stadium will seat fewer people, and it will cost $3 billion.
Well, so it's not finalized yet.
More due diligence, negotiations, and approvals are needed, but insiders are saying it's close to an inevitability that the Chicago Bears are moving to Indiana.
Just take out the R and you'll get how this really is.
The Gary Bears.
The Gary Bears, like the Care Bears.
But we have one more sports thing that we should flash.
We should hit it.
By the way, they say Illinois, it's an inevitability if Illinois does not counter strongly.
So, balls in your court.
You are on offense if you want it.
Meanwhile, this is a quick 60-second blitz.
ESPN is getting rid of America's pastime.
This would Paul Charlie too.
He wasn't as big of a baseball fan as football.
He loved the Cubs.
Core basketball.
He loved the Cubs.
He loved the Cubs, and he loved America, so he'd love America's game.
So ESPN is nixing Sunday night baseball, and they are replacing it with Women's Sports Sundays, which will spotlight matches in the WNBA and the NWSL.
I don't know what that is, but I assume it's women's softball, and I refuse to Google it.
And I have a better nickname for it, which is ESPN's lowest ratings ever Sunday.
It's just a fascinating turn of events that ESPN would voluntarily put itself in a position to lose money and ratings and viewers.
Okay, listen, in fairness, the WNBA has the ratings have improved.
But that is not an excuse to get rid of America's pastime.
Andrew, would you rather find a dime on the sidewalk or have your local NWSL team win the championship?
I would rather find a dime on the sidewalk.
The answer is: I don't know if we have an NWSL team.
Yes, it's the right answer.
Here's the thing: the ESPN used to be appointment viewing for young men.
You would watch it in the mornings, sports center.
You would watch it on the weekends on a rainy Saturday.
And now you're just getting like feminism drivel.
And it's unfortunate for all of us.
It's unfortunate for the country.
Candles were lit on Bondi Beach by families, by children, by people of faith to celebrate a festival of light, a festival from Bible times, one that Jesus himself celebrated.
People gathered with hope, seeking unity and comfort in tradition.
But instead of light, there was darkness, violence, fear, hatred showing itself at a time meant for prayer and rejoicing.
Colbert's Program Controversy 00:11:51
Times like this remind us that even with the ceasefire in Israel, Jewish people are being targeted simply because of their faith.
And times like this remind us why the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to stand in the gap, providing safety and security to God's people.
The fellowship brings together Christians and Jews to be a light to suffering Jews in Israel, the former Soviet Union, or wherever the needs are greatest.
Together, we can make a real difference in the lives of those who need hope the most.
Your gift today will help provide the security that God's people so desperately need.
Visit urgentifcj.org.
That's one word, urgentifcj.org, or call now at 866-338-IFCJ.
That's 866-338-4325.
Without further ado, Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, joins us now.
Brendan, this is a, I think if the average person watching at home, this has been a very confusing story that they've seen play out.
Seems like James Talrico is getting the benefit of it.
He's raising all this money off of it.
So here's the allegation I want you to confirm or deny its veracity.
The FCC, strong-armed CBS, said you cannot have James Talrico on the air at Colbert or else the way they summarize it, they basically just like they pull the gun and they're like, you can't have him on the air.
Exactly.
You guys are the mean bullies saying Colbert can't have James Talrico on the air.
What is true and what is fiction?
Well, look, as soon as I found out that Talrico is beyond, I went down to the bowels of the FCC, the Media Bureau, I found the dump button, I pushed it, and I said, these are MAGA airwaves now.
I can't run this on here.
No, the reality is I woke up Tuesday morning and I saw on social media that the FCC had allegedly refused to air an interview.
And this has been just so amazing to watch in terms of why everyday Americans have lost so much trust in the legitimacy of the legacy media.
So the claim was made by a politician that the FC refused to air an interview, which simply did not happen.
And then the claim was, well, it was CBS that refused to air the interview.
And then CBS came out and said, no, again, that didn't happen.
All we said was we provided guidance, CBS claims, to how they could do the interview on broadcast TV and comply with all appropriate regulations.
But instead, you saw Colbert and Tellerico do that meme where you take a stick and poke it in your own front spokes of your bicycle fall down and claim that they have been the victims.
And the reason this worked is because they knew that the predisposition of the legacy media would be that they would eat this up.
And they did.
They eat it up like slop.
And it ended up boomeranging on them.
The real issue here is this is Dem on Dem violence.
This is one politician in a Dem primary trying to get a leg up and clicks up and donations up as commercial to another Democrat.
So this is Demon Dem violence that they're just trying to merchandise as having something to do with Trump or the FCC.
And again, it had zero to do with us.
I learned about this completely, totally after the fact.
That's amazing.
You found out about it on Twitter, like so many people.
So, okay, this is the way I understand it.
And again, confirm or deny.
This only applies to, at this point, at this point in the calendar, because we're in primary season, Dem versus Dem.
So if the equal time rule is basically that James Talrico goes on, well, then Colbert has to at least extend an invitation to what's her name?
Jasmine Crockett.
And that's all that this says.
So you just at least have to invite her on equal time.
Is that essentially right?
You're not alleging the FCC is not telling CBS and CBS is not telling Colbert that they need to go have John Cornyn and Paxton on as equal time.
It's just relevant to the Democrat primary.
That's essentially right.
So if you step back, broadcast TV, broadcast radio is fundamentally different than any other form of distribution of program.
It's different than online.
It's different than YouTube.
It's different than cable.
If you have a broadcast license, there's special, unique things you have to do because you've got the license for free.
It's a valuable public resource, and the government is excluding other people.
So they're excluding other people, which means it's a public trustee model.
You need to look out for the interests of everybody.
Okay, that's the baseline.
Then there was a particular rule, a statute actually, that Congress passed that said if you're going to have a legally qualified candidate on the air, you have to, to your point, extend an offer to all other legally qualified candidates.
Doesn't need to be the same program, doesn't need to be the same host.
If for some reason Colbert doesn't want to have Crockett on, he doesn't have to do that.
It's just at some point, they've got to offer a comparable time.
That's the baseline.
Now, there's an exception to that rule.
And the exception is if you are what's defined in the statute as a bona fide news program.
If you are a bona fide news program, meaning I guess not fake news, then you don't need to comply with equal time.
And the idea there was Congress was thinking about, you know, meet the press and other sort of hard-hitting journalistic shows where the hosts weren't trying to put a thumb on the scale for one particular candidate or one particular party.
And over the years, the FCC issued decisions that people read as effectively having the exceptions swallow the rule, meaning anything that goes on on broadcast TV, whether it's daytime, nighttime, is itself bona fide news and doesn't have to comply.
What we've told people is: no, that's not the law.
Follow the law.
If you haven't established that you're bona fide news, give people equal time.
But to your point, Colbert did not have to have anyone else on that program.
He could have run it.
And all you have to do is put a file, a filing in your public file, which broadcasters have, that said, we allowed airtime for this candidate.
If there's another candidate out there, come talk to us and let's see if we can work something out.
That's all they would have been required to do.
Well, they are turning it into like World War III over here.
You guys are the biggest, baddest bullies.
So let's go ahead.
This is what's funny to me, too, is that you've got, you know, Mr. Potato Man, Brian Stelter chiming in.
You've got Jen Saki, and they're all parroting this hoax.
It's amazing.
507.
This is Brian Stelter.
Put Tallerico's tweet on screen.
He said the FCC banned our Colbert interview.
And he's wrong about that.
The FCC did not ban the interview.
And that's what is actually so interesting about this.
It's about the impression, the possibility of interference, causing the networks to possibly self-censor.
And you got Colbert, big hissy fit.
508. You know who is not one of my guests tonight?
That's Texas State Representative James Tallarico.
He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers who called us directly that we could not have him on the broadcast.
And it looks like Tallrico, to you, your point, Mr. Chairman, that he's taking advantage of this.
515. FCC opening probe into the view after appearance by Tallarico.
Do you mean to cause trouble?
I think that Donald Trump is worried that we're about to flip taxes.
So he's raised millions off that.
What you just saw was actually they posted it to YouTube instead.
I guess like six million people have tuned in.
I mean, it's boomeranged very well for Tallrico, but you said this is Dem on Dem violence, Brendan.
And the one person that's really upset is Jasmine Crockett.
VAGA operative.
Yeah, VAGA operative.
She's actually the one calling, you know, BS on all this.
Again, so what is that part that they said, the FCC probe into the view?
Can you explain what that was about, that allegation?
There's a separate episode where the view, which is somewhat like Disney, did have Tallerico on the broadcast airwaves.
And Disney has not established that that program is a bona fide news program.
We've begun an enforcement proceeding, enforcement actions into the view, because if they are not bona fide news, again, we don't think they've established that at this point, then they would needed to have offered, and frankly, they could still offer equal opportunity to the other candidates, including Jasmine Crockett.
This was, yeah, look, this was a, I don't think it was a sophisticated play because you just have to understand the biases of the fake news media in order to run this.
But, you know, Tallarico effectively self-streisand affected this one.
So, you know, hats off to him.
But yeah, if I was Crockett, I'd be mad.
In fact, Crockett came out the day that this happened and said this wasn't FCC censorship.
This was Colbert and Tallarico deciding not to have her on the program for reasons that you'll have to ask them.
And this is the key.
This is essentially why the rule is important, Brendan, this equal time, because what you have instead, you don't have the voice of the people.
You have elites at these networks that have basically put their thumb on the scale and said, we want Tyrico.
We think he can beat whether it's Cornyn or Paxton.
We think he's the guy to beat them.
And we're going to prop this guy.
They're very good at these operas.
This is an elite gatekeeping in the old school model.
That's the whole point of the rule was that Congress came in and said, we don't want media elites, media gatekeepers deciding the outcomes of primary or elections.
We want the people to do it.
We want the people of Texas to make their mind up without unlawful interference from media gatekeepers.
The whole reason that the rule was in place.
Now, big picture, I think that is worth asking.
You say that is Congress's intent, but this does date to when there were two, three network television outlets, some radio outlets, and that's what media was.
Today, we have shows like this one.
We have infinite podcasts, everything on social media.
Do you think there's a case to be made?
This is sort of an obsolete standard that it infringes a little bit on freedom of speech.
And there's so many ways to get your message out there now.
What do you make of that overall?
There's a lot of reasonable people that say there's such a diversity of mechanisms to get your perspectives out there that we don't need those types of regulations.
I guess I would say two things.
One, it almost cuts the other way because there's so many ways that you can get the message out, YouTube, podcasts, streaming, social media, that if you want to use that one medium that has just a unique set of rules, that you should do it because it isn't really a constraint on you because you can go somewhere else if you don't want to abide by the broadcast regulations.
I guess the second point I'd make is that if people want to do that, then they can go to Congress and they can change the law.
But, you know, my job at this point is to enforce in a fair and balanced way the laws passed by Congress.
And that's what we're going to be doing.
Brendan, thank you for separating fact from fiction in this, I call it the Colbert hoax because it's a complete, I mean, it's been a ratings boom for him.
And by the way, YouTube is 6 million views or something is what I said.
I didn't watch it.
But anyways, Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, thank you for making the time and helping us out understand the Colbert hoax.
I'm sure there'll be plenty more in the future.
Yeah, good to see you guys.
Thanks.
Hi, folks.
Andrew Colvett here.
I'd like to tell you about my friends over at YReFi.
You've probably been hearing me talk about YReFi for some time now.
We are all in with these guys.
If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.
Maybe you're behind on your payments.
Maybe you're even in default.
You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.
WhyReFi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.
They tailor each loan individually.
They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.
We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.
Many of them don't even know how much they owe.
WhyReFi can help.
Just go to YReFi.com.
That's the letter why, then refi.com.
And remember, YReFi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
Great Moments in Sportsmanship 00:07:57
So we have been pounding these Olympians, rightfully so.
They are, some of them have just really disgraced the country.
But we only thought it was fair to contrast the losers with the winners.
And in this case, it's actually true.
The hockey team just beat, I believe, Sweden last night, I believe, and they're going on, but Blake is telling me that Blake is telling me that the Canadian team is stacked and it's going to be we're playing Slovakia.
Hopefully we have the advantage over them, but if we win, and assuming Canada wins, we face them in the gold medal match, and they are being described as the greatest team ever assembled.
I'm curious, though, if the, yeah, we, geez, Canada beat France 10-2.
But I mean, who's in France?
I mean, like, what players do they have in the United States?
There's lots of people in France.
No, as far as hockey players.
I'm sure they have players of some type.
But there's a clip that's going viral, Quinn Hughes, and we wanted to play it because, you know, in the spirit of equal time that we just had with Brendan Carr from the FCC, we want to give equal time to the people that are actually honoring our country and doing it the right way.
So God bless Quinn Hughes.
He had some great things to say.
577.
Hell of a game out there.
You took down their game winner.
I mean, what did that feel like?
Yeah, just a relief.
Just really enjoying being here with this group and the guys and, you know, trying to extend it as long as I can.
Right on.
And then USA flags all over the place.
You can hear the chants.
What's that atmosphere like?
Yeah, it's special.
I mean, you know, I love the U.S. and it's the greatest country in the world.
So happy to represent it here with these guys.
And, you know, it's really special.
That's awesome.
It's the greatest country in the world.
Happy to represent it here with these guys.
It's really special.
That's awesome.
But, man, it is tough where we're just breaking news.
U.S. athlete representing America likes America.
It's not the only one.
I think here's the thing.
And we talked about this.
There were similar clips that went around at the Australian Open, where you get these scumbag journalists that go around and they try and get clickbait.
They try and get their headline.
And so they ask, oh, these leading questions.
What's it like right now with everything going on in the United States?
That meany President Trump is your president.
What's it like?
And so they bait these athletes that are not used to thinking deeply about political topics.
And then they get their headlines.
And then that's what happens.
In the case of the Australian Open, the same journalist was going around to all the Americans asking the same question.
And most of them answered it well.
Some of them didn't.
And you get the same thing at the Olympics.
And so they're suckering these woke tards that are, you know, giving them bad answers.
So it's great when we get a Quinn Hughes type answer that we can all celebrate.
And I would just say, I mean, there was that one classic clip from the last, I think it was the last summer Olympics.
It was that black gal that we played a couple of years ago.
Yeah, we played.
She was just like, oh my gosh, I love America.
I love America.
Overall, like what this is, it says, to me, it says much more about the press than anything because that is what our press wants to do.
That's what they want to feed.
They want to make everything.
They want to make everything about politics.
They want to kind of stoke these things.
And as part of, they've pointed out that Eileen Gu, who is from America but represents China because she makes a ton of money doing it.
And you can watch her clips and she basically has a different personality when she is appearing in Chinese media.
Adopts a totally different demeanor.
It is totally apolitical.
It is totally just very sweet and pleasant and kind of feminine.
And then if she's appearing in U.S. stuff, she's like, oh, well, now I'm in America.
I have to maximize my brand.
I'm going to shout out women's reproductive rights and promote these left-wing causes.
Of course, it's all a shim.
I don't think she genuinely believes any of these things.
I think she just wants to be rich and make money.
And in America, in the Bay Area, you do that by mouthing left-wing platitudes.
And in China, you do that by being strictly apolitical and saying nothing about the government at all.
And you definitely, you don't rock the boat.
And that's what we have in China.
That's what we have in America.
She's picked her team.
Now, it's important to do a update on the medal count here.
So, oh, we do have that clip.
That was, okay, I brought it up.
Let's play it.
579 that feel to represent your country like this it feels amazing i love representing the u.s i freaking love living there i love it and i'm so happy i get to represent you as a it is a great clip That is a very immortal one.
That was from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
All right, so the medal count now.
We are getting killed by Norway.
No, okay.
Well, Norway, I don't know what their deal is, but it's a very cold place, so they have lots of medals.
34 medals for Norway, 26 for Italy, but we've closed the gap.
We are 25.
The United States has 25 medals.
France has 19.
Again, France.
I just, I don't know what it is about France, but I look at France every time and I'm like, I just, you know, I don't buy it.
Like, I just.
I think my favorite is Brazil has a gold medal, and it's a Norwegian person who just moved to Brazil and decided to play for their Olympic team for some reason.
And so they have a gold medal in Olympic skiing.
All right.
The last thing I want to talk about here is the Board of Peace.
It convened.
It almost is like Trump is establishing a supranational organization outside of the UN on purpose just to snub the UN.
And so we've got some clips here of President Trump doing this board of peace with Javier Malay, Turkey, Kazakhstan.
I mean, it's kind of a coalition of the willing, I would put it that way.
580, please.
And finally, to the American people, I think it's important that the American people recognize why we're here today.
And the reason that we're here today is, yes, to save lives and yes, to promote peace, but this creates incredible prosperity for the American people.
The countries represented here represent trillions of dollars of investment in the United States of America that would not have been possible without this president's leadership and advocacy for peace.
The economies here represent millions of American jobs of people who are receiving products built in American factories and made by American workers would not be possible without a focus on peace.
So, Mr. President, while I think this is great for the world, I also think it's really, really great for the United States of America.
So, we're looking forward to the partnership.
So, President Trump is the chairman.
The executive board, which focuses on diplomacy and investments, is Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister, Mark Rowan, CEO of the Apollo Global Management, Ajai Banga, the World Bank president, Robert Gabriel Jr., U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, and Nicolae Mledenov, a high representative for Gaza, former UN envoy.
And there's a number of countries, like I said, there was 40 folks there on stage with President.
Again, it seems like a move where President Trump has been largely snubbed by the international organizations.
He's building his own.
And I find the timing of it to be somewhat ironic with the Iranian strike potentially imminent right now.
Well, the name is clearly the biggest thing.
He did, he campaigned for the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
It was kind of an unprecedented thing, but a very Trumpian thing.
Imagine leaders competing to see who can end the most wars.
I mean, it's something to see that.
And by the way, he has a great track record ending wars.
So let's hope, let's pray for peace.
That's the final word I'll say to you today.
Pray for peace in Iran.
Let's focus on our country.
I think that's what we all want.
But sometimes you have to trust the leaders you elected.
And so that's our position.
Export Selection