Real Immigration Reform + Markwayne Mullin vs. Rand Paul
Markwayne Mullin and Rand Paul clash over Mullin's refusal to apologize for understanding a neighbor's assault, while Tulsi Gabbard faces scrutiny on election meddling despite her anti-terrorism rhetoric. Representative Andy Ogles proposes the Assimilation Act to repeal the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, cap green cards at 500,000, and end chain migration, arguing that welfare dependency and demographic shifts demand reform. James O'Keefe exposes a federal felony conspiracy where the Weingart Center paid homeless individuals to register voters in California, urging immediate arrests. Ultimately, these segments highlight a conservative push for strict immigration controls, national identity preservation, and accountability in federal investigations. [Automatically generated summary]
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 Museman.
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 to the Charlie Kirk Show.
It is March 18th, 2026.
Lots of news this morning.
Obviously, we have DNI Tulsi Gabbard testifying before the Senate.
We have also a very fiery exchange happening with DHS, the nominated secretary, Mark Wayne Mullen.
I think a lot of people were looking forward to the Tulsi Gabbard hearing, especially with the events yesterday with Joe Kent.
But instead, it turns out the DHS hearing is the more exciting one.
Not early for good reasons.
Yeah, let's get into it.
So here's kind of the moment that kind of kicked it all off.
It was very, very tense, very, very early.
Sat too.
You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted.
You went on to brag that you'd already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault.
Well, that's a lie.
You got a chance today.
You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record.
You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified.
So today you'll have your chance.
Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record.
Tell it to my face.
If that's what you believe, tell it to me today.
Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung.
Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it.
That was two Republicans.
That's two Republicans.
There's some like honor culture stuff going on here.
You know, you got the Kentucky honor culture and the Oklahoma honor culture.
So these are two, I would say, spirited men, right?
They both have been through a few fights before.
In Rand Paul's case, actually, very clearly, he was assaulted, and that's terrible by a neighbor.
And that seems to be what the backstory is here.
And then, of course, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is a former MMA fighter.
He's a tough guy.
He's a man's man.
And he got into it with Sean O'Brien, who's a union boss.
And that was a very famous clip of him and Sean O'Brien getting into it, kind of threatening, hey, let's do it right now.
Let's go outside kind of moment.
What's interesting is that Sean O'Brien is sitting now behind Mark Wayne Mullen as a character witness for his confirmation hearing, which I think is very telling about Mark Wayne Mullen as a man.
He is somebody that's willing to bury the hatchet.
What's a little fight?
Tomorrow we'll be boys again kind of thing.
So I tend to think that Rand Paul needs to kind of bury the hatchet here.
He's obviously upset about some words that were exchanged in the past, but that's kind of Mark Wayne Mullen's deal.
He's able to fight.
He's able to have heated exchanges and then kind of bury it for the good of the country, for the good of policy, advancing policy.
So there's more of this.
We can keep playing it.
SOP 15.
You offer no apology, sir.
And you offer no apology today and no regrets.
And I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.
Good.
So you're jolly well fine and you want the American public and the people up here to vote that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious violent attack on me from behind.
I did not say I supported it.
I said I understood it.
There's a difference.
By calling you by calling.
So that means you really didn't approve of it.
Just completely understand it.
What do you think most people would interpret completely understand to be support for or a condemnation of the violence?
Sir, as I said, we can have our differences.
It's not going to keep me from doing my job as Secretary of Homeland Security.
I'm going to secure Kentucky and take care of Kentucky as much as I am over.
Holy cow.
I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.
He's definitely not apologizing there.
You don't usually see that in confirmation hearings.
Usually they're all eager to paper over things in the past, but Mark Wayne clearly is not taking that approach.
I have to say, I'm not justifying what Mark Wayne said.
I would say that Rand Paul getting assaulted was terrible.
I just can't help but find it a bit endearing that Senator Mark Wayne Mullen won't back down.
He's probably sitting there thinking that that was a bit of a cheap shot.
Listen, we've got a job to do at DHS.
You need to get me confirmed so we can defend the country and the interior and so many other things.
And Rand Paul's making it about a squabble that he had with Mark Wayne Mullen at a previous juncture.
I get it.
He's upset about it, but there are businesses of state to attend to.
And you hope that your political leaders are able to put it behind you.
So I don't know.
I look at this exchange and Mark Wayne Mullen's not one to pull punches either.
But it's fiery.
You saw the division of the caucus here where you had Bernie Moreno steps in and basically says, listen, you're going to get confirmed here.
And it looks like, here, I'm looking for the clip here.
I did see it just a second ago.
Oh, it's clip five.
You are who you are.
And I think that's what you don't apologize for, is just being yourself.
And sometimes we're imperfect.
We don't do the 20-person focus group every time you say a word.
And I think that's what people like about you, Mark Wayne.
So I appreciate you being here.
I honestly just have one question for you.
Do you pledge to support and defend the United States of America nearly as much as you would protect and defend your family?
Without doubt, sir, yes.
So I'm going to ruin everything for the audience.
You will be confirmed.
You will have the job.
And you're going to make this country safer and better.
And for that, I thank you and thank your family for supporting you.
Yeah.
So for those wondering, it is close enough in the Senate.
If Rand opposes him and no Democrats switch sides, which I think Fetterman is on this committee, so that might happen.
But if he gets rejected, that would hold up the nomination, but the full Senate can do anything.
And so obviously the president's going to insist upon this.
Confirming a Safer Future00:14:39
And so, you know, Thun can force it through.
But presuming, assuming he hasn't defended any other, too many other Republicans with remarks.
But I'm reminded, Blake.
Like, I'm reminded, and you'll remember this, when we had Senator Mark Wynn Mullen on the show, and he was very honest about his feelings about a certain Supreme Court justice.
So this is something that we've seen Mark Wayne Mullen do.
He is very honest about folks that he thinks, I guess you would say, have character issues.
And, you know, right, right or wrong, I don't know.
I just, maybe I'm biased because he's come on the show so many times, but, you know, I find it endearing.
And that's only one of the hearings this morning, folks.
You know, we spend a lot of time on this show talking about culture, about why strong families matter, why values matter, why faith matters.
But here's something practical.
If you actually want to build a strong family someday, you have to start by meeting someone who shares those same values and convictions.
And in today's culture, that's not always easy.
A lot of apps are built around casual connections, instant gratification, no long-term vision.
And that's just not what many of you are looking for.
You want something better.
That's why I like Upward.
Upward is a dating app designed around faith and shared values.
People who care about commitment, integrity, marriage, and family.
You're starting from common ground instead of trying to negotiate your core beliefs three months later into the relationship.
That kind of clarity really matters.
If faith is central to your life, or even if it's something that shaped how you were raised and how you see the world, Upward connects you with people who take that seriously.
If you're tired of the confusion and you're ready to date with intention, with marriage and family in mind, download Upward and start building on the right foundation because strong relationships don't just happen by accident.
They start with shared values.
Download the Upward app today.
All right, so Tulsi Gabbard, I would say there's some high watermarks and there's some room for improvement here.
And I'm trying to be constructive.
I'm a fan of Tulsi's.
I think she's a great patriot.
Charlie loved Tulsi.
She is knocking it out of the park on Islam.
Absolutely home run.
Listen to her right here on the threat of Islamic terrorism, something that we care greatly about on the show, Sat 9.
The United States continues to face a complex and evolving threat landscape with a geographically diverse set of Islamist terrorist actors seeking to propagate their ideology globally and harm Americans, even as al-Qaeda and ISIS remain weaker today than they were at their respective peaks.
The spread of Islamist ideology, in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, poses a fundamental threat to freedom and the foundational principles that underpin Western civilization.
Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world and to advance their political objectives of establishing an Islamist caliphate which governs based on Sharia.
All right, so she's knocking out of the park.
I mean, we have multiple clips here, Blake, of Tulsi being 100% spot on when it comes to the threat of Islam.
You love to hear it, right?
Because there's a certain, I would say, emergent set of voices that are, I think, downplaying the threat of Islam in the West.
We don't subscribe to that notion.
We think that it is a clear and present danger to the future of Western civilization, but specifically to the United States.
So I'm very heartened to see.
I wish it was specific to the United States.
Unfortunately, it is generalized to all of Western civilization.
And as you say, some people have made, I think some people, they're just the old-fashioned open borders.
Diversity is our strength sort.
But another version that's emerged in the last few years is that they just straight up, they take the bargain of, I would rather side with radical Islamists than with Israel or with Jewish people.
Some of them are saying, oh, Christianity is too cocked.
Christianity is too weak.
We need muscular Islam to revive the West.
There's a lot of these very deranged, very delusional takes that have risen in popularity.
You're seeing it with young people.
And I think Charlie was prescient, and I think others are very correct to identify this threat now and start really pushing back against it before we're like the UK, before we're like France, and this is 10, 15% of the population.
And we're having schools forcing all their kids to observe Ramadan, forcing their kids not to eat because it would offend them.
Having these gigantic mass Islamic prayers out in front of your biggest churches, which is what we're seeing in Europe right now.
Yeah, and like I said, that's why I'm so glad Tulsi's being honest about it.
She's not pulling any punches.
She's going straight and direct, which is a good sign, by the way, if we're going to actually make progress on this issue.
However, here's the room for improvement.
And I know a bit of the backstory here, so it's harder for me to watch it with dispassionate eyes.
Okay, so here's SOT 23.
This is Senator Warner demanding to know why Tulsi Gabbard was at the Fulton County, Georgia election raid.
SOT 23.
Election security responsibilities to ensure the integrity of our elections.
I want to correct one of your statements that you've made multiple times, which is false.
I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities.
The photos are the photos of you all.
I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had long been awaited.
I was not aware of what was in the warrant or was not in the war.
What was the president's specific request for the country?
Thank you.
What was the specific request by the president for you to show up in Fulton County?
To go and observe the FBI's activities on this issue.
All right.
So she's saying that she was not involved in that.
Now, DNI is the top intel official in the country, right?
So they gather intel from all the other agencies, about 17 intelligence agencies.
A lot of times there's a lot of infighting because it's kind of like having a parent looking over your work, your homework.
They don't like that.
They want to be more independent.
Tulsi's got a heck of a job on her.
But check this out: 201.
This is from Just the News.
John Solomon has come on the show talking about some of this.
It says, U.S. Intel hid Chinese 2020 election meddling from Trump because they opposed his policies according to a memo obtained by Just the News.
Great reporting there from John Solomon.
We have ample evidence to understand that foreign actors were meddling in our elections.
Now, I'm not saying that they meddled in Fulton.
They very well could have meddled in Fulton, but the president has had this intel.
Tulsi Gabbard has had this intel.
It's important that somebody articulate the foreign threat to our elections with strength and conviction in their voice.
And I thought this was a missed opportunity.
I'd love to see it.
Somebody continue following up.
And maybe she's not ready to do it.
I defer to Tulsi's wisdom and the timing that she chooses, but somebody needs to articulate fully and forcefully the foreign threat to our elections and our election integrity.
And I thought this was an opportunity to do that.
CIA Director John Radcliffe continues to prosecute the case against Iran.
There's some great back and forth there.
We can go ahead and play SOT 22.
If left unimpeded, yes, Senator, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S.
It's one of the reasons why degrading Iran's missile production capabilities that is taking place right now in Operation Epic Fury is so important to our national security.
So lots going on here.
To your point, Blake, I thought this was going to be Joe Kent hour, and it seems as though it's kind of all over the place.
Now it's ongoing, so we're going to keep monitoring the situation.
But so far, it has not devolved into that just yet.
Yeah, so far, we shall see.
Radcliffe's also reporting on a 25% increase in assets and human resources at the CIA.
It's interesting.
70% increase in counterterrorism operations.
It's good to see them focused.
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 whyReFi.com.
That's the letter why, then refi.com.
And remember, YReFi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to whyRefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
We are joined by the great Mark Halperin, who is one of the keenest political observers in the country.
All right.
Mark, we were talking in the break about your read on the hearing so far.
So let's start there.
You watched the back and forth with Rand Paul and Mark Wayne Mullen.
You have a relationship with Rand Paul.
I think that's fair to say.
What was your reaction to that back and forth?
Well, my only relationship with Senator Paul is I've interviewed him and I respect the fact that he's willing to speak his mind even when he's in the minority.
I think we could use more senators like that.
Look, there's a personal issue here that I can empathize with, and then there's a substantive one.
The personal one is he's a member of a club of 100 and a member of his subclub of the Republican Party seemed to cheer when he was beat up seriously by his neighbor and never apologized for it and continued to kind of make light of it.
And I think Senator Paul was right to, even though it's personal and it might seem petty to some, to use that as a prism to wedge into the bigger issue, which I think also based on the available record is legitimate, which is, does this guy have the temperament to have this complicated job?
The fact that at a congressional hearing, he tried to fight a guy, Sean O'Brien.
Even though they've made up since then, like, I just look at those two data points and say that's a legit area of inquiry for the chairman to take on.
And I thought the Senator Mullen's responses weren't great.
I didn't think they were great.
So if you're someone who has doubts about his temperament to do this job, I don't think he helped himself with the way he handled it.
Yeah, I mean, I hear you.
I think that's a legitimate line of inquiry.
I think that's a line I would agree with.
But there's obviously a longer backstory here between the two gentlemen.
I think the fact that he's got Sean O'Brien sitting behind him, who he, that was the guy they almost fought in the hearing.
He has Sean O'Brien there as a character witness.
I think that's the Mark Wayne Mullen that people know and appreciate why he's so well liked.
But yeah, he doesn't pull any punches.
You know, we had him on this show and he said some things about a Supreme Court justice that kind of our jaws dropped.
You know, so I understand the temperament issue, but I tend to think that he's very relatable in that.
Yeah.
People like him a lot, but let me ask Blake a question.
Can I ask Blake a question?
Let's say Blake got beat up and by his neighbor, and then you went out in public and laughed and said, I can kind of understand why Blake's neighbor would beat him up.
A lot of people in the hospital.
This is like a hypothetical, but it's so close to the truth.
I kind of get it, Mark.
And what I think is funny is, I think, well, it's not funny, but I think what may genuinely be a problem here is I remember when that happened, and I think a lot of people did find it kind of funny.
Like, oh, your neighbor came over and beat you up.
And I think what a lot of people don't genuinely appreciate is I think Rand Paul was quite seriously maimed in that.
He was in the hospital for a long time.
Yeah.
And I think a lot of people just kind of don't, they don't internalize that fact that that's going to be really personal for Senator Paul because this wasn't something that lasted, you know, this wasn't, oh, I got in a fight one day.
It was, I was in the hospital for weeks, I believe.
Yep.
And the psychology of it, I totally, you're right.
And let me just build on that.
He was beat up by his neighbor.
That's like a really disquieting thing.
It's really unsettling.
You're in your, you're in your neighbor, you're in your home.
You're on your property.
And your neighbor beats you up so badly, you're in the hospital.
I could see why it would bother him, that his colleague made repeated fun of it.
And then today, when he asked his colleague if he would apologize for it, he declined.
So again, I'm not telling senators how to vote.
I'm not saying this is disqualifying or should be.
I'm saying is I think this legitimate issue because that mindset of making fun of someone, your colleague being sent to the hospital by his neighbor and then declining in retrospect to apologize, how hard is it to apologize for that?
Seems pretty effortless.
And yet he declined.
Mark, I would agree with you.
Maybe he should have.
Maybe he should have.
I will just say the backstory here.
And again, I have great respect for Rand Paul.
I just happen to know, and I'm sure you know this as well, that he's one of those senators that tends to get under a lot of other senators' skin.
And there's a lot of scar tissue.
There's a lot of backstory there.
He can be very frustrating to deal with in the budget process.
He holds out his vote.
I mean, there's a lot of scar tissue there.
So let's just, yeah, we can leave it at that.
You did some reporting at Daily Mail last night.
The sinister truth.
Now, I know, Mark, you don't write the headlines.
For people who don't know, Daily Mail, they throw a bunch of stuff at the board and they see what gets the most clicks.
Rand Paul's Scar Tissue00:12:30
All right.
So, but the article, we'll get into that with you.
Sinister truth about explosive resignation of Trump's top counter terror chief, Joe Kent, and his shot claim, Israel is manipulating the president by Mark Halperin.
What is the backstory here?
What have you uncovered in your reporting, Mark?
Well, as Daily Mail headlines go, that's like USA Today.
That's a perfectly good one.
Yeah, that was pretty tame for them.
Exactly.
You know, it's interesting that Joe Kent had this job because no one who's followed his career or dealt with him is the least bit surprised that he would quit and that he would quit over this.
You know, I think all the time, I had Ralph Reid on my show on Next Up yesterday.
We talked about this thing I'm so focused on as a reporter, which is what if Charlie were still here.
And I have to say, I think Charlie would have been proud yesterday of Team MAGA for mobilizing so quickly with very few fingerprints to make it clear to not just to Kent, who's going on with Tucker and maybe with Candace and Mark Levin, but to other people who are thinking of quitting over the war, your public, vociferous opposition will not be unchallenged and will not be cost-free to make.
Very effective.
Maybe not stopping Kent from doing stuff.
But now anybody else who wants to do what Kent did is going to have to think twice.
And that was the goal of yesterday.
And I think they were pretty effective in doing it.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, let's play some of the clips.
I think SAT won this Dan Bongino criticizing the move.
I read probably a lot more intelligence than he did.
I had access to just about everything.
And how you could come to the conclusion that the Israelis did it and there was no imminent threat here?
Really?
What about the anti-ship ballistic missiles, the drone program, 440 kilograms of 60% enriched nuclear material, their constant death to America chance?
I mean, you know, that's called evidence.
In some limited circles, we call that, you know, a clue.
I mean, I don't know at what point you thought this wasn't an imminent threat after you've read a lot of the stuff I read.
And by the way, that's just the open source stuff we can talk about on the air.
I promise you, the president, I promise you, has a bevy of material that if he could do the men in black thing and erase your mind tomorrow, if he told you right now, you would come to the imminent threat conclusion in a snap.
Mark, what was your reporting on the intel that Joe Kent had access to?
It's murky.
It's murky.
I think there's no doubt that the administration and maybe Dan there is overstating echoes of the Bush weapons of mass destruction claims.
They're overstating it.
Almost every expert would say they are.
I think it's a bit of a distraction, though, because for decades, presidents of both parties have said Iran must be dealt with.
So whether they were a week away or 10 weeks away or two years away, I don't know that it matters.
And I think it's kind of unfortunate for the focus of the public and the righteousness of the cause that there's all this attention being paid to is Kent telling the truth?
Is the president telling the truth?
You know, is Rubio telling the truth?
I don't think it matters.
Iran is an existential threat and has been.
And presidents of both parties have struggled to find a way to deal with it.
And this president has tried something.
It may go down in history as a calamity, but he did it because he was trying to achieve an objective shared by his colleagues.
It's an objective he's talked about also for decades, even well before he became a politician.
Well, and Mark, there's a clip here, and I'm going to be watching closely when Joe Kent goes on with Tucker, maybe with Mark Levin.
I'm sure Mark Levin's going to bring up this clip because it does seem to strike against his letter, Sat 8.
I've already heard rumors that Fifth Group is going to be sending guys to Iraq because of the escalated situation with Iran now.
Yeah.
I mean, most Americans aren't aware of it.
Our troops in Iraq and Syria have been attacked 150 plus times by Iranian proxies.
And when we say Iranian proxies, we got to be clear on what that is.
That's the Iraqi government that we pay.
Because after the Iraqi military, we spent $2 trillion on surrendered to ISIS, we had to go back in there in very short order and stand a military back up again.
And guess who filled the breach?
The Shia militias controlled by Iran did.
And the Iraqi government's controlled by Iran.
There's other clips of Joe Kent talking about the ballistic missile threat and so much more.
So I'm going to be watching those interviews very, very closely to see if he does have intel or if he does have a perspective that could persuade me that Trump wasn't acting on his own agency, that he was dogwalked into this war by Israel.
I think that's the main claim here.
And I want to see what he's going to present as evidence of that.
Well, like there's two claims.
One is that there wasn't sufficient evidence of a threat.
And the other is it was done on behest, you know, exclusively or primarily at the behest of Israel and the American Jewish lobby.
He'll have trouble proving the second one.
The first one, I think, is more ambiguous.
But as the clip suggests, there's plenty of things he said in the National Town Square that suggest that he did see a threat from Iran.
Whether he thought the threat was sufficient or not to warrant the president's actions, if he wants to make that judgment, he should run for president.
That's not his call.
That's the president's call.
Well, that's a very good point you just made.
It is the commander-in-chief's call.
All right, Mark, you seem like you're in high spirits today.
You're making jokes about Blake getting beat up and me laughing about it.
Blake, I didn't appreciate it.
You know what I think?
Blake would, if I got beat up, Eric would laugh about it.
He's assuming I would lose the fight.
And I don't know.
I feel like I work pretty hard.
In this hypothetical, your neighbor's massive.
Your neighbor's bigger than Mark Wayne Mullen.
Okay, this is true.
True story.
Blake is freakishly strong.
I don't know what, I don't know why he is, but I think it's because he used to be, used to have a little bit more weight on you, Blake, which you've slimmed down.
And so I don't know if it's like remnant strength, but Blake is weirdly strong.
What do you bet?
Could you rip?
At my best, I've done like 260.
That's not bad.
That's not bad.
260.
Yeah.
With a spotter or no spotter?
No spotter, so I could probably go harder if I had you helping me out.
Could you rip the Phoenix white pages in half with your bare hands?
Oh, okay.
Did they still publish the white page?
Wait, what is that, Mark?
I'm not familiar with white pages.
That was on Rails.
Yeah, I know.
That was Robin Parker Singer about to send me a text message saying get back on track here.
I thought you were going to say, what are the white pages?
Yeah, Blake is at the racial thing.
Mark, let's turn our attention to the other big hearing that's happening right now in Capitol Hill, and that's with the Intel agencies.
I mentioned that I love Tulsi's focus on Islam.
I'm very heartened to see that.
However, there is, I think, justification for DNI to be involved in things like the Fulton County raid.
I thought there was an opportunity for her to articulate that point.
We know that foreign actors are trying to meddle in our elections.
This is Intel the president has had for a long time.
To what extent, to what effect, we don't know, but that's exactly why it needs to be investigated.
What are you seeing from this hearing so far?
What are the big takeaways?
Well, I'm not crazy on Intel and CIA and others being involved in anything domestic.
I think the FBI should deal with all of that.
I think history shows it leads to potential abuse when you let intelligence agencies play on domestic front.
You know, I've not seen all the hearing.
I've been watching it on and off and switching back and forth to the Mark Wayne Mullen hearing.
You know, I find hearing format, congressional hearing format with the limited time and a lot of the partisanship to not be that useful.
And I think, obviously, a lot of this stuff is classified.
So in all honesty, I didn't hear anything that furthered my understanding of the threats America faces around the world.
And again, I just don't think the format's particularly conducive to that.
Fair enough.
I tend to agree with you, actually.
I'd much rather see Tulsi Gabbard or Ratcliffe in a long form interview on this show or on John Ryan or whatever.
So final point here.
And Blake, I think you're going to have some input here.
We've had you on to talk about this repeatedly.
The strikes in Iran, we want to call it an excursion, a war, whatever your word is for it.
There is a political reality.
I think everybody will acknowledge that militarily, we've seen some of the advanced excellence of our military.
Nobody's contending that, but the political cost is certainly a contributing factor of how long this is going to drag on.
What's your read on it right now?
How's MAGA staying together?
How's the base staying together?
Are we shrinking the coalition by doing this?
Your read, sir.
Every bit of polling data suggests MAGA staying together, and Chris LaSavita just tweeted about this.
MAGA is very solid for this, and not just because they're blindly loyal to the president.
There are no boots on the ground.
We're not building schools or firehouses.
We're not saying we're going to march to Tehran and displace the government.
Donald Trump is not against using force.
He's for fast.
You know, what Mag is against and what a lot of people on the left are against are losing slowly.
What the president is for is winning quickly.
Now, how quickly will quickly be?
All the political fallout, the midterms, the president's legacy, all these things, they'll all be answered by how this goes.
If it ends in the next six weeks or less, if it ends with the objectives or most of the objectives being achieved, I think it'll be a net political plus for the president.
And if it doesn't, if it goes on longer, if it costs multiple billions, if it does have mission creep, or if the objectives aren't achieved, I think the Republican Party and the president will pay a price, and they should, because the president made this decision on behalf of the party.
So all this, I said before, I don't like the conversation about was there sufficient intelligence to go in, because I think there was.
I also don't like this discussion about whether the president's breaking his promise.
I just don't think he is.
I respect those who think he is, but the president is for using decisive force to achieve important and essential objectives.
And so far, that's what he appears to be doing.
Well, Mark, what occurs to me is, do you think this is, I think we've had repeated cases of this now where there's sort of Trump himself, and then also there's the aura that's built around Trump where they'll emphasize things that aren't necessarily big Trump talking points.
The other one that comes to mind, of course, is the Epstein stuff where people are saying, oh, Trump betrayed us on Epstein.
He was promising to really go hard at this.
And then when you look at the evidence, it's Trump's supporters talk about that a lot.
And then Trump gets asked about in an interview and he's like, ah, yeah, yeah, we'll look at the Epstein stuff.
And he's never bringing it up of his own volition.
And I feel like Iran is similar, where Trump's supporters, and certainly we among them, have emphasized, oh, he avoided these wars.
He was the peace president.
He had no new wars in his first term, while Trump himself is going around saying, Iran will never get a nuclear weapon.
I'm super tough.
I'm ready to use force.
Do you think this is kind of a recurring pattern?
And is that particularly peculiar?
I would use the metaphor.
No, not necessarily, but I would say the metaphor is Trump's the wizard of Oz and all these other people are the flying monkeys.
And the flying monkeys get a lot of attention.
And they say, I speak for the wizard, but Trump, I just don't, Trump is the king of inconsistency.
There are lots of things he's not consistent on.
And again, I have great respect for people on the left and the right and others who don't support this.
But it is not a violation.
As I read and listen to what he said, as you said, not others have said.
Trump has been talking about trying to deal with Iran for decades.
Other presidents have for decades.
He saw the opportunity in alliance with Israel to do it.
And he's got, I think, pretty specific objectives.
Some are must-haves.
Some would be nice to have, like regime change.
And I think he's going to achieve as much as he can at as low as cost as possible.
And not, we're not going to be building schools in Tehran.
I'm quite confident of that.
Yeah, I think that's well said.
You know, Trump is the audible president.
Charlie used to say that the unpredictability was the point.
So we don't know what he holds in a close hand and an open hand.
Trump's Audible Presidency00:02:51
What are the must-haves?
What are the want-to-haves here?
Ultimately, I think Israel's pushing for regime change.
I think Trump's willing to deal with this regime if it's a moderate actor.
You know, we're just not 100% sure.
By the way, I want to play, we're running out of time.
There's a cut here we have of 1980 of President Trump raging against Iran.
1980.
You know, what was he, 30, 33 at that point or something?
You know, so I've played it on my show.
It's a great clip and it illustrates the point.
This is not some political gambit.
This is not some whim.
This is not some Israel forcing his hand.
He's long said this is important.
You guys are too young, but if you're his age or my age, he's older than me, but same idea.
What Iran did during the Carter years really was informative for how we perceive this regime.
And he's been on it since then.
And I think probably wish he dealt with it in the first term.
Mark Halperin, great work as always.
Thank you for your honest analysis.
Good to see you both.
Stay away from your big burly neighbors.
We will do that.
You too.
You live in a big old metro with lots of scary people, Mark.
So be careful out there.
Thank you, sir.
Imagine being a young woman just finding out that you're pregnant, not knowing where to go or what to do, not even knowing exactly what is going on in your body.
While the whole world tells her it's just a clump of cells, you and I, we both know the truth.
We know it is a baby.
And once she has an ultrasound that you provide and she sees the truth of the baby growing inside of her, you help her choose life.
When you join us in providing ultrasounds with pre-born and she sees her baby and hears her baby's heartbeat, you will double the likelihood that she will choose life.
And 100% of what you give goes to providing ultrasounds, 100%.
Pre-born separately fundraises for administrative costs.
$280 can save 10 babies.
$28 a month can save a baby a month all year long.
And a $15,000 gift, I know there's some of you out there that can afford this, $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come.
Call 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com today.
Again, that's 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
We've been planning this conversation now with rep Andy Ogles, House Freedom Caucus, Tennessee's 5th Congressional District, a great American, great patriot.
I've known about this bill for a little while and I'm so excited to talk about it with him.
And he's joining us now.
Congressman, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Absolutely.
And thank you for having me.
The Critical Immigration Bill00:14:40
Thank you for the great work that you're doing and for the entire team for continuing what is an important legacy for the future of America.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for saying that.
You have unveiled an important bill.
I think probably the most consequential immigration bill that I have ever seen.
And as somebody that follows this subject closely, sir, I'm very excited to see it.
I know it faces an uphill battle, but explain your bill, the Assimilation Act, what it would do, and why it's necessary.
Well, and I would argue that this is quite frankly one of the most important pieces, conversations, but also pieces of legislation that we will really try to undertake and pass in modern history.
So if you go back to 1965, the Heart Seller Act literally opened the floodgates, this tidal wave of immigration, this really this occupation that we've seen across America with illegals who are flooding our communities.
And so what this does is go back to common sense immigration, simply meaning that if you come here, we get to vet you.
We make sure that you actually have a skill, a marketable skill that you can deliver to the American people.
So if you come here and you can't work, you can't get a job, then you don't get to come in because what we've seen is roughly 50 to 60% of the Afghanis that came here are on social welfare.
Look at the Somalians that have come here.
Almost 80% are on social welfare.
They're not coming here to make America great.
They're coming here to make themselves greater.
And quite frankly, some would say we're a melting pot, but at the end of the day, we have to take care of the American taxpayer first.
So look, it ends chain migration.
It ends the tidal wave, the flooding.
It ends the H-1B visa scam, and we can actually vet people.
So if you're a member of a gang, you don't get to come in.
It's quite simple, actually.
I love that.
So Heart Seller was a 60s era legislation.
Blake knows the history better than most, but it basically set up these things that we've been railing about on this show for years.
Even when Charlie was here, chain migration, Visa Lottery, all of this stuff that makes no sense for the common good of the country.
It gets rid of that.
HeartSeller also kind of was a reverse, it reverted some of the 1920s immigration law, right?
That was the quota system.
What does your bill do with that?
Yeah, so it really goes back to more, again, common sense approach where we can prioritize whether it's countries, occupations.
This is the United States of America.
We quite frankly have one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world.
All right.
Think about that for a moment.
People rail against us on our immigration policies, yet Mexico and Canada are more strict than we are.
And so this takes us back where literally to this idea of it's our borders, our borders, we get to decide.
So if we need a particular occupation, if it makes sense to have more Europeans here versus folks, quite frankly, from parts of Africa who may want to kill us, we get to make those determinations based off of data.
And at the end of the day, this has to be data driven.
And so again, by stripping away all of the politics, by stripping away all of the nonsense that, quite frankly, is corrupted, it's abused.
So like the H-1B visa scam, that's literally taking jobs away from American workers.
So you can have someone who went to college, who got a degree, expecting to have that good paying job to start a family, to buy a home.
And then what's happened is cheap labor from overseas is being imported into this country and putting Americans out of jobs.
Guess what?
It's America first for a reason.
That also means American workers first.
Amen.
Yeah, Representative.
So obviously, get rid of chain migration, get rid of the diversity visa, emphasis on skills.
What does your bill do in terms of just the sheer annual number of people coming into the United States?
Does it set a cap on it?
Does it set a floor on it?
What's the number?
So there's a couple of things without getting too much in the weeds.
There's lots of different caps in our immigration systems.
It brings almost all of those down.
It also prevents, when you look at like a lottery system or migration, it prevents any one country from being able to dominate, dominate kind of that pipeline of people coming into this country.
You mean India?
Well, quite frankly, we've seen a disproportionate number of folks from India using the H-1B visa program.
And again, we should be able to determine who uses those.
And quite frankly, so with the bill, like specific to H-1B visas, there's a 200% number in there so that if you're going to use someone by way of the H-1B visa, you're not only paying them market rate, you're paying them twice the market rate so that we know that this is a unique situation and you're not displacing an American worker because we see that over and over and over again where someone who might otherwise make a job paying $100,000,
they're bringing someone from overseas, India, wherever, and they're paying them $60,000 or $70,000.
And again, you have Americans, students, kids trying to start their lives, and they can't get a job because our immigration system has become a scam.
So in 1990 with the Immigration Act signed by George H.W. Bush, it took the annual green cards from about $500,000 a year to 1.2 million in essence.
1.2 million, which I think is absurd, by the way.
In my opinion, the country's full.
We're seeing the erasure of our country.
We're seeing the fleecing of our social welfare system.
Obviously, Minnesota was a big wake-up call.
To Blake's point, does this get us back to 500,000?
Is there no cap like that or no floor?
Let me double check.
Yes, there's a cap in there with the exact number because it is quite frankly a complex bill and it's still a work in progress.
But I'm like you, let's just close it down.
I can't get that through Congress.
So this starts, this gives us a starting place to figure out: all right, I have an idea.
My team and I, we have an idea.
We're going to put forward this framework.
Then we're going to come to you.
We're going to come to other groups that have expertise in certain areas when it comes to immigration policy.
And we're going to make this better.
We're going to make this stronger.
And we're going to make it for the American people, not for other countries that are abusing our immigration system.
Yeah, I mean, the people need to understand that what we've lived through in the United States, let's just say since 1990, is the largest move of humanity in human history.
It's the largest.
One part of that is that we have more people on planet Earth than we did during these other big migratory waves in ancient history or less ancient history.
It is the largest move of humanity into the United States.
And that's why we use words like invasion.
That's why we use words like occupation.
And so I guess the point that just to underscore here, you're repealing Heart Seller.
It's a full repeal.
And 1990 Immigration Act, you're repealing aspects of that, which are going to lower the number.
And I agree, I would go full immigration moratorium if we could.
I'd do a net zero.
I agree with you that we cannot get that through Congress right now.
That's why I'm championing anybody's voices who is willing to take a stand on that.
So thank you.
But the truth is, we're probably not going to be able to get this bill through Congress just yet either.
What needs to happen?
You know, I think we're in a unique opportunity, a unique situation.
Obviously, the Senate is a challenge, but when you look at the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the data points that we're putting out there, that when you have 50, 60% of Afghans are on social welfare, they're not coming here to work.
When you look at the Somalians, the billions of dollars that have been stolen from Americans, and the fact that, again, 70, 80% are on social welfare, people are waking up.
And so, just like the Save America Act with voting, I think the American people are going to demand that we reform our immigration system.
Rep Andy Ogles, thank you so much, sir.
And thank you for your courage on this issue.
And we need brave truth tellers like you pushing this conversation like a drumbeat.
It is existential to the country.
It simply is.
Andy Ogles is a dog with a bone on immigration.
We're going to have him back on again soon.
I'd love your thoughts on repealing Heart Seller, the 1964 legislation that completely transformed America's immigration system.
And then 1990, the Immigration Act signed by H.W. Bush with Ted Kennedy, the quote-unquote lion of the Senate, peering over his shoulder, that took our green cards up to 1.2 million.
Tell us, what do you want to see happen in our immigration system?
Do you want a moratorium?
Do you want a net zero moratorium?
Do you want to see this bill?
Do you think it's smart to get something like this passed because it's maybe more passable?
Want to hear your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
All right, I'm going to play some, since we're talking about immigration, let's play a little some clips from Charlie talking about the subject: CUT 17.
The fight, the future, the energy is going to be on who do we legally let into America.
That is the question.
Legally let into the country.
Blake, did you write that for him?
I can't even remember at this point.
But yeah, it's always been important.
Like our nation has been so insane on illegal immigration on open borders that it is easy to lose sight of the fact that even if even with a total shutdown of illegal immigration, we still have an insane immigration policy that lets in a huge number of people who are not improving America, who are not adding to the country, who are actively harming it, subtracting with it, causing problems, damaging the country's future.
And I'm very glad, you know, Representative Ogles, for those who haven't followed in the news, he had remarks the other day that, you know, anti-Islam faced backlash for it.
20 years ago, he would apologize and go into hiding.
He might resign.
Instead, he turns around and introduces a bill to repeal Hart Seller.
And as we said in the last segment, this won't pass in the immediate future.
We don't have the votes for it, but this is the process that must unfold.
We need to build a Republican Party, a conservative movement that has a coherent and sharply more restrictionist view on immigration, that wants to defend American heritage.
We didn't even get into it in the last segment, but one of the things about Hart Seller, when they passed it, Ted Kennedy and others came out and said, this will not change the demographic nature of America.
It will keep America as it is because that is what all the voters of the time wanted.
Americans literally have never voted to just transform themselves into this giant globalist project.
They have never voted to become post-national.
They have never voted to abandon their heritage.
And yet what we got is a bill that sneakily did that.
And then people come along 30 years later and say, oh, America is just an idea.
Americans have never just considered themselves an idea.
No, I totally agree.
This whole, we're a nation of immigrants.
No, we're not.
We're a nation of settlers that conquered a land and made it prosperous, made it thrive.
I know that the indigenous peoples were, there was Indigenous peoples here before, but, you know, honestly, every land has been conquered, and that is a faulty argument.
It's a straw man.
I want to read some of these emails.
Angela says, I live in South Carolina.
I really appreciate the interviews you conducted with both Senate candidates for our state.
I agreed with both Dans and Lynch on many topics.
Same.
But Mark Lynch is that new politician I believe we need in the Senate.
Dan has the political and legal experience, but we need a shake-up, something different.
Mark Lynch is not a career politician.
That's the whole point of ousting Lindsey Graham.
My vote is for Mark Lynch.
All right, fair enough.
I think that's good.
Aaron says, enough Mark Halperin on emphasizing Rand Paul's pride.
We have real threats to go after.
That was my take.
I think Lindsey Gray, or Paul, sorry, Rand Paul is putting personal animus ahead of country.
And hey, maybe he's got a point.
Maybe it is a character, a legitimate line of inquiry because it strikes at character of Mark Wayne Mullen.
But I think we're going to resonate with Mark Wayne.
We have Patty.
She says, we absolutely need a complete moratorium on any immigration unless and until we can vet the ones that are already here and revamp the system.
I think more and more people are coming around to that.
We've been the jumping ground of Earth long enough.
So riddle me this.
How do you properly vet 1.2 million people coming into your country?
If you do not have at least two to one staffing to even just look into their cases, find out about them.
I mean, in my opinion, you need half a million people to vet that properly.
I'm sorry.
You need full interviews.
You need to see what their life is like.
You need to interview family, friends, their employer.
Like, you can't properly vet 1.2 million legal immigrants, let alone the illegal situation, the visa overstays.
It's impossible.
And that's part of it.
The sad thing is, is like there are some people where it would be trivial to vet that they're fine.
And like, those are the ones we actually throw up every obstacle in the world to letting in.
Like, anyone knows that the hardest, the people who have the hardest time coming to the U.S. are the ones we would most obviously want here.
Like, someone who has world-class skills in some particular field.
They're the ones who have to jump through every single hoop with their employer, fill all this paperwork out, make sure they don't get whacked by the government.
And then the ones who've come in with zero effort for decades on end are the people who have so little to add that, you know, they have very little history.
They just walk over the border.
They're working here illegally.
They're coming here.
They're the people who come in as guest workers and then just skip town when they would, they're supposed to come, you know, go back.
They're people who come as students and they just overstay the visa and they count on the system never catching them.
And that's the system we've gotten used to.
There's so many people actively breaking our rules all the time that if we just bothered enforcing them at all, a huge number of problems would go away.
It's a lot like crime.
We see all this urban decay that happens because we just do not do the basics.
You make a huge amount of crime go away when you say you can't jump subway turnstiles.
When, oh, if you do graffiti, we're going to put you in jail.
If you do, you know, some basic illegal gun possession charge because you're a felon.
When you enforce all those things, all the problems go down.
And it's the same thing with immigration.
If you're getting the people who just super obviously shouldn't be here because they don't have a work permit, because they don't have, because they, you know, they skipped a court hearing and you just grabbed them and kicked them out right away and you were super efficient about it, so many of our problems would go away.
Enforcing Basics to Stop Decay00:11:13
I totally agree.
Well said.
Kimberly says, I said this a couple months ago and don't recall a reply.
Is there a way to listen to archive podcasts?
We are working on that right now.
We've been working on it for a while, actually.
So the podcast feed, this has been a discussion on social media, only puts 100 of the past episodes out.
And so once we got far enough along, obviously Charlie's own podcast got sort of timed out and they fell off the feed.
It's a data thing.
We're working on it right now, coming up with a solution.
So you can expect this week for Charlie's episodes to go back all the way back.
The easiest thing about that.
Any live stream he ever did is on Rumble.
So that's one of the easiest ways to find out.
And it's already there.
Yeah, we didn't delete anything.
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.
All right, so we have so much to get here.
Welcoming to the show is James O'Keefe.
Charlie loved James.
So it's great to have you back on again, sir.
Good to see you.
Great to be with you and on this breaking story in California.
Yeah, absolutely.
So I'm going to play a little bit longer clip because there's a lot of info here and that'll set the table for us here, James.
Sot 25.
The petitioner, Brenda Brown, hands cash money to the homeless person, not only for signing the California ballot initiative, but also as payment for them to register to vote.
Now, because you haven't registered, I need to register you so I can get paid too.
That is a federal felony.
And it didn't just happen once.
It happened over and over and over again.
We personally witnessed and covertly filmed this happening at least 28 times over the span of our investigation.
And that is just in Los Angeles.
Many of the homeless have zero understanding of what it is that they're actually signing.
But what is our petition for?
He knows they're petitioning for petitioners.
That's amazing.
James, even the homeless people are like, have enough sense to say, what am I signing here?
Tell us, what are we watching in that?
And I mean, obviously, I find it to be explosive, but explain it to our audience here.
It's a federal felony for someone to pay someone to register to vote.
That's a federal felony.
The United States Attorney in California has already responded.
They're also paying cash. to get them to sign a signature on a California petition.
That's a misdemeanor.
That's also a crime.
Could be a felony in California.
So you're watching groups, petitioners, NGOs encouraging people in Los Angeles to sign California ballot petitions to forge signatures and giving cash to get homeless to register to vote.
All criminal activity.
We received a statement from Governor Gavin Newsom.
He said this is illegal.
People should be prosecuted.
We received a statement from the Secretary of State's office in California, the LADA, and the United States Attorney.
And they are taking action on this.
So I've been credibly told, James, that there is no election fraud, that everything's on the up and up.
We obviously know that there's much more to this story than the Democrats especially want to admit.
This instance, you caught them dead to rights.
The significance cannot be, I think, overstated here of that the Secretary of State from California has responded.
You have forced a response from Gavin Newsom saying these people should be arrested.
Yes.
Who are these people?
Who's behind this?
And how widespread do we have?
Do we have any idea how widespread this is?
Well, it's very widespread.
It's been happening thousands and thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of times.
We captured it over 30 times just in this video.
When I say capture it, I mean you can actually see the cash money being exchanged to the homeless people in exchange for their signature.
You can actually see that on the videotape.
That's what makes this so unique, Andrew.
This is not circumstantial evidence.
It's not we've heard about voter fraud or election fraud.
You actually see the crime on video, which makes all the difference in the world.
Who's doing it?
They're petitioners.
They're people who are gathering signatures for a ballot referendum in California.
Who's behind them?
Well, that's an interesting question.
The NGOs of California, the homeless industrial complex, Weingard Center is across the street, receives $800 million of government money, $112 million a year from the state on their tax return, is encouraging these people to go do this.
So it's a trillion-dollar industry, all government-funded, and it's a conspiracy, multiple federal felonies.
People want arrests.
They want accountability.
I actually think this story will lead to arrests.
And it's not just me.
We have a number of other citizen journalists involved in this.
We're calling it the Justice League.
Today, Kim Higby just put out a report, caught the same thing on video.
Tomorrow, there's going to be another citizen journalist.
They're going to release a video every day, each day, until someone is arrested.
And you can see behind me in my office here a picture of me and Charlie Kirk, which I hung on the wall.
Charlie said, James, just do a few four or five big stories a year.
And this is one of them.
I'm very confident this will lead to arrests.
I love that.
Yeah, because that's an interesting.
Charlie had a good observation there because your output is incredible, James.
I mean, you are a workhorse.
You have been for years now, dating back well over a decade.
And Charlie had great respect for your tirelessness, your doggedness in the pursuit of truth and to expose corruption.
And I kind of love that pivot.
If you took four to five huge stories a year like this, I think maybe the impact you could argue could even be bigger, right?
And so I think that's a really fascinating way to look at it.
Charlie was always very smart about these things.
And so have you made that pivot kind of officially, James?
Well, we release a story every week.
Every week we release a Tuesday at 1 p.m.
We're doing a new story.
What makes this different is we're calling it part of the Justice League.
We're actually a collective of citizen journalists all working on the same topic at the same time.
So I think it's very important for people to be united.
I don't think that the conservatives are united, and I think you would agree with that right now.
But we're citizen journalists.
I'm an independent journalist.
And I think what makes this story different is that we're all focused on the same topic at the same time.
So over the next two weeks, we're going to be focused on this topic and this topic alone.
I love that.
And I see us doing that about four or five times a year.
People in the American right are very competitive with each other.
They're very independent.
They're in the media.
They're competing against each other.
And I think that that's the thing that needs to change.
We need to work together on the same thing so we can apply pressure on the same exact thing at the same time to get the consequences that people want.
What people want is accountability.
What people want are arrests.
They want public accountability.
They want jail.
They want indictments.
Otherwise, nothing's going to change.
I think that things will change.
This story is already getting.
Gavin Newsom is not attacking me.
It's interestingly enough, he attacked Nick Shirley yesterday.
That went viral.
He's not attacking us for this story.
He's saying that there's going to be an arrest.
I've heard back from the LADA's office, that's the Los Angeles District Attorney.
They're saying that they're looking into it, and they did indict people five years ago for similar activity.
What makes this story so crazy is they're paying people to register to vote.
They're paying them cash, which is a federal felony.
I talked to Bill Asalia, the United States Attorney in California, and he's on it.
And I think that you'll see arrests here soon.
I love that.
And by the way, I want to underscore your point that getting rid of this competition, Cam Higby's great, Nick Shirley's great, Savannah Hernandez is great.
I know that you guys are all in communication and coordinating and working on stories together now, and it's amazing.
I think it's a huge development.
I love to see you leading that charge, James.
I think you're one of the few voices that can lead that charge to bring all the different voices together.
I want to play one other clip here.
You mentioned arrests.
This part shocked me when I watched it.
Cut 28.
The law enforcement officers sitting nearby on Skid Row every single day don't know the California laws and plead ignorance.
It begs the question, what are they even doing?
Officer Maravello of the LAPD dismissed it as a, quote, civil lawsuit.
Do you know a lot of these people here that are making homeless sign petitions and paying cash for it?
I haven't seen them.
I mean, I've seen one.
They signed some type of paperwork, but I didn't know what they were doing.
And I saw them at that, right here at the light over here in the back.
Yeah.
But I don't know what it was for.
Like, maybe like two weeks ago, I saw them signing for something, but I don't know if they were getting money in a change or anything.
Yeah, I think they're getting like two, three dollars for what I observed.
Is that legal?
I mean, if it's non-profit, I mean, they're signing it.
It's a consensual.
It's more of a civil thing.
I don't know what the police officers are actually doing there.
It's infuriating.
I mean, it's so crazy and surreal.
I mean, there's another video clip in this 40-minute long video where the NGOs actually pretend to be the police in order to intimidate me.
I mean, we're not living in America.
I don't know what this even is at this point, but I know what your audience wants.
You want arrests and accounts, not exposure, you want arrests.
So in order to achieve that objective, you have to have exposure.
There is no arrests without exposure.
Patriots Exposed by NGOs00:02:43
Correct.
And you have to have exposure compounded over and over and over again.
Specifically, people say there is no voter fraud.
This is cash money on tape given to the homeless person from someone taking advantage of them, telling them who to vote for.
And that's a felony.
And this is a developing and breaking story.
And you're going to see arrests in the next few days.
Amen.
Well done, James O'Keefe.
How do people get involved with what you're doing?
Where do they find you?
Give us your coordinates.
Well, I'm involved in a lot of things.
My organization is called Citizen Journalism Foundation.
We're now tax deductible.
OMG, we're OMGO'KeefMediaGroup.com.
And this new initiative is called the Justice League.
You're going to see, I know Savannah works with you guys at Turning Point.
You're going to see Anthony Rubin, Cam Higbee.
You're going to see a number of other citizen journalists coming out in the next few days with similar reports.
I love it.
Well done, James.
Great to have you back on.
We'll touch base again soon as the arrests come down the pike.
I'm excited to hear about that and tell our audience about it.
Great job.
Thank you.
This year is a critical moment for our country.
As the opposition grows more aggressive and unapologetic, the fight now reaches into the everyday decisions we make.
Patriot Mobile has been standing on the front lines fighting for freedom for more than 12 years.
They don't just deliver top-tier wireless service.
They are activists like me, like us at Turning Point, who truly care about our country.
Patriot Mobile offers prioritized premium access on all three major U.S. networks, giving you the same or better coverage than the main carriers.
That means fast speeds and dependable nationwide coverage backed by 100% U.S.-based customer support.
They also offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, all the things.
With simple, seamless activation, you can switch in minutes.
Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
But here's the difference.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll be part of a powerful stream of giving that directly funds the Christian conservative movement all across the country.
Take a stand today.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie, or you can also call 972 Patriot and use the promo code Charlie for a free month of service.
Don't wait.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972Patriot.
Lots of news today.
We got through a lot.
We got through the DNI testimony, Tulsi Gabbard.
We also got through Mark Wayne Mullen, James O'Keefe's bombshell reporting, and the potential repeal of Hart Seller.
Let's call that a long shot victory.
Nations Recover Through Runoff00:07:53
A long-term project, not a long shot, a long-term project.
Yeah, I actually really agree that we'll see in the future.
I actually really agree with that.
I believe that the people are with us.
I believe we have popular support, but it yet remains so controversial within Washington, D.C. because money to interest, we've got the hospitality industry.
We've got the farm agricultural industry.
But we are, you know, we had an AI expert, his new book, Code Red, yesterday, and we are staring at a future where so many jobs are going to be wiped off the table.
I believe it's going to become absolutely a national security, maybe even a national security threat, but definitely a domestic, huge, preeminent issue if we have too many people and not enough jobs.
There is a massive case to be made that AI is going to wipe the table of so many jobs that we think we need all this labor for.
And what are we going to do with the people that we brought in?
So that's a huge, huge concern that I'm looking at.
If you have seen videos, Blake, maybe you've seen them, these robots that come and pick fruit and pick vegetables faster than migrant laborers can do it when you have hundreds of them out in a field.
This is going to happen.
Maybe industries like, you know, hospitality, you need somebody to actually come and change the sheets or serve the drinks and the food.
Maybe, you know, maybe Optimus, I believe that was what it was named by Elon Musk, the robots are going to be able to do some of this work for us in the near future.
But we really, genuinely need to get serious about our immigration reform.
And I am not going to stop banging the drum.
We're going to have Andy Ogles back on again and again and again as this goes through committee, as it gets worked up, as the bill gets refined.
This is existential to the future of the country.
And candidly, it's one of those domestic issues that we need to focus on more, Blake.
I feel that, you know, there's a, I think Rich Barris has laid this out pretty clearly, that there is this penchant to look internationally, to look at foreign wars or foreign entanglements.
And we need to focus on domestic issues.
I think immigration is the one, two, and three most important domestic issue that we can tackle.
Do you agree?
No, I think 100%, really.
I think the war, like if this war goes badly, nations recover from wars.
Nations recover from catastrophic wars.
Japan had two A-bombs dropped on them.
Millions of them died in World War II.
It doesn't destroy the nation of Japan.
They come back from that.
They become one of the world's richest countries.
Nations can recover from economic crashes.
We recovered from the Great Depression.
Lots of countries have recovered from that sort of thing.
What nations don't recover from is no longer being the nation that they are.
And so if Britain is no longer a place of British people, if it's no longer the English and the Scots and the Welsh, it's a bunch of Pakistanis and Algerians and anyone else who's moved there.
It's not Britain anymore.
Like nations that cease to exist are no longer those nations.
And history is littered with countries that stopped to exist because, you know, you could say they lost control of their borders.
But what really happened is you get conquered.
What is conquest?
It's having other people move in and take all of your stuff and take over your things.
And it's no different if you voted to do that or if your leaders chose to do that because it would stimulate the economy.
Got an email here from John saying, John Solomon report on China.
Yes, I brought that up earlier.
That's the reason I felt like Tulsi missed an opportunity.
John's reporting confirms this.
Maybe we'll have him on the show tomorrow to walk us through it all.
But they have had this intel for a while.
So Tulsi Gabbard's involvement in our election fraud cases, investigations that are going on in Fulton County and Maricopa County makes all the sense in the world when you realize that foreign countries are in fact trying to attack the integrity of our election system.
So I'm all for it.
I just wanted, I wanted Tulsi to articulate that point.
For some reason, she didn't.
I'm going to trust her judgment on that.
Maybe there's reasons that I'm unaware of.
But it is what it is.
So yeah, John, we are aware of John Solomon's reporting on that.
Absolutely.
Marlene says, hey, guys, I was given to understand that we're forever stuck with Lindsey Graham because South Carolina has open primaries and Dems will make sure he stays on the ballot.
Is this still the case?
Because we all know Lindsey's vote goes to his highest bidder.
Great job you're all doing for Charlie.
Thank you.
Thank you, Marlene.
She's out of Florida.
Blake, do you have the details on that?
I believe it is an open primary, but I do think that the odds are very high that we're going to get this to a runoff.
So, yeah, I mean, I would presume Democrats would probably prefer to have Lindsey Graham in just because he's bad for the brand.
So, my understanding is it's, I don't think it's, I mean, I think you need a majority, so it will go to a runoff, which is the primary itself, I think, is June 9th.
I think a runoff is two or three weeks later than that if there's no 50% winner.
I think that's kind of nice because it seems that people do have strong preferences between either Lynch or Dan's in that primary.
And, well, it doesn't hurt as long as you're not voting for Lindsay.
The main thing is just making sure, because I know this is so tempting on the right, is you have to make sure we don't decide, like, don't get embittered.
Don't decide you're mad at Dan's because Lynch said, you know, he's from a different state, or you're super mad at Lynch because actually, Dan's was very kind to Lynch, so I don't know what the attacks on him would be, but make sure there's no bad blood out of this race because I think we're going to agree.
We want them to come together to get the win here after that goes to a runoff.
I totally agree.
Got to unite the clans when this is when they're ready to do so.
Paul says, guys, no one has said that we can put a total stop to alien truckers endangering U.S. roads.
The subject line says truckers cannot read English, etc.
We agree what they're doing right now at the Department of Transportation is using existing statutes or adjusting them.
It's sort of using a technicality, but it's within the statute.
So, these are levers they can pull now.
So, Paul goes on to say this is simple.
Ice can be at all the stations.
I actually think that that's not a bad idea.
These way stations, these checkpoints, put ice there.
Check their credentials.
See if they shouldn't be on the roads.
I believe that's a great idea.
He says, Also, the state police use portable weighers.
They stop trucks wherever.
No problemo.
Paul, these are great ideas.
I'm actually going to clip this and send it over to the Department of Transportation.
Great ideas.
I've heard the priority talking about it.
Maybe I'll send it to Mark Wayne Mullen, too, when he does get confirmed.
I think the fireworks that we saw with Rand Paul, between Rand Paul and Mark Wayne Mullen, I don't think it's going to be consequential.
I think Fetterman's going to vote for him at committee level as well.
So I think Mark Wayne Mullen's going to get confirmed.
The one question that I have for Mark Wayne, he's a friend, is: are you going to be rock-ribbed?
Are we going to stick with all of the above need to be removed?
I'm down with the change in branding.
I'm down with a change in tone if that gets blue states and sanctuary states to heal.
But we got to be very clear that the policies are not changing.
Mass deportations are mandatory.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.