Convicting a Murderer with Candace Owens and Rep. Bob Good

Hey, feeling unsure about your finances these days?

You're not alone. That's why Noble Gold Investments is here to help. Just hear it straight from the people who they've helped. The Noble crew walked me through everything with no stress.

With their help, I could finally sleep easy at night. And now this month, Noble Gold Investments is handing out a free 5-ounce silver America the Beautiful coin if you qualify for an IRA. Invest in gold and silver with Noble Gold Investments. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com right now.

That is noblegoldinvestments.com right now. Hey everybody, Candace Owens joins the program to talk true crime and a new project she has. And then Bob Goode on the latest from the fight in Congress, should say the fights in Congress.

And then we talk about Tucker Carlson, some remarks he made over the last weekend. Email us as always freedom at charleykirk.com. Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Get involved with Turning Point Action at tpaction.com and become a member of The Charlie Kirk Show at charleykirk.com. That is charleykirk.com. Text this episode to your friends. Buckle up everybody.

Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd.com. Very special guest joins us now. The legendary Candace Owens. Candace, welcome to the program. We are here to talk about a new project of yours that is very, very exciting, Convicting a Criminal, which is a response to this Netflix series, Making a Murder. We have a trailer, but first Candace, welcome to the program. Tell us all about it.

Hey, good to be back. Yeah, I'm really excited about this, Convicting a Murderer, which is really an answer or reflection rather on Netflix's Making a Murderer, which was a cult phenomenon at the time that it was released in 2015, telling the story of Steven Avery. And if you walked away having binged that series, it was about this poor guy who was wrongly convicted and held in prison for 12 years, which is accurate by the way, he was actually held in prison for 12 years.

Something that he didn't do, which was the sexual assault and attempted murder of a young woman. And at no fault of the police, the woman survived the attack and pointed him out in a lineup. And so they, this was pre-DNA, they locked this guy up for 12 years. DNA technology gets better, forensics gets better, and they actually realize that they've got the wrong guy in prison. They release him, he's out for two years and suddenly he's under suspicion and arrested for a disappearance and eventually the murder of another woman named Teresa Halback. And so it was an interesting storyline and people were gripped by the plot and it was very much became a white lives matter in that people were outraged to believe that this man was innocent, that they were framing him for the murder of Teresa Halback because of a pending lawsuit. It created tribalism online, celebrities weighed in, Trevor Noah, Chrissy T and all the usual suspects claiming that this guy, Steven Avery, had been wrongly convicted and that this was a case of bad cops, rotten cops. And so it just turns out really that Netflix left out a lot of very important details and it becomes really fun to dive into true crime, especially because I'm a woman, women love true crime, but also because it still speaks to the political nature. I don't know why we implicitly trust documentaries and celebrities to tell us the truth. We shouldn't by now, but it really gets into really our mentality with propaganda and Netflix is always a willing participant in sharing propaganda.

There's so many important aspects to this. I want to make sure everyone knows how to watch your response. Convicting a murderer, you guys, if you have a Daily Wire membership, you could do that, unveils the shocking truth behind one of the most controversial criminal cases in recent history. Let's play the trailer.

It's really beautifully put together. Play cut 47. Netflix made millions of dollars from making a murderer, but the filmmakers left out very important details, mountains of evidence that you have not yet seen. The blood vial, the most egregious manipulation from the movie, interrogation.

That's when he started beating me because I told him that he's sick. Cell phones. And I saw melted plastic parts of a cell phone. Interviews.

Her arms were pinned behind her head. They made Steven Avery look like a victim. You believe your brother's guilty? I don't know if I'm a suspect.

I get on the high. I'm getting sick and tired of media deception. Evidence piling up. Why would they omit so many different things? Why are you editing my testimony? I am not going to make the same mistake that the filmmakers did. Rearranging the testimony.

They delete a portion of it at the end. How could they claim to care about the truth? They all know that Steven Avery committed this crime.

The evidence forces me to conclude that you are the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. That is not what you would learn if you just watch Netflix. Good for you, Candace, for responding to this. I have an interest.

I have a question, Candace, in our audience chat and also from our feedback and just from kind of anecdotes. The true crime genre seems to be overwhelmingly consumed by women. Why is that? Men don't seem as interested in this.

I'm just curious. Why do you think that is? It's really actually interesting because I was doing Lauren Chen's podcast or no, rather, she was jumping on an ex face with us and she said the same thing. It's really dominated by women. We love ID TV. We love watching a criminal mystery.

And I don't know what that is. It might just be women's intuition. We're maybe fascinated by the idea that somebody can trick someone, you know, and trying to lean into. I think we're really fascinated by psychology and things of that nature.

But there definitely is some sort of a biological proclivity that women have to these sort of true crime mysteries that men don't have, which is fascinating to look at. But this particular case, actually, men were very invested in this as well. And I think it might have just been because of what was going on culturally at the time.

I mean, they dropped this docu series back in 2015. BLM was just starting to get its footing in America. There was this rise of anti police sentiment. And of course, it was seized upon by the mainstream media, not because they cared about this young woman who was horrifically murdered, by the way. Teresa Halbach was raped by two men. She was shot. She was stabbed. She was set on fire into in a burn pit and cut into a million pieces.

That's literally how this young woman died at 22 years old. And the documentary makers didn't care. You had these two lesbian documentary makers who were catching sort of a political wave of anti police sentiment, who wanted to essentially make a profit and perhaps suggest, which they heavily suggested, that this man could potentially be innocent, which we revealed their prison phone calls, which we got a hold of, where they were clear about their intentions, that they believed that he was innocent and were willing to roll steamroll over Teresa's body, her family and the grief that they were going through. But yeah, it is it is really a psychological phenomenon. And you are accurate that women tend to lean more into this category. But the answer to that, I don't know, I'm just kind of amused by it. Yeah, I have a couple theories. The one that I would say is that men are more interested in macro talking about the stock market, politics, philosophy, there's a lot of very personal elements to true crime, right?

That it could be in your neighborhood, in your home or your child. I don't know, there's something to it that that is really interesting. And so I never saw the original Netflix documentary, as you all know, Candace, I'm not the most pop culturally literate person out there.

Just kind of build up for our audience, though, just how widespread of a phenomenon this was, and how it moved people's sentiments. I mean, you would walk away thinking you're a subject matter expert on policing and look at this poor guy when in reality, I mean, this guy is now a convicted murderer. And, you know, was allegedly wrongfully convicted in 1985. But do you think he actually was wrongfully convicted Candace? Yes, any any person, whether you're a person that believes he's guilty or of this particular crime, and Teresa Halbeck or not will agree that he was wrongfully convicted, they actually ended up arresting the guy and put him away who actually did commit the murder.

She just this woman who survived this horrific attack pointed to the wrong guy was the wrong blonde guy, kind of a similar build. And she did the media circuit after talking about how horrible she felt that she put this man in prison for 12 years showing that he didn't do thing that, you know, it's not really told is that he was also serving a sentence at the same time, six years of that 18 years that he was in prison total was something that he did do. He was very much a person that was capable of violence, we shown the first couple of episodes, you know, he was torturing animals, he, who I don't know that the average individual grabs their house pets, douses them in gasoline and throws them into fire because they just want to have fun one night, you know, we tend to understand how a person can start with torturing animals and move on, he was in prison, or he has a married cousin, he ran her off the road, put a gun to her head and told and ordered her into the car. Fortunately, or unfortunately, she had a small toddler in the car with her and she begged him to just allow him to drop off her toddler.

And then he had a second thought and turned around because he didn't know what to do with as he was following her. So he had a whole history of violence. And when Netflix spoke about it, they diminished it and they downplayed it. And this sort of what you're really seeing, like I said, playing into early anti police sentiments, was people having their emotions hijacked by this Netflix docu series, showing you a man that just got out of prison for something that he actually didn't do. He's hugging his family, he's back, they sort of present him as this, as this close knit, wonderful family. When you watch our docu series, you're gonna understand that the family is filled with sexual deviance. There's so much pedophilia, they've pled, you know, not, they pled guilty to pedophilia within their own family.

But far be it from Netflix to tell you any of that, the whole concept was this dejected man who just kind of wanted to get back to his family and his family roots. And now, oh my gosh, he's being framed by the police. And what was really fascinating to me about this case and why I wanted to jump into it, Charlie, was because it wasn't divided across political lines. It wasn't like conservatives thought he was guilty and liberals thought that he wasn't. This happens in 2015 and people on both sides thought that he was plausibly innocent, which is really fascinating, you know, to go back and even pull conservative tweets, people thought that he was plausibly innocent, which really shows you how much we've moved as a society from our reliance and belief in the mainstream narrative to where we are today, where I don't think that would be as possible following the collapse of the George Floyd narrative. But that was the beginning of trying to make criminals look like they were heroes. It really started with making a murder. Very important project, convicting a murder, you guys can get it with a Daily Wire membership, unveils the shocking truth behind one of the most controversial criminal cases in recent history. And if there is a massive media narrative, you can rest assured that Candace Owens is going to ask the right questions. This took the country by storm. And now it is time for you to get the truth. It is convicting a murderer, you guys can get it with a Daily Wire membership. For 10 years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.

When I say only, trust me, they're the only one. Glenn and the team have been great supporters of mine and Turning Point USA, which is why I'm proud to partner with them. Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the left. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, and our military veterans and first responder heroes. Their 100% US-based customer service team makes switching easy. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.

Their team will help you find the best plan for your needs. Just go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 878-PATRIOT. Free activation when you say offer code Charlie. Join me today and make the switch today to this excellent company. Go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie.

That is patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 878-PATRIOT. Candace, I was looking at the top podcasts in America. Four out of 20 of them are true crime podcasts. When I see the media, more particularly Hollywood, go all in on certain narratives.

I can't help but wonder what is their political objective? Do you think more times than not when they cover these stories, they're overly sensationalizing them to maybe make law enforcement look bad, to maybe try to get defund the police type narratives? And this one in particular, it seemed as if to almost create a sympathy campaign for a criminal, not for a victim.

Candace, your reaction? Bingo. I would say that you hit the nail on the head. It's absolutely about whatever political objectives are of the day. And at this time in 2015, as I hit upon, BLM was brewing and we know exactly what that's led to now today. And so this is why the documentary makers were able to do this late night circuit. You had Trevor Noah, and he was really pushing the race narrative with the Steven Avery. He was like, now you white people understand that you thought it was just black men that were going through this until you see this happening to Steven Avery. So this idea that Steven Avery was innocent and the whole system was behind him, and you didn't think that it was plausible.

And now white people can see to the injustice of the entire system, enter in BLM and give them all of your money. And so of course you had Alec Baldwin, update, he killed someone, but back then he was defending a person who had killed someone being Steven Avery and screaming about his innocence. But the thing that is really horrific to really think about this, and this is what people don't consider, is that when celebrities do lend their voices to this, when Alec Baldwin pretends to be outraged, I mean, he was so despicable that Alec Baldwin, Teresa Halback, the victim in this circumstance, has a deeply faithful family. They basically never spoke to the press, a committed Catholic family, and they only allowed the brother, her elder brother, he might be her younger brother, to speak out on very rare occasions.

And Alec Baldwin ripped him apart saying he was faking his emotions. This led to conspiracy theories that Teresa was still alive, people that were committed to the idea that she was in Mexico, that she followed the cows. I mean, wild conspiracy theories. And the family was attacked.

It was attacked. So imagine losing your sister in this horrific way. And then you have someone like Alec Baldwin leading the charge on conspiracy theories saying that your emotions are not right because he's extracting you for 10 seconds, maybe in a courtroom, who knows what he's looking at. And it's such filth, it's such vitriol, and it is such a backwards way of looking at our society where we attack the actual victims and we celebrate the criminals. And when I say celebrate the criminals, Charlie, I mean, Steven Avery had multiple fiancés in prison, love letters, women that were, you know, sending him pornography, women that he's been dating because it turned him into a celebrity, because people believed that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, that perhaps he wasn't and the system was just crooked.

I encourage you guys to check it out. Candace deserves a lot of credit. And by the way, also, while you have that Daily Wire membership, you can check out her documentary, which really made BLM go into hiding. Congratulations, Candace, you made them all disappear. All the BLM people, as soon as you did your documentary on them. You don't hear much from Patrisse Cullors or from any of those people. I wonder why.

So check it out. An honor to be working with Candace on Blexit. And Candace is going to be doing several campus tours with us this fall. Excited to get all those details announced.

I think we have Georgia Tech and Buffalo and a couple others. TPUSA.com slash tour. It is called convicting a murderer by with Candace Owens done with the Daily Wire. Candace, great job. Talk to you soon. Thanks so much. Thanks so much for having me, Charlie. Talk soon.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. Do you know that the average American spends about 20 years in retirement? That's a long time to live without a steady income. We want to make sure you enjoy every moment of it and don't outlive your money. Retirement is about more than just investments. It's about living your best life.

Let's not retire. Let's pivot. My friends at Pax Financial Group developed a course for the sole purpose of helping you pivot. If you want your own free guide of pivoting into the next chapter of life with purpose, visit PaxFG.com slash Charlie. That is PaxFG.com slash Charlie. I have some of my money managed by Pax Financial. They do a wonderful job. And remember, retirement is about more than just investments. The Charlie Kirk endorsement of the Pax Financial Group LLC was given for compensation, which creates an incentive to recommend Pax's advisory services. You make sure that disclaimer is very clear. So check it out.

PaxFG.com slash Charlie. OK, joining us now is Congressman Bob Goode, who is a fighter in the House of Representatives. And there's a lot of questions today. Congressman Goode, your initial reaction to Speaker McCarthy announcing an impeachment inquiry. I have some pretty heated thoughts on all of this, but I want your initial reaction and then we'll dive into it.

Congressman Goode. Well, I have long maintained that Joe Biden deserves to be impeached because of the border. In my view, no president in the history of the country has done more to intentionally harm the United States and what he's done in his first two and a half years with seven million illegals invading the country, not being permitted to do so by the Biden administration, but being facilitated by the Biden administration. How do we as a Republican House continue to let that go on? We don't need any more evidence for that. We don't need any more investigation that they're willfully, purposely violating their constitutional laws. And we ought to impeach the president for that. That said, I do think that there's been tremendous work done by the oversight committee, led by Chairman Jamie Comer.

And I think there is just mounting, growing implication of President Biden himself, much of that, of course, during the time when he was vice president, that he was complicit, involved, a party to, a recipient of the corrupt business dealings that were perpetrated by the Biden crime family. And so I do think this is the right thing to do. I think an impeachment inquiry is called for, and I'm glad to see that move taking place. I think it should have taken place even more quickly or even sooner, but I think it is right to do it, even if it's at this time and point time. So, Congressman, here's my concern.

I'm 100% on board. I think Joe Biden's a traitor to the United States and that some people in Gitmo have done less than him for selling out the country, being a Chinese Communist Party agent, amongst many other things. He's a liar.

His son is the scum of the earth, all that stuff. Here's my concern. My concern is that all of a sudden they're pulling this out of their back pocket right now, the moderates, as we have this massively important 930 looming deadline, the 30th of September, which is the whole ballgame, the big enchilada, if you will. And I'm afraid, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm afraid that there might be some deal between the moderate wing and some conservatives where they say, oh, well, we have the impeachment in Korea and now we can do a dirty resolution on 930.

Can you give us some peace of mind that these are two separate things that there will be no major concessions when it comes to 930 just because of the advancement of the impeachment in Korea? Congressman Goode. Well, that's a great question. There has been speculation by many, as you know, that perhaps this is a distraction or perhaps this is an effort to kind of show some semblance of toughness as it pertains to going after President Biden when we have not demonstrated any toughness, I would argue, as a party from our leadership in battling for the country on issues and particularly spending issues. As you know, the number one responsibility of the House is to fund our government appropriately for the things that are necessary and justified constitutionally in the proper role of the federal government and to protect our ability to borrow when necessary.

And that's why I think that's a great question. When necessary, we have obviously fumbled that for decades. We're at just a terrible crisis point with our national debt and our deficit. As you know, Charlie, we're about to run a two trillion dollar deficit with the Republican House. We could do that with the Democrat House. We don't need a Republican majority to run a two trillion dollar deficit, one hundred fifty billion dollars a month.

As you know, we came from the horrible failed Responsibility Act, the debt ceiling agreement that raised the debt unlimited as much as we can gleefully come together and spend until January of twenty five with essentially no conditions to that and essentially maintains all the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer spending. So that said, I will tell you this. I can speak for my conservative colleagues whom I collaborate with. And there is absolutely no deal. There is no that we are not in any way going to back away or surrender or or weaken our position on the funding, on the appropriations, on the budget battle here. And there's been no conversations that I am at all aware of to that effect.

And I'm quite certain that's none of my colleagues who I collaborate with are involved in that in any way. OK, and that's that's terrific to hear. So let's now get to nine thirty, because if I were to look some of the moderates that I don't get along with in the caucus, I could just see what they're going to do here. Right. They're going to privately say, hey, look, you guys get your little impeachment, red meat. Now give us more money for Zelensky. And, you know, let's not shut down the government Congress. And let's get what is the order that we're asking for on nine thirty?

From our perspective on this program, it's Jack Smith. It's about the border and it's about no clean checks to Ukraine. I'm sure these negotiations are ongoing. And the Freedom Caucus and your colleagues have been doing a great job of really setting the standards and setting the negotiation table for nine thirty. Is there a willingness to shut down the government if necessary? Is there a red line where you guys are not going to cross?

What are the big asks here? Walk us through some of the inside baseball as much as you can give us, because our audience is fired up. They're tired of seeing. I hate this idea of clean resolution.

That's why we call it a dirty resolution. It's the same thing. You're finding the same dirty, scummy, toxic government. Are we going to get some cuts to DOJ, Jack Smith, to help us understand the realistic expectations here in this negotiation budget fight? The sad truth is, we all know from past history that it would be you would take the bet of failure, a failure of Republicans to deliver. We've got thirty two trillion dollars in national debt, about one hundred thousand dollars per citizen. Republicans have been complicit and contributed to that, as we both know. Yes, Democrats are better at spending. Yes, Democrats have been worse.

Yes, this administration has spent more than two and a half years in any presidency in the history of the country in two and a half years. But Republicans have been part of that. And that's what January was about. Charlie, as you know, to go back to January, January was about not doing what we've always done, not letting the American people down again, not betraying the trust they placed in us and not having a Republican majority and then doing what we did with the failed Responsibility Act, which is to pass major spending bills or major pieces of legislation that deal with the nation's finances or economic situation with a majority of Democrat votes. And so the speaker has a choice.

Charlie, to your question, the speaker has a choice. He can reform the conservative coalition that existed for the first four months of this Congress. He can keep his commitments that he made to some individuals in order to get their votes back in January, which was to go back to pre-Covid level spending for non-defense discretionary. We can pass all twelve of our bills, advancing Republican priorities and reversing the harmful policies of the Biden, Schumer and Pelosi regime over the last couple of years. And we can send it to the Senate and then it's up to the Senate to pass those bills in order to keep the government open or prevent a shutdown. We can do it with 218 votes in the House. Democrats cannot, Charlie, as you know, they cannot pass their bills without Republican votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate. I've heard some senators criticize the House Freedom Caucus and say, hey, well, this isn't going to fly in the Senate. Well, the only reason it won't fly in the Senate is if Republicans vote with Democrats to give them the 60 votes to pass Democrat bills.

And so this speaker can be a transformational historical speaker that stares down the Democrats, that stares down the White House, that stares down the Senate and frankly just says no and says, we've done our job. We've passed our bills if we do that, mind you. And then it's up to the Senate to act on those bills in order to avoid a government shutdown. And what I've said publicly many times, as you know, is that we shouldn't fear a government shutdown and we shouldn't pass bad legislation or cave the Democrats or fail the American people to avoid, you know, the consequence of a shutdown or the risk of a shutdown. If we have to use shutdown leverage to get there, then we should use shutdown leverage to get there. But the House can do its job and the House can pass Republican bills that cut our spending and advance our policies.

What you just walked through sounds incredibly rational. What would some of your more moderate colleagues object to that? I mean, we're talking about sending to the Senate some very prudent adjustments in the federal budget, especially given that the Department of Justice is eliminating our federal elections right now.

We're trying to put Donald Trump in prison for 500 to 600 years. I'm just curious when you're walking the halls, you don't have to name any names, but I would like you to kind of just convey some of the oppositional attitude because our audience is really confused and losing patience. Who that calls himself a Republican, what are they saying when you say, hey, let's cut some of this stuff or let's send it to the Senate? It seems very weak.

Just kind of clue us in here to what you have to deal with every single day. To be honest, Charlie, what we're asking for, at least as the House Freedom Caucus position, the official position is, again, to go back to pre-COVID levels for non-defense discretionary, meaning we're not dealing with mandatory this year, at least, not Social Security, Medicare. We've allowed defense in principle at least to stay where it was because we've got some issues there and try to keep our defense hawks, if you will, on the team on that. But then to go back to pre-COVID levels for non-defense discretionary spending, that only boils down to about $115 billion year one cut. It's an embarrassingly modest, reasonable number, if you will.

We're running about $150 billion a month deficit. But that was what the Speaker committed to in January to my colleagues who negotiated an agreement with him. There were 14 of the 20 who went and did that. Six of us, as you know, never changed our vote, so we weren't part of that specific agreement. But it was reported and agreed to that we would go back to pre-COVID levels. That was also what every Republican or almost every Republican voted for in the Limit Safe Grow bill, except for three or four who wanted even more and couldn't bring themselves to vote for that modest figure.

But there was a lot of other good reforms that were part of Limit Safe Grow. So that's sort of the principal position that the House Freedom Caucus has held. So we ought to at least be able to do that, advance our policies, which are really important within the legislation, but also to cut spending some degree with a Republican majority and recognizing that we're operating with one half of one branch of government. But what we cannot do, of course, is to just business as usual, fail the American people, and do what the Republican senators are calling to do. That said, Charlie, I think what you're asking, why would there be an objection to that?

I think there's a few different things. Sometimes when you win with 51%, some of my colleagues, they're all worried about the 49% that didn't vote for them. And they're afraid to take tough votes and tough stances because of the 49%. And I'm always saying to them, worry about the 51%. Do what you told them you would do.

Don't betray their trust. And you know what, you might win with 52%, 53% next time. I'm going to fight next time.

I won with 52% the first time that I ran and acted as a bold, courageous conservative, I believe, and I won with 57% the second time. But then what other Republicans do is they tell themselves, we're going to fight next time. This time, we just can't do it. This time's not the right time, because maybe we don't have enough of a majority, we don't have the Senate, or there's an election coming next year. And you know, things are just too, but we're going to fight next time.

And as you know, next time never gets here. I think they want to do the right thing. But they're fearful, or they fall in line and listen to leadership, or they just tell them, or they just don't want to make the tough decisions. Because anytime you cut spending, somebody is impacted by that somebody is benefiting from that spending, whether or not you might argue whether or not they should or not benefit from that spending, whether or not it's appropriate, but they tell themselves to do it next time. But doggone it, the Republican House should show that we have the stomach to stop borrowing from our kids and our grandkids in our country. The days Charlie of spending without consequence are over. We're seeing record 40 year inflation, we're seeing interest rates being rising because of a futile attempt to combat the inflation that wasn't from a hot economy, but there was an inflation caused by the spending. And then we're also seeing our credit downgraded for only the second time in history. So that again, the days of spending recklessly and arriving at debt to debt to GDP we haven't seen since World War Two. The consequence days of doing that without consequence are over.

I think the American people are increasingly realizing there's a connection between spending and the impact on them. Congressman Bob Gooden, hold the line. We are behind you.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Charlie. It's easy to blame Joe Biden for our border crisis. It's easy to blame the traitor Mayorkas. It's hard to blame Republicans. It's hard to blame the Republican Party for not doing its job. I don't know if we have this particular clip actually of Tucker Carlson going after Greg Abbott, but Tucker gave a very powerful speech this last weekend in Michigan that touches on some of these themes. And I want to play this and we'll riff on it.

Let's play cut 38. The left, I will say to their great credit, are masters of organizing. They are dutiful, dutiful. They show up.

They are disciplined. And they are willing to put aside their differences for the sake of achieving a common goal. They don't argue with each other in public.

They just all say the same thing. They all vote for the same person because they know their strength in numbers at all. They won't just sit around and wait for whatever the new lie of the day is and then just repeat it with dead eyes on television. Liberals have no problem doing that because they know that's the path to power.

But they're right. It is the path to power. Organizing is the path to power. Organizing is the path to power. And we as conservatives are not as good at that because we're focused on our faith and our family.

Tucker talks about this in particular. They are collectivist by nature. Democrats love power. We don't seek power.

We would rather have a beautiful community, not have our homes overrun by third world foreigners, people speaking the same language and appreciation of our history. Politics is not the ultimate desire for conservatives. And they're using that against us.

Play cut 39. Conservatives, on the other hand, are very focused on their family, their faith, their jobs. Politics comes at least forth in their hierarchy of concerns.

And they also have integrity and self-respect. So it's very hard to get a conservative person to repeat some talking point he doesn't actually believe. Should Republicans care more about political power?

We have to. Now, we think with our own opinions. Individually, we don't think collectively. Democrats say, oh, just tell me what to think.

Tell me what to do. They're far less worried about individual rights, individual sovereignty, family formation, strong local community institutions. The state gives them that purpose for them. That's exactly what Marx talked about, is the ruthless criticism of all that exists, constantly criticizing power structures to then go get power. Herbert Marcuse said the same thing in One Dimensional Man.

So did Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, the postmodernist thinkers of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Tucker Carlson then is making the most headlines for this. And if you live in Texas, you need to listen carefully and closely.

Play cut 48. How many Texans do you think are all on board with letting seven million people cross into their state illegally? What percentage? Zero. Zero.

I don't care what your race or national origin. Nobody is for that. That's insane. Has the governor of Texas done anything meaningful to stop that?

No. The Republican governor? He's got a National Guard. He's the commander in chief of the National Guard. And it's Texas, so they're all large.

And they have double stack magazines in their sidearms. Do you think they couldn't stop that in a week? Of course.

Just assemble along the border. We're not doing this. No. He refuses to do that. He won't do it. And it's not like no one suggested.

I've suggested to him three times, including in private at a cocktail party in Dallas last year. What are you doing, man? Don't you have a National Guard? Why don't you seal the border? Oh, it's very complicated. No, it's not.

No, it's not. If someone's trying to break into my house, it's not complicated to repel the person. Do you have a firearm or don't you? Are you willing to defend your house and your children or aren't you? Why isn't Texas closing the border? That clip keeps going and going, by the way. And Tucker increases the point of criticism of Governor Abbott. If you live in Texas, you should not allow a single illegal foreigner coming into your state. Why are they letting that happen?

That's a good question. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your thoughts is always freedom at Charlie Kirk Dotcom.

Thank you so much for listening and God bless. Omen came to this country to find the American dream. 70 years ago in 1953, Omen printed a limited number of these exceptional Constitution lithographs.

Go to Salem event store.com to read Omen's entire story. America's most important document stands as a testament to all Americans to maintain their liberties, freedoms and inalienable rights. Buy it and display it proudly by a gift for your family and friends, for all the teachers in your communities. There's a limited number, so act today. Go to Salem event store.com to get your exclusive 1953 Omen U.S. Constitution lithograph.

Buy it and display it proudly. While limited supplies last, there's a limited time, so act today. Salem event store.com. Salem event store.com.