Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

James O'Keefe Takes on the CIA

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
May 2, 2024 7:00 pm

James O'Keefe Takes on the CIA

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 801 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


May 2, 2024 7:00 pm

James O'Keefe's latest investigative video takes aim at one of D.C.'s most untouchable institutions: The CIA. O'Keefe joins to discuss what his video reveals about the CIA's years of work undermining Donald Trump. Plus, Rep. Warren Davidson does his best to explain why so many of his colleagues took a stand to vote against both freedom of speech and the Bible.

Become a member at members.charliekirk.com!

Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Hey everybody, it's time for The Charlie Kirk Show. Warren Davidson and James O'Keefe join the program.

James has a huge story regarding the Central Intelligence Agency. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. That is tpusa.com. Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com and become a member, members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com.

Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks.

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Join us and thousands of American patriots for the summer convention that all are invited to. You're going to hear how we're going to win in 2024. With the biggest speakers in the movement featuring President Donald J. Trump. We're going to fight and we're going to win. Charlie Kirk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Governor Kristi Noem, Dr. Ben Carson, Steve Bannon, Candace Owens, Laura Trump, Senator Rick Scott, Congressman Matt Gaetz, Benny Johnson, Jack Posobick, and more.

June 14th through 16th. 2024 is our final battle in Detroit, Michigan. The great silent majority is rising like never before. Join us for the People's Convention. This is a new ballgame everybody.

You send a message. We play to win. Register now at tpaction.com slash peoples. Joining us now is a great American, someone who is really doing terrific work. Warren Davidson. Warren, welcome back to the program.

Yeah, definitely an honor to join you, Charlie. Thank you. So help me understand this. And I'm going to ask you a pointed question. This is H.R. 6090 that you did not vote for.

Thank you for your vote. Which again, I don't like anti-semitism. You don't either. It's repulsive. It's evil.

It's awful. This bill did something else. How many of your colleagues actually read bills before they vote on them?

Well, if they don't, their staff, you know, everyone has a staff. So I don't know, you know, what level of scrutiny that every member gave it. But I do know a lot of people had concerns about it more than voted no.

And these concerns were aired with Speaker Mike Johnson. And, you know, I can't I can't understand why this was allowed to bypass the committee process where it would have clearly been fixed and go straight to the floor for a vote. Hold on. I'm sorry. That's really noteworthy.

I didn't even mention that in our entire first hour. It bypassed the committee process. So for people that are not in the weeds of D.C. wonkery, what does that mean? And how unusual is that? Well, unfortunately, it's not entirely unusual.

It happens from time to time. But, you know, this is a bill that Mike Lawler had drafted. He wanted people to pay attention to it. But normally the way you do that is it gets referred to the committee of jurisdiction, in this case, judiciary. They would make the law for something like this. And then you have something known as a markup and the Judiciary Committee looks at the bill and members can vote yes or no on the bill or offer amendments in the committee. And those are the people that have kind of expertise on judiciary subjects.

I'm a member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. But someone who's in judiciary would get kind of the first look at a bill. And this would have been fixed by any number of members of the Judiciary Committee if it had gone to markup in the committee. And then it came to the floor and you're supposed to be able to amend bills there. This would have essentially had to be an amendment.

What's known as an amendment in the nature of the substitutes, like the topic's fine, but you really need to go about this in a different way. And, you know, for that reason, they didn't even allow amendments on it. So to me, it was a straightforward no vote. But because of the topic, a lot of people felt they needed to vote yes. What do you mean because the topic like the First Amendment doesn't matter because you're afraid of being called a bad name? Well, that's how the 21 of us that voted no looked at it.

But, you know, a lot of people said, well, you know, it's anti-Semitism, it's going to be a messaging bill, the Senate's not going to take it up. You're basically just saying I'm against anti-Semitism. And I'm like, look, I'm for a government small enough to fit within the Constitution.

We can't get a government that fits back inside our Constitution if we keep passing unconstitutional bills. So to me, you know, we had we had to take this no vote. And, yeah, of course, I oppose anti-Semitism, but I also oppose violating the First Amendment. Of course. So, Congressman, thank you for your great vote and your more clarity and courage on this.

And so I just want to take two things. They say, well, it's a show vote. Well, now I have word from the Senate. They are going to take it up.

So just so we're clear. So I was talking to people in the House this morning that I was really mad at and like, oh, well, I know it's a bad bill. I, you know, had to vote for it. Why?

I press them. They have no good answer. They say the Senate's not going to take it up. I now heard from two senators that Schumer is planning to take it up. Why pass a bad vote? Don't understand that. So what is the urgency here, Congressman Davidson? Why? Why not go through the committee process?

Why did Mike Johnson have to excel? And was it him? Was it the speaker who made the decision on timeline?

Just so I'm clear on how this works. Absolutely. Nothing goes to the floor without the speaker signing off on it. And look, this is this is just a flawed approach. I mean, I don't know what kind of Jedi mind tricks Mike Johnson does not approve of. Speaker Johnson is one of the best headlines.

You know, he was in a different place before he became speaker. And now it's just unforced error after unforced error. It's been painful. So I want to just also ask this question. What is what are your colleagues saying that support this as the rush? I mean, this the rapidity of this is remarkable. I is there is there some sort of looming existential crisis that if we don't pass this bill, like, I don't know, we're going to have 10000 illegal people coming across our border every single day.

I mean, what what is what is the this is remarkable. I mean, we have the left destroying itself on cable television and we decide to rush to the front of the line to basically defecate on the First Amendment. Yeah, look, I I didn't come up with the label Republicans are the stupid party. I did choose to be a Republican.

But I don't think that we have to choose to keep living up to the to the to the label by doing stupid things. And I think the logic was simply that it's political. It's in the news right now. This is something that will divide Democrats. You're like, well, it's going to divide Republicans, too, if we actually do what our party says we believe in and defend the Constitution. And frankly, every member of Congress should have taken that vote. I think some Democrats might have had that principled view as well. Of course, you know, I wouldn't necessarily give credit to Ilana Omar for her vote that way, but because of her past statements. But, you know, if you look at it, there was, frankly, pretty bipartisan opposition to this from people that clearly aren't anti-Semitic but did have problems with the language.

Well, yeah, I mean, so just for example, I mean, I just want to make sure you can go back to your members here. I'm guessing you're a Christian. And so Mike Johnson calls himself a Christian. And so it would make parts of the Bible illegal to read. It was because you based base of the bill, it says that you cannot say that Jews killed Jesus, which there are at least five or six passages that say it explicitly. So why are the Republicans so adamant on banning the Holy Bible? Yeah, this is crazy.

And this is one of the problems. They essentially outsource the definition. They didn't even establish a definition. They said, well, as referred to by the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. And so they essentially operate a website.

They could update the definition whenever they choose to. But the current definition, and I checked it just before coming on your show, say that if you refer to Jews as having killed Jesus, somehow that's anti-Semitic. I mean, I've met with some of the organizations and they say, if you're criticizing George Soros, it's anti-Semitic. It's like, no, I'm not criticizing George Soros because he's a Jew. I'm criticizing him because he's a bad person doing evil things.

It has nothing to do with his ethnicity or his religion or anything else. Though if he believed differently, hopefully he would behave differently. And that's the disconnect for a lot of people who are Christians. They say, how could a Christian person vote for this? And I think, you know, a lot of people didn't really see this as as they were going in to vote. They've heard about it afterwards. Wait, wait, wait.

I got to cut you off. Wait, wait. They voted for something they didn't understand? I look, I think that's the only way you could really explain it. I don't know how they look at it differently. You'd have to interview them. I don't really want to speak for them. But, you know, for me, it was one of those things like I don't like the idea that we would outsource the definition to anyone who would be subject to. How would the U.S. law be subject to the whims of an organization?

Whatever you guys decide, we'll do it. And then you go back to the whole premise of hate speech, which the concept violates the First Amendment in the first place. And, you know, there there are countries where it's illegal for Christians to to share what the Bible actually says. And, you know, essentially it says God gets to pick the sins, not the people. And they essentially want to say, well, the people have said these things are OK, so you can't say that the Bible says these are sins.

It clearly says that. But in those countries, they're not they don't have the full First Amendment, not just speech, not just the ability to have your religion, but to exercise it. And so this this really infringes in multiple ways the First Amendment in the United States.

At Holocaust Remembrance dot com, and I'm sure this organization does great work, but like what if they update their Web site? So basically they outsource it where they say, hey, the definition will be on the Web site and that's now federal. So I guess we make our federal law with like hyperlinking to somebody's Web site. Is that how we do it now, Congressman Davidson?

Unfortunately, it's not sophisticated enough to even use the hyperlink, but the idea that you would refer to whatever IHRA says as the definition. No, I mean, you should establish something in statute if you were going to do it. But even that shouldn't be done in the first place. It says here at Holocaust Remembrance dot com. Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of state of Israel, anti-Semitic, now illegal thanks to Republicans.

Using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, example claims of Jews killing Jesus to characterize Israel or Israelis. I'll say I don't think most Republicans even read the bills they vote for. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here for 10 years, Patriot Mobile's been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. When I say only, trust me, they are the only one.

Glenn and the team have been great supporters of the show, which is why I'm so 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 liberty, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, our military veterans and first responder heroes.

They're 100 percent U.S. based customer service team makes switching quite easy. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade their team will help you find their best plan for your needs. Just go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot. Get free activation when you use offer code Charlie.

Join me and make the switch today. I love Patriot Mobile. Glenn is amazing. I was just hanging out with him in Scottsdale. Great guy. Great American.

Really terrific what they're doing. Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie. That is Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.

Patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. I want you to go off on censorship here. You call this Orwellian, all of the big brother censorship tools.

The Republican Conference Congress has said we don't care about the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment the last couple of weeks. Talk about the censorship side. Yeah, so I'm a new member of the weaponization committee and they just published like an 800 page report explaining started with the Twitter files and Matt Taibbi. But now you've got clearly they were doing this with Facebook, with YouTube, with Amazon's bookstore, and they were getting books and things that were truthful and factually accurate taken down to reinforce the approved narrative.

In some cases, things that were actually false or misinformation. So this was going on with the Biden administration and part of what the reaction to some of this has been is made even worse by, you know, the TikTok ban as an example. So they say that there was no coercion. These guys were not coerced by the White House saying, hey, you need to take this down. You're getting people killed. Not coercive.

They were just super cooperative. Well, the TikTok ban basically says, oh, if you didn't think there was coercion yet, we're going to be able to TikTok you. We'll just take out your whole ownership structure. And the other expansion is the FISA expansion that came with Mike Turner's amendment to collect Wi-Fi hotspots. So if you go to McDonald's and you're on the Wi-Fi, you must be a foreign agent, right? I mean, this is crazy expansion of the surveillance state. And if you put the Wi-Fi hotspot expansion, the FISA expansion, still no warrant to spy on American citizens, and you put it with the TikTok ban, this is effectively what was going to pass the Senate with Senator Mark Warner's restrict act. So if you put the two side by side, you essentially give the executive branch all the power the Chinese Communist Party has over the Internet. And if they weren't coercive already, back when they thought they were going to be able to get away with launching the disinformation governance board, they essentially have the toolkit after these two bills have passed. So let's kind of zero in on one of these here, the FISA bill. Now reading the FISA law, we actually expanded the surveillance powers of the federal government. FISA is actually stronger now, thanks to Mike Johnson. Do you have faith in Mike Johnson's speakership?

It's been really disappointing. I mean, you know, he's a good man. I really like him.

Consider him a friend. But, you know, the analogy I use is pick football. Your best buddy could be the starting quarterback, but if he's fumbling and getting delayed game penalties and throwing interceptions, hey, man, we can hang out after the game. We'll put somebody else in because we're here to win. Right now, we're not winning. We're delivering the Democrats agenda and nothing punctuates that more than Hakeem Jeffries saying, hey, we got your back over here. Don't worry about it.

Keep doing what you're doing. And why would they disrupt it? It's delivering everything that they're asking for. So, Congressman, the way forward, what message do you have to say to give our audience some hope?

Because this has been awfully heavy for a lot of our audience. I mean, I don't care if Republicans don't care about privacy, don't care about speech, don't care about spending, don't care about border, but they certainly care about foreign countries. What do we have to be hopeful for? Here's the hope. I mean, the majority of the party hasn't been behind any of these things.

Mike Johnson's put things on the floor. He's passing them with Democrat votes and a minority of Republicans. The omnibus spending bills, majority of Republicans said, nope, not doing that. FISA expansion. Republicans, you know, a lot of folks went along with that, but it was right around 50-50 on the get a warrant.

It was 212 to 212. We had 126 Republicans say, no, you should have to get a warrant. That's a majority of our party.

And, you know, some of these things out there, you know, don't don't throw everything out because you're mad at some people. Just make sure you take note of how your member votes and help us get the right reinforcements here so we can save this country. Congressman Davidson, thank you so much. Great work as always.

Thank you. You know, it's really funny. We every single congressman we have just says so disappointed in Speaker Johnson, so disappointed in Speaker Johnson and this latest bill. I mean, just add it to the list. You know, it's really funny. Some people say, Charlie, the bill doesn't say that you can't read the New Testament.

Then you read send them the the notes and then they're like, oh, wait, I didn't see that. Because you guys don't read the bills. Congressman, don't read the bills that they they pass. They vote for. I hope you guys understand that.

The people that you send to D.C., a lot of them do not actually read the bills that they vote for. It should be very chilling when you think about it. James has one of the most powerful stories he's ever done. This is exposing the CIA, exposing the Central Intelligence Agency. He joins us now. James, welcome to the program.

Congrats on this big story. Hey, Charlie, how you doing? Very good.

James, tell us all about it. You are taking on the CIA. Yeah.

Yeah. This is a green badge contractor. He works in cybersecurity for the China Mission Center. And this is a remarkable video that we've heard reports from Michael Shellenberger and from others that reported that there was FISA spying on the Trump family. And they withheld information. But this guy says it in the most brazen and compelling way we've ever seen. We've never seen video quite like this. And after this video came out, the CIA, I spoke with their press secretary yesterday.

It appears as though he has been terminated as of yesterday. And Trump also commenting on the video today. So let's play some of the tape here.

And the tape is very powerful. Let's start with cut one of seven. The name is Ahmad Anton for Sisi, a green badge guy. The CIA play cut one of seven. How long have you been working at the CIA?

So it's hard to hear. What is he saying there, James? Introduce him to our audience. He says he works at the CIA. He worked at the NSA. He worked at the National Security Institute, worked for Northrop Gruman. So this guy has been at the CIA since 2008.

He flashes his badge, flashes his lanyard just so that we have the credentials to know that he is who he says he is. So let's let's play now cut 108. And I think this is the most important one. He said they kept information from Trump on purpose, saying that they would give him an overview, but no details. I hope you guys understand what this is.

108 is the heart of the matter. This is a CIA contractor who's bragging that the Intel agency, when Trump was president, they did not brief him. They did not give him all the information. This is the real insurrection.

This is an administrative state taking over the federal apparatus of the government. Play cut 108. We kept information from him. We kept information from him. From Trump? Yes. So, James, I just want to make sure people understand, this is a guy who's bragging about how the Central Intelligence Agency just kind of plays with the government. Is that right? Plays with the president.

Yeah. He says the directors of the CIA, that's Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel at the time, and also the executive staff, the people right underneath them intentionally withheld information from Trump because they didn't trust Trump with that information. In his words, they thought Trump would leak it. The problem, Charlie, is that's illegal. It's it's it's an obstruction of justice, felony, possible espionage.

You can't do that. This guy's so open about it. Charlie, the fact that the CIA actually got on the phone with me yesterday, this is their press secretary. By the way, I didn't know the CIA had a press secretary, and I never thought they would talk to me.

It shows that they're kind of exposed here. This guy has a position of access, been there a long time. He's a program manager, which is not a low-level person.

And that is a top secret, SCI clearance, polygraph vetted and everything. And he's saying all these things. It's truly remarkable that he said it.

He says, no matter of fact, he repeats himself. We think it's very newsworthy and it's one of the I think it's the most compelling thing we've ever caught on tape. Most emergencies come without warning. And when the next one comes, you won't have a second to spare on packing and preparing. You need to get ready now before an emergency strikes. Your supplies should be within reach, ready to grab and to go at a moment's notice. Let's hear those supplies at mypatriotsupply.com. Start with a four-week emergency food kit from My Patriot Supply.

Helping millions of American families prepare since 2008, My Patriot Supply are the experts in all things self-reliance. Their four-week emergency food kit offers 2,000 calories every day. Protected by heavy-duty four-layer packaging, these kits last up to 25 years in storage. These delicious foods are sealed inside rugged buckets with handles designed to grab in a hurry. Go to mypatriotsupply.com and get as many food kits as your family needs for $50 off each. They ship fast and free in unmarked boxes. Save $50 per kit at mypatriotsupply.com.

That's mypatriotsupply.com. So this one right here, and this is the press secretary for the CIA. Hi, it was nice speaking with you. As discussed, you may attribute the following on the record statement to the CIA spokesperson. Quote, these claims of the CIA are absolutely false and ridiculous. The CIA is a resolutely apolitical institution that provides intelligence support to policymakers, including the President of the United States, irrespective of who occupies the office. We are a foreign intelligence-focused agency and do not monitor the former president, the individual making these allegations to form a contract or do not represent the CIA.

This is really, really powerful stuff, James. They almost never, ever, ever say anything, James. The CIA is, they are the most silent organization in the government by far. Yeah, I think that the fact that they talked to me on the phone and then issued a statement is very telling. Usually, we never get a reaction, certainly not to me. They might give one to the New York Times or Associated Press. But the fact that they gave a response to me, even before I put the video out, we got this response yesterday at five o'clock as I was putting the video out.

Charlie, I think that's really telling. Obviously, there's a lot of great people that work there. I've heard that 80% of people that work there are good, but there are some evil components. There's always going to be fraud in an agency that's cloaked in secrecy, withholding information. It might be something to do with every president, but to hear the guy say that and to flash his badge, you're not even allowed to flash your badge like that.

And the fact that he had his badge as of last week, well, that means that he worked for the CIA as of just a few days ago. So compelling stuff. And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of sources coming forward after this to corroborate the initial reporting by Matt Taby and Michael Shellenberger. And now we see it on video.

I'm sure there's more to come. Let's play cut 110. They admit that they were surveilling Trump's ex-wife. I hope you guys understand this, that the CIA is doing domestic spying and the CIA says, no, they're not. We need a church and pike committee to get these intel agencies to come to heel.

Play cut 110. And we also have people that monitor and say that's a lot easier. So you guys had human sources. How do you think we get information? Like wiretapping? So what's going on in this video, James? So he says we steal information from human sources.

And that's fine. I mean, spies steal information from China and elsewhere. This guy works in the China Mission Center. It's called CMC. There's Iran Mission Center. There's all types of mission centers and the CIA. But the fact that he says we steal information in the context of Trump's family, well, the CIA is not supposed to spy on Americans. And he also says there's another part of the video says we listen to everything. We're monitoring everything again. That's illegal.

You can't do that. And this also corroborates the reporting done by Michael Shellenberger about the FISA warrants against the Trump Trump family. So truly remarkable admissions there. So so this is this is really important because this is honest, obviously ongoing. You then sat down with Donald Trump and got his reaction to this bombshell.

Let's play cut 105. Mr. President, your reaction to this videotape of the CIA individual talking about how the CIA director has withheld information from you? Well, it's shocking to see how stupid somebody can be if this guy is for real. You ought to get rid of him.

CIA Central Intelligence Agency. This is not an intelligent guy to be openly talking to a woman that walks up and starts asking him questions and talking that way. So he may be bragging or showing off to some young lady. I have no idea the conditions under which he spoke, but I'd get rid of him real fast if he's for real.

Get rid of him. You got a reaction from Trump from the CIA. This is a major story, James. Were you ever fearful of the retaliation from the intel agencies against you?

You know, a little bit. I definitely I went to Langley. That's the CIA headquarters just Monday night. The military police came out. They had neck tattoos.

It's very rare you see military police with neck tattoos. I think that I try I try to focus on the faith over the fear. I know that's kind of corny, but the idea that that I'm a journalist doing this, I'm not an activist. I'm not trying to achieve an agenda. I'm just quoting him. And I think the fact, Charlie, that we got the reaction that we did. You saw President Trump there saying they got to get rid of him. Well, it appears as though they have fired him. Deloitte and CIA taken away that badge, that green badge, it's called, meaning that the CIA contracts out.

They have a green badge to swipe into Langley. So a little bit, probably more than I ever have been. And but I also think that we're in a new era where citizen journalists can do this and and hopefully more people come out, more people come forward to corroborate again, Taibbi and Shellenberger's original report with anonymous sources. But now you can see it with your own eyes.

This is remarkable, James. And you have more and more stories coming out. And it seems as if you keep on outdoing yourself.

Please take some time talking about the O'Keefe Media Group. You've had a very eventful last year. You've scaled up. You've built this beautiful, amazing thing. People need to support what you're doing.

Everybody, this is shots on target. There's a lot of groups that talk. James O'Keefe is exposing the CIA.

James, how can people help you out? Talk about the infrastructure you're building. Well, I mean, I think that now we are the media, Charlie. You know, it's like we got to get the mainstream media report. This stuff everyone always says, well, the media is important. But we are the media. I mean, the fact that we're getting on the phone with the press secretary of this agency and they're giving us a statement, and nobody in legacy media is uttering a word, that should tell you something. And I think the thing that it tells you is that we have to do the job ourselves.

Now, as to O'Keefe Media Group, I don't have all these undercover people on payroll anymore. I don't think that's the right way to go about it. I think we have a lot of people that are doing it on their own. We give a payment if you get the story. That's kind of our model now is we have classes that teach you how to do it. But we have people that contact us and we give them cameras and they go out and do it on their own. And we're kind of doing that grassroots model. OMG, everyone wants to help. We have more sources than we've ever had before. So it's growing.

It's, you know, it was a difficult year last year, the transition. And obviously, Charlie, the attacks against me are just, I mean, Trump, I mean, the number one target. I know you're in the top 10. I'm in the top 10. No, you're in the top three. You're in the top three. You're doing great. O'Keefe Media Group.

Yeah, the attacks are brutal. I am a monthly supporter of O'Keefe Media Group. You guys should be too. James, I know you're on the way to something. Go expose the FBI next. Thanks, James. I'm working on it.

Thank you. Last night, it's as if a switch got turned. The regime was enjoying being the betting odd favorite to win the presidency. I don't look at polls as much as I look at betting markets. The online betting markets are actually far more predictive than the polling. What are the betting markets?

You can do it if you want. I don't necessarily recommend it. It's a great way to lose money because everyone's guessing. It's PredictIt.org. And PredictIt.org had Joe Biden with a 55 percent chance of winning the presidency a week ago. It is now down to 50 percent.

And in certain betting markets, Donald Trump has now taken the lead. This is largely because of all the different riots happening, these Jew-hating riots on campus. Why Republicans would go past this this grotesque monstrosity while these riots are occurring is beyond me. Let's play cut 113. That they sometimes use the plywood as a shield and they put studded with nails. Well, look at the handles here.

You use this as a shield, use this to keep the pepper spray off you, that kind of thing. You can hear right now, but nevertheless, these pallets. So you had the plywood, you had the pallet and you had another piece of plywood. That's how difficult it was to get through here. That was just the barricades, I believe, at UCLA.

Now, understand this. I believe that Joe Biden and the oligarchs of the Democrat Party flipped the switch, meaning that they started to call blue state governors. They got on the phone with the governor of Oregon, Jay Inslee in Washington. They got on the phone with Gavin Newsom.

They said, hey, work with local police. Clean this thing up. Clean this thing up. This is a polling catastrophe for us.

And I want to just tell you one thing on this. That these polling and predicting markets are far more fickle and fragile than ever before. People are just guessing, which is exactly why we need to get into the weeds and do the difficult work. We've got to get in the streets. We've got to chase ballots. We have to register voters. Arizona is now enjoying a two hundred and thirty six thousand voter Republican Democrat advantage here in the state of Arizona. Two hundred and thirty six thousand.

It was a hundred thousand previously. But we're now we are going to need to chase ballots and praise God for Donald Trump because he is a one man. Get out the vote machine with a little bit of muscle, with a little bit of chasing ballots. We can win.

We can win. But it's going to take the largest ever ballot chasing operation. It's going to take voter integrity to secure our elections. It's going to require every single person to vote, regardless of if you don't want to vote. Every person watching this program, every person to lean in and get out the vote. And we are going to be dedicating every ounce of energy and resources.

We really believe this is a civilizational defining election. Time to lean in, step up, do the gritty work, the hustle work. That's exactly what we're doing at Turning Point Action, which is why you should download the Turning Point Action app and come visit us in Detroit, Michigan.

Coming up in June, TP Action dot com slash peoples that is TP Action dot com slash peoples. Grab a clipboard, open up the application, get on your work and working boots, clipboard and tennis shoes type of work. That is what is necessary.

We can win. It is right there in the margins. Thanks so much for listening. Everybody email us as always. Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlie Kirk dot com.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-05-02 20:27:57 / 2024-05-02 20:42:05 / 14

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime