America's Hottest Trend: Men In Sororities!

Hey, everybody. It's time for The Charlie Kirk Show. Men in sororities?

Yep, it is a growing trend. We talked to one of our chapter leaders at University of Kansas. Mike Benz joins us to talk about the blob and how our taxpayer dollars are being used to censor advertising dollars for conservative podcasts and broadcasts. Email us as always freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast, open up your podcast application and type in charliekirkshow and get involved with becoming a member today. 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. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. You would think that sororities being built on the idea as female-only organizations is pretty non-controversial. What if I told you more and more examples are emerging of men that are able to enter sororities, men that are able to go into women's private spaces, and men who are being honored by sororities.

How did we get here? Men taking over female spaces is nothing new. It is part of the trans agenda. And joining us to discuss is Sarah Green, who is from the University of Kansas Sigma Kappa sorority, and also the TPUSA and Turning Point USA chapter president. She did a great job hosting me in Lawrence, Kansas, a couple months ago. Sarah, welcome to the program.

Hi, thank you. So Sarah, you had a very powerful Twitter thread detailing all of this. Tell us, how did we get here where your sorority, the Sigma Kappa sorority, is now honoring a biological man as an honorary member?

What's going on here? Yeah, so this has been going back for over a year at this point. So it was a year ago that I got sent a survey in my email inbox that asked if I would want non-binary people in our chapter. And so this was sent out to 66,000 people, both students and alumni. And following the survey, I joined Zoom calls to find out that we were contracted, Sigma Kappa National was contracted with a company called TA Strategies. And this is run by two people, one of which is CVTran. And it's an activist law firm that promotes LGBTQ in fraternal organizations.

So that is their specialty. And I was shocked that we paid for something like this nationally and had no idea. So I constantly ask questions of, can we see those survey results before a decision is made? I just, I'm very confident that this is not what college girls are asking for. And it took about six months and they released two of 15 questions of the survey.

Both show girls weren't comfortable and didn't want this. And instead of stopping there, they decided to make a special committee that you have to apply to be on to further decide if we should allow non-binary people in. And so I applied to be on this committee.

Surprisingly, I was rejected. And so I was just scrolling on the website. There's a convention this week and I wanted to see if they were voting on this recently, because I mean, if this is going on, I don't want to be involved with the organization. I joined this to be in a group of women. And I came across that the honor initiate is CVTran. The person we are paying to advise us for all of this mess is being initiated, honorarily. And it's, you know, I mean, they're going, Nationals is going out of their way to make this happen, which just was shocking to me.

So I just, I couldn't keep it in. I had to bring this one out to the members. So help me understand then this is happening all across the country where female organizations are being infiltrated by men with mental problems and they deserve treatment. Obviously, they deserve to be treated with everything we have to heal them because they have problems. But that doesn't mean you accommodate spaces or you accommodate places for people that have these problems.

So put 90 up there. This is a biological man by the name of Stevie Tran, practicing attorney, authored articles and all this. And in the Sigma Kappa sorority press release or website, they call this man a she. How did our sororities, which, of course, by definition, are about female empowerment and female exclusivity, how did they become so co-opted and held hostage by the trans agenda? Yeah, it's shocking. So the rules I know change from being a woman to be being identified as a woman changed before I even joined. I had no idea. And looking into this, almost every sorority out there on every campus is identified as a woman. So this change has been made for a while.

The only change they're trying to make now is non-binary, but it's not coming locally. It's not coming from girls. It's not coming from officers. It's coming from this national board. And I mean, I don't know how much money is being spent on DEI.

I have asked. They won't tell me they aren't being transparent at all. They're not being truthful on the national scale. And it's shocking. You would think sororities would be the last people to defend women's spaces.

I mean, we've been going 150 years for a reason. It's been a successful women's organization. It's empowered so many girls. I think there's 226,000 people that have come out of this sorority. And I mean, just from my tweet, the responses I've been getting, everyone is so disappointed. And so I don't want this organization to fail.

And that's why I'm here where I am today. But it really is just a national organization. It's these high up people making these decisions that they don't have to deal with. They don't have to live with this. They just get to make the decisions. So that's really disappointing. So when the survey was issued, 45% of Sigma Kappa members say no, we should not identify people as non-binary. 38% said yes, which is just remarkable to me.

Who are these young ladies? I mean, they are completely twisted in their worldview. But still, you're in the correct perspective, one. Additionally, I am open to Sigma Kappa amending membership eligibility requirements. Sigma Kappa should not amend the policy. So you are in the plurality of both, both categories on this. And yet, who made the decision to aggressively push this forward?

Yeah, it's the Nationals. And from what I know, almost every girl I talked to, they didn't know this was going on. They're not telling local chapters. They're not telling us at our meetings. They're not telling us in our group chats.

No one knew. And most girls I talked to didn't even receive the survey or they don't check their email, which is kind of on them. But I mean, I don't know anyone from my own chapter who even filled out the survey. So I don't even think it's representative of college girls.

It was sent to all alumni and college members. And so, I mean, they only got, I think, eighty nine hundred responses out of sitting sixty six thousand surveys. And there's two hundred and twenty six people that have been involved in the sorority. So I don't think it's entirely representative. But it is shocking that the numbers are so close.

But in the end, the Nationals just took it and ran. And they said the survey results say we don't want this, but we're gonna make a committee and basically we're gonna do anyway. I mean, in the interview, they asked me a question that was like, how would you go about telling your individual or your specific chapter about allowing non-binary people in?

I was asked in the interview. I mean, that's that decision was already made by the committee of what's, you know, before the committee was made. They knew what they were trying to do. And so I think this has been in the works for years now. And it's it's crazy.

I really can't explain the thinking behind it because, I mean, girls don't want it. Yeah. So it's a fascinating thing. So I know of no examples of women who think they are men and who are allowed into fraternities because men would never put up with it and men wouldn't allow it. So the organizational hierarchy is perfectly fine with this. Are there actually any non honorary, non-binary members joining or living in the house? So tell us more about how this is playing out into practice.

Yeah, absolutely. So at my chapter at Kansas, I know there was one person a few years ago. It was before I was at the school.

So I don't know a whole lot about it. But as of right now, you can be in the chapter and you just have to say you're a woman. You don't actually have to be a woman. You can say you're a woman, get in, and then you can go, never mind.

I'm non-binary. And as of right now, that's you're good. You can stay in, which that's the current rule. So they're trying to change it into you don't have to be a woman or anything. You just have to say, hey, I'm non-binary.

You can hop in and then do whatever. That's what they're trying to change it to. Well, I'll tell you, this is this is sick stuff. If we cannot defend women, then what good are we as a civilization?

It's just amazing how many the women in leadership are OK with young women being preyed upon and the abolition of women as we are seeing it. Sarah Green, chapter of our Turning Point USA group at Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk. I've had the honor and pleasure of partnering with Patriot Mobile, who has been a great supporter of the show. They're the only cell phone service provider that is actually on the front lines defending our freedoms.

They're an example of putting the cause ahead of profits. And that's why I'm proud to partner with them. Right now, Patriot Mobile wants to give you a brand new smartphone. When you make the switch today, Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.

And when I say only trust me, they are the only one. Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you access to all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage you would accustomed to without funding the left. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're supporting free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life and more.

They're 100 percent U.S. based customer service team makes switching easy for a limited time. Get a free smartphone when you sign up today. Call 972-PATRIOT and say promo code Charlie.

Again, that's a free smartphone. And with promo code Charlie call 972-PATRIOT. That is 972-PATRIOT. Go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie and join me and make the switch today. That is Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie. Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie. Joining us now is Mike Benz.

Mike Benz is terrific. The Foundation for Freedom Online. I want to dive into some of the breaking news here out of the House Judiciary Committee. Walk us through it.

Well, it's amazing. So there is an institution known as the Global Advertisers for Responsible Media, known as GARM. G-A-R-M. And this institution is in charge of two point six billion dollars, billion with a B, an annual programmatic ad spending on independent news sites. And GARM has been weaponized as a way to destroy conservative and independent leaning media institutions as part of this long range plan of the blob class in order to kill alternative news, because alternative news was fueling alternative political candidates like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen. And so basically NATO embarked on this NATO-wide project to try to kill advertiser revenue to independent news so there'd be no opposition to mainstream media. And so GARM is this flagship product of the World Economic Forum, who are essentially the corporate and financial investors of our blue chip companies who very much depend on the U.S. government in a favors for favors relationship with their global markets, as well as on European governments. And they have had this revolving door relationship where since 2017, the advertisers have been pressured by NATO countries to kill alternative news. And GARM has done so happily because these populist groups who believe in economic nationalism and what's best for their own people are now at loggerheads with these blue chip companies who basically want to turn countries into economic sons. And so the revelation here, which again, GARM sounds like something that James Bond would be fighting.

They always name their stuff so interestingly. That in the House Judiciary Report, it shows how the biggest brands seek to control online speech. The new information reveals that the advertisers and brands are colluding together.

So how does exactly this work in practice? Well, this works through what are known as ad exchanges. You see, every website on the internet that has ads, there's two ways that you can make ad revenue.

One is a individual sponsor deal with a particular company. But that's far less revenue and far more sort of custom tailored. What most websites do, or at least what was essentially almost all of online advertising, which is how you monetize eyeballs. This is how Facebook began to turn a profit. This is how every news site turns a profit is through advertising. The way it works is if you don't have a particular sponsor deal with an individual brand, you use what's called programmatic advertising, which is all those cookies that are collected, all of your data and metadata that are swallowed up using spider crawlers essentially all over the internet. So every Gmail, for example, scans all of your email for words and then pitches that, essentially gives that to advertisers so that they get so Google can customize the ads. That ad targeting is all done through ad exchanges who swallow up all this data. Then in a microsecond, tailor the ad that's most likely for you to purchase the good in combination with how much these advertisers have bid on specific keywords in order to deliver you that ad.

So you as an independent website, you as Charlie Kirk Show, you as Breitbart.com or OAN, you don't really have control through using these programmatic ad exchanges on what ad is served. That's all done by the exchanges. There's two kinds of exchanges. There's the demand side exchange and the supply side exchange. Essentially, these two sides of the ad exchanges talk to each other, but it all goes up to these supply side ad exchanges who have these relationships with GARM. They have these relationships with the brands themselves. The brands have these relationships with the supply side ad exchanges. The supply side feeds it to the demand side.

The demand side serves it to the website. So if GARM and the supply side ad exchanges are colluding with each other about what misinformation is, and GARM specifically pledged two years ago that it would eradicate all $2.6 billion worth of its annual programmatic ad spend to websites that are designated to be repeat misinformation spreaders. And who determines what a repeat misinformation spreader? Well, it's the same rigged censorship gargoyle firms, NewsGuard and GDI, the Global Disinformation Index, who themselves have people like General Michael V. Hayden, head of the CIA, head of the NSA, four-star general, on their board. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former head of NATO, is on the board of advisors for NewsGuard. Rick Stengel, the former head of the State Department's Global Engagement Center, is on the board of NewsGuard. Tom Ridge, the former head of DHS. So you have these apex predators of the national security state who are hell-bent on stopping Donald Trump from winning elections, from stopping people associated with Brexit or people associated with Marine Le Pen or AFD in Germany or Matteo Salvini in Italy. Any populist group around the world can now have their, essentially, their news engine cut off by working with GARM. So Mike, help me understand, what is USAID's role in this?

I know you've been mentioning this, you have a great tweet on this. USAID, I thought it was about foreign aid. What on earth are they doing policing domestic advertising? USAID is the visible side of the CIA iceberg. When you see USAID, you are always watching either one of three things happening, either the CIA, the State Department, or the Department of Defense. USAID was created in 1961 to be the sort of centralized logistical aid and financial support to U.S. foreign policy operations related to either national security or national interest. National security is going to involve the Pentagon or the CIA. National interest is going to involve the State Department or the CIA.

And so you had this problem that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department had from the 1940s to the 1960s, which they were all tripping over each other, funding their own dissident groups, funding their own media organizations, funding their own economic ecosystems to support their own endeavors and were basically inefficient and tripping over each other and duplicative. And so USAID X that all out. USAID actually has a larger budget than the CIA. But make no mistake, USAID is not a charity. USAID is a soft power influence machine, which provides the monetary muscle for both overt diplomacy and covert action. And in this case, it's covert action. And I will tell you, I've been watching these people since the day they set all this up, and I was watching their live streams in 2017 when the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID got in a room together with Google and Facebook to pressure them to take down ad networks.

I'm going to give you a great example. In May 2017, there was a guy who was basically the head of research for the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy was established in a letter in 1983 from the CIA director of the Reagan administration, William Colby, to the attorney general who called for a restoration of the CIA's capacities to fund media institutions and political dissident groups that they had lost during the Carter administration when Jimmy Carter fired 30 percent of the CIA operations directorate in one night. And to avoid the scandals of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, what William Colby proposed was that instead of having CIA fingerprints on this, we would create a private non-governmental organization called the National Endowment for Democracy to do it instead.

That way, if an operation got busted, it wouldn't look like the CIA did it. Now, the guy who was basically the head of the analytics division for the National Endowment for Democracy got in a room with Michael Chertoff in May 2017. Michael Chertoff was, of course, with the U.S. Justice Department, but he was also the brains behind the Disinformation Governance Board with Nina Jankovic at DHS. He was also the chairman of Freedom House, which is another one of these large State Department NGOs.

And most famously, he was the chairman of BAE Systems, which is the largest military contractor in all of NATO. So this is one of these apex predators of the national security state together with the head of the CIA's most prolific covert action conduit. And they cornered the executives of Google and Facebook for content moderation in May 2017 and demanded that Google and Facebook change their policies to eliminate the financial incentives for misinformation and talked about the need to rope in advertiser networks to kill advertising revenue to alternative, what they called, unfiltered alternative news, because unfiltered alternative news was giving rise to populist movements, and populist movements were basically undermining NATO and threatening to have this Brexit, Frexit, Italyxit, Grexit domino.

And so the whole international rules-based order was going to collapse unless advertisers stopped providing funding to alternative news institutions like OAN and Breitbart, and to some extent even Fox News and others. Oh, no, I mean, by the way, I gotta interrupt here, Mike. I gotta interject. We deal with this all the time. We do it through NewsGuard and that Nandini person. They constantly come after us. I don't know if we're part of any of this international USAID thing. I bet we are, but anyway, because we have a big platform and constantly dealing with SCO demonetization.

Please, Mike, interject. Yes, well, you know, Daily Wire and Federalist both have in-process lawsuits, which is being supported by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, against the State Department on exactly this issue. I have no doubt that you're included to some extent in that blacklist item because the State Department has been working with NewsGuard on that.

At least that's what's being alleged in the lawsuit, and there's a whole discovery process that is going to break much of this open. But essentially, as I mentioned, NewsGuard coordinates through the fact that they have on their Board of Advisors, literally the founder of the State Department's Global Engagement Center and the head of NATO under President Obama, also the former head of the CIA, NSA, four-star general, all of that, and there's a lot of British intelligence intrigues around GDI, which is the Global Disinformation Index, the other censorship sentinel that's sort of best in class with NewsGuard on this. But one thing that I should note about USAID, and this is at the top of my feed, I just retweeted it, it's at Mike Ben-Cyber if you want to see these specific links, but USAID put out a primer in February 2021. Joe Biden had been in office for less than a month when USAID published a primer on how to kill advertiser revenue to misinformation news sites. They mentioned 31 times in a 97-page document the imperative of getting advertisers to eliminate financial incentives to misinformation. That means blackballing any news institution that the State Department disfavors.

I just have some of these screenshots on screen. What can technology companies do to eliminate financial incentives? What can national governments do to regulate ad networks? This is the U.S. State Department, and USAID is, again, the support mechanism for the State Department overtly and for the CIA covertly. Having a foreign influence plan, I mean, think about how evil this is.

This is the U.S. State Department who is taking their advice from institutions like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, and they are telling foreign governments to crack down on private advertiser networks to kill advertising revenue to U.S. news institutions like Daily Wire and The Federalist. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. What an unbelievable start to 2024. We had last month saving babies with preborn by providing ultrasounds, and we're doing again this year what we did last year. We're going to stand for life because remaining silent in the face of the most radically pro-death administration is not an option.

As Sir Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and we're not going to do nothing. Your gift to preborn will give a girl the truth about what's happening in her body so that she can make the right choice. $280 can save 10 babies. $28 a month can save a baby a month all year long.

And a $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come, and will also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. Call 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229, or click on the preborn banner at charliekirk.com. That is charliekirk.com and click on the preborn banner. Also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I'm a donor of this organization. They're terrific.

Go to charliekirk.com, click on the preborn banner. Given the latest Supreme Court decision where they basically allow the government to nudge tech companies, is this legal given the Supreme Court decision? I think the Supreme Court decision has us in a kind of stasis moment right now because the Supreme Court made a standing ruling in the end. In the end, they did not actually make a judgment on the merits.

It was a very narrow thing up for their consideration. Remember, they only ruled on the temporary injunction, which is a much higher standard than an actual final judgment because a temporary injunction means you need to stop it immediately because you're probably correct and there will be irreparable harm. They basically just overturned the temporary injunction, but there's going to be another two years of litigation on that Murphy Supreme Court decision. The state attorney general still has not received their full merits discovery, so they're going to be getting more and more documents from all these U.S. government agencies. I actually do believe when it goes back up to the Supreme Court on a merits decision that it will look a lot different in the final outcome.

But what I'll say is they may feel emboldened by the fact that they did not face accountability from the Supreme Court. But we have things that we can do. We are not powerless in this regard.

I will just say three words right up front. House Appropriations Committee, you have a job to do here. You need to withhold funding to U.S. aid until they get rid of this domestic censorship boomerang because understand what U.S. aid and the U.S. State Department are doing here. They want to stop political support for Donald Trump or any sort of populist movement that challenges State Department foreign policy. And what they are doing is they want to knife them directly, but they can't because they're forbidden by law from operating on U.S. soil. So instead, they're sharpening the blade of a boomerang and flying the boomerang out to institutions around the world to get them to slice open the heads, effectively, I'm sorry for the colorful analogy here, but of U.S. media institutions that are deemed to be supportive of populist movements, like Daily Wire and Federalist who are a part of this lawsuit, but like hundreds of other websites that have been economically deplatformed and effectively decimated by this.

So the State Department is not allowed to do it directly. So they are telling foreign governments to use their regulatory power to kill advertisers' ability to actually have a profitable relationship with news companies. This is the other part of this, is that these blue-chip companies in GARM do not want to sanction themselves. When they stop providing advertising, advertising is not a charity business.

They only do advertising if it is a positive ROI, if it makes them money. So they don't want to cut out $2.6 billion of potential business with independent, centrist, conservative websites around the world. But they rely on the U.S. government for their global markets. Microsoft does. ExxonMobil does.

All the blue-chip companies, every publicly traded global company, relies on the U.S. State Department to fight on their behalf as U.S. national champions. This is what Facebook said. Facebook did not want to censor the man-made theory of COVID. The internal Facebook file, subpoenaed by Jim Jordan, revealed that Nick Clegg said, we have to think creatively about how to cooperate with the censorship demands of the Biden White House because, quote, we have bigger fish to fry on multiple policy fronts with the Biden administration. You have this situation where a lot of people look at what GARM is doing and they think, oh, my God, the corporations are censoring the speech online, and it's true. This is what corporations are driving.

GARM does represent these blue-chip, mega-company, multinational global brands, but what people do not see is behind the scenes the boot that is being placed on them by governments around the world who are reliant on favors for those governments. The example that we were just going over was the incredible reveal by Jim Jordan's weaponization committee who subpoenaed the Facebook files, the YouTube files, the Amazon files, and what was revealed is that Facebook did not want to censor the COVID man-made origins theory. They hemmed and hawed about it a lot. They fought the Biden administration tooth and nail for months, ultimately folded because internally the executive team of Facebook decided they did not want to piss off the Biden administration because they needed the Biden administration to defend them against foreign governments' regulatory actions. That is, they needed Biden's State Department. They needed Tony Blinken to defend Facebook against the Digital Markets Act in Europe, the Digital Services Act in Europe, against all the different IT regulatory issues and tax and labor and data laws all over the world.

So Nick Clegg, the head of public policy at Facebook, told the team that they had to think creatively about how to satisfy government censorship demands because they had bigger fish to fry on multiple policy fronts. And this is the same calculus that Microsoft goes through, that ExxonMobil goes through, that Walmart goes through. We live in a global world with global markets, and there is not a single U.S. multinational company who most of its dollars come from the U.S. market in the aggregate because it's a great big world out there and we're only 300 million people. So the rest of the world actually matters more to the bottom line for our exports than our own domestic goods and services. But in order to access those markets and to access them in a way that's profitable to our multinational companies, they need the battering ram of the blob. They need the military to potentially secure supply lines. They need special operations to potentially prime the political environment so that the right leader rises to power. They need the State Department to step in with threats, to step in to negotiate on their behalf.

I did that myself while I was at the State Department. We have U.S. national champions, and we define our foreign policy as serving Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon. That was MAGA at the U.S. State Department in the cyber division.

These companies all know that. When one of the lead administrators for U.S. aid and one of the major officials at DHS, who also runs the largest military contractor, chairman of the largest military contractor in the entire world, it was also at the Justice Department and also at the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA's top cutout. When all these forces within the U.S. government who represent our State Department diplomatic apparatus tell Garm Brands, listen, you're going to have to sanction these companies. You're going to have to saw off a little pinky finger, I'm sorry for the colorful analogy, in order to stop this much bigger threat that the U.S. government faces, i.e. the rise of political forces like Donald Trump or Nigel Farage or Bolsonaro in Brazil. You name it, the list is virtually endless right now of rising populist forces who are trying to be contained by the same faction. But you have these companies not wanting to do this, but they are being pressured to do this because they are dependent on those same governments doing the pressuring for international favors and to secure their international markets.

And so this is a very dirty trick that we have not really had to take on before. From basically time immemorial since the founding of this country, there has been some consistency with the U.S. government and its U.S. national champions policy, which is to say if the military takes over the hydrocarbons in the Middle East so that ExxonMobil and Chevron can make billions from exploiting that shale supply, well then Americans get cheaper gas at the pump. That's more people being employed by ExxonMobil and Chevron, that's more 401ks, that's more college savings funds, that's more GDP. But there was never a situation where the U.S. State Department was doing favors for ExxonMobil, and ExxonMobil and the CIA was overthrowing a government to take all the resources so that Exxon could profit. And then ExxonMobil turns around and then cuts off gas supply to 50% of the country.

But that's what we have now. Mike Benz, fascinating, excellent work. Check out his organization, Freedom Foundation, online. Thanks so much, Mike Benz. Thanks, Charlie. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.