transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:03] My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. 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.

Speaker 2:
[01:17] All right. Welcome to The Charlie Kirk Show. We are live here in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Y-Refi Studios. It's April 23rd, 2026. That's the Y-Refi right there on the banner. Check them out, investyrefi.com. We love those guys. Blake, how are we doing?

Speaker 3:
[01:32] We're doing lovely, other than, you know, evil people are out here, which is what the lead is today.

Speaker 2:
[01:36] It's a common theme, unfortunately.

Speaker 3:
[01:40] I feel good because we get to fight evil.

Speaker 2:
[01:42] We get to fight evil. We have a noble cause and a noble calling. And I will tell you, there is a lot of evil around. And by the way, we're gonna have Peter, our chapter president from Baylor University on the second half of the hour. We get so many emails from you when we have our students on. So we're gonna keep doing that. And by the way, Peter deserves a heck of a hat tip. And I'm gonna praise him to the sky when he comes on because man, were we up against it at Baylor University. The university was giving us all kinds of problems and they absolutely persevered. They broke through. We had, I think, over a thousand students. There might have been 50 adults in the room. The university cut off all what they call community tickets for this event. And so I, you know, did they give a justification for that?

Speaker 3:
[02:29] Well, very last minute.

Speaker 2:
[02:30] It was last minute because it was they were going to let all these community members in, which we had 4500 tickets reserved by the community. You know, if you know Waco, the whole community revolves around Baylor University. There's about 20,000 students at Baylor, private school. Waco is about 140,000 people big, so relatively small community. But man, do they love the Baylor University and their football team and all this stuff. Anyway, so they cut it off because a bunch of lefties complained. And, you know, we were kind of sitting here going, are we going to not be able to have anybody come to this event? And look at that. I mean, that's all students, all students to hear Tom Homan, Benny Johnson and Attorney General Ken Paxton. It was a massive, massive success. So I'm so proud of the team. And then we had Erica down in Grapevine, Texas, actually talking to our pastor summit last night. So two different nights, two different events. So we had Ohio State the night before, then we had Baylor, and then we had the pastor summit running concurrently. So a lot of activity out there. And I'm just, again, I'm so proud of our students. But we got to get to the evil people that Blake referenced and the evil ideologies, which is something, if you haven't heard of, it's a concept called social murder. It's a cousin to something that you hear in modern context called systemic oppression, which basically blames the system. It blames the elites. It blames anybody in a position of power or influence for what they consider less than ideal circumstances that lead to suffering. Okay? Every system known to man will create some level of suffering because we live in a fallen world. As Christians, we understand that. We understand also the Matthew principle that those who have will have even more and those who have little, even the little they have will be taken from them. Sometimes that's unfortunately the case. Now, as Christians, we are called to try and help our brothers and sisters to try and give to them. Now, I believe that that should be done privately through the church and through charities and things like that. In our modern quasi-socialist system, Blake, we tend to give taxes away to the government. The government then will have certain programs, whether it be welfare or Medicaid. Some states have their own, to take care of the least of these. Now, we could argue the merits of that, but as Christians, we understand that we have an obligation to take care of the least of these. Communists don't believe in God, at least largely, and they tend to blame the system on those who are part of the system. What am I getting at? Hasan Piker is a left-winger, a radical left-winger, who says a lot of crazy crap, and he's very popular.

Speaker 3:
[05:06] So Hasan Piker, if you've not heard of him, you may hear of him soon. Incredibly popular streamer, he's on sites like Twitch, I believe he's on these days. Big website if you're not familiar with it. A lot of people on it, they'll play.

Speaker 2:
[05:19] The game.

Speaker 3:
[05:20] People will play a video game and people will watch them. But it's also political stuff. This guy will be online six, seven, eight hours a day. Just talking about politics. He'll have thousands, tens of thousands of people watching him. Millions will watch clips through other venues. Very popular with young people. In fact, only a week or two after Charlie was murdered, he was scheduled to debate Hasan Piker at Dartmouth College. That was a debate we were looking forward to. We were game planning and I think it would have been quite the event. So he's a very big name, but he's very far on the left. And right now, on the left, there are elites like the people, Ezra Klein, those individuals, they're debating, should we accept this guy into our coalition? And that's an important question because of the stuff this guy is arguing, because he is a radical.

Speaker 2:
[06:09] He is a radical who will justify violence. And he did it again this time in front of the New York Times saying that he understands, or at least a lot of America, I think the way he phrased it, to be fair to him, and we'll play the clip, that a lot of Americans understand the assassination of Luigi Mangione against Bryan Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, because a lot of social murder. And what does it mean? It means that the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was guilty of causing a lot of pain and suffering by denying claims or whatever the accusations are, and therefore he had it coming. Let's just play the clip and you can hear it in his own words. Hasan Piker, 19.

Speaker 4:
[06:51] Engels wrote about the concept of social murder. Brian Thompson, as the UnitedHealthcare CEO, was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder, the systematized forms of violence, the structural violence of poverty. Because of the pervasive pain that the private healthcare system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place.

Speaker 2:
[07:29] Okay, first of all, it's not a death had taken place. It was an assassination, a cold-blooded murder of an innocent man.

Speaker 3:
[07:36] And also, just worth pointing, he's quoting Engels. Engels is famously the co-author of the Communist Manifesto.

Speaker 2:
[07:42] He's the collaborator.

Speaker 3:
[07:43] He's the, also he's the funder. He's always the guy who, when you read the life of the early communists, you start to really understand leftist because you see certain patterns. Marx is famously a loser. He doesn't support his own family. He has to sponge off other people like his friends. He never visits a factory floor. He's totally a classic type that lives on today of being uninformed about the world, champagne socialist, being a bad person individually, and that manifests in politics, that they're bad as individual people and of course they end up embracing evil. And this is what this piker guy is doing. He's going to say, it's very much a part of leftism to say, actually I can kill someone that I resent and it's a good thing because I have the right motivation. They're actually a bad person because the system that they're a part of murders people, which it doesn't really. Brian Thompson's company paid for health care for people.

Speaker 2:
[08:39] Yeah. Well, and here's the thing. You'll see how the history of ideas morph and Mark Twain, I think famously said history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And you see these ideas from the 18th century or the 19th century in the 1800s, morph and weave and come in and out of the public consciousness. And then you get a guy like Hasan Piker, who's a gamer who justifies all sorts of evils like micro looting, by the way.

Speaker 3:
[09:08] That's another way. We'll get into that in the next part.

Speaker 2:
[09:10] He justifies. And by the way, he electrocutes his dog on his stream. A lot of things on his stream. And he's standing by all the far left Senate candidates. The Michigan candidate, the Muslim guy in Michigan who's running for Senate, he's standing by him. And so you see these ideas pop up and percolate. And this is just the latest iteration and we have to address it because it is evil, and it is vile, and it will justify all sorts of atrocities in its name.

Speaker 3:
[09:38] So we're talking about Hasan Piker, who is on the rise. He got this interview in the New York Times opinion section as basically leading figure on the left. So we talked about, they were saying, oh, so I could understand why you'd murder a health care CEO because of their engagement in social murder. Another discussion they had was over this concept of micro looting as they call it. You could also just call it stealing. You could call it shoplifting. And what he said, I don't think we have the video, but I have the quote. He says, I am pro stealing from big corporations because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers. And so he just says, okay, Rob, actually, I think it was his co-host who said she would just steal from Whole Foods. She would steal from other places. In the same interview, he says some other things. He said he doesn't endorse all theft. He says he wouldn't steal from a place that is taxpayer funded. That's different. He also said private schools should be illegal. He's really a wrecking ball of takes.

Speaker 2:
[10:36] But this guy is so full of bad takes. And I genuinely think that these are demonic ideologies that he is becoming the mouthpiece for. And unfortunately for us, Charlie predicted a lot of this. And we could go all the way back to 2020. So again, Hasan Piker is justifying, morally justifying the murder, the cold-blooded assassination of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, allegedly. But Charlie predicted this all the way back in, I guess, 2020, SOT 1.

Speaker 1:
[11:10] This is going to get really nasty. Everyone listen to this, I just hope you understand. Think of the nastiest moment in 2016. They are not going to let this guy get re-elected without the most brutal drawn out fight. We're going to have the tech companies getting involved. The media is going to get worse than ever. They're going to be taking down Twitter accounts left and right. They're going to be taking down videos on YouTube. They are going to be coming after us. They're going to be following us in the middle of the night. They're going to be breaking into our houses. You think I'm joking. They are going to be violent. You will not be able to walk the streets of the MAGA hat without your physical health be put in jeopardy. And I hope it doesn't get that way. I hope that this clip gets unearthed and everything's wonderful. I hope that the country comes together and we have a beautiful munitarian healing moment in September.

Speaker 2:
[11:53] He kept going in May. This is four months before he was assassinated. It's at 21.

Speaker 1:
[11:59] The Luigi effect is not going away. It's disturbing. It's scary. People love Luigi on the left, the far radical left. And this is going to continue to be a problem. The Luigi effect is a serious issue where they believe that they can become a social media martyr for that cause, not just the action itself, but that you then can become the face of the resistance against your said struggle.

Speaker 3:
[12:34] It's almost besides the point to pick at the specific things. This time, they're justifying murdering CEOs. This time, they're justifying shoplifting. The bigger picture thing that you're going to see pop up again and again on the left. Everyone knows murder is actually wrong. Everyone knows actually it's not okay to steal things. Similarly, everyone knows it's not okay to vandalize, destroy things. But you see the same thing pop up on the left. It is very intoxicating to tell people something that is obviously wrong and evil and predatory. We can justify it through some flimsy ideological pretext. This is how you get mob violence. This is how you get people embracing frenzies of all sorts. And you see this especially pop up on the left. It's basically a resentment driven ideology that you can be this freak show who's you're not as accomplished as you think you deserve to be. You're not as high status as you think you deserve to be. And you can project this out onto others. And so that will justify murder, justifies theft, justifies all sorts of stuff. And that's why you see, why do left wing marches get violence so often? It's not even just, it's not even violence toward an end. They'll just burn a store down. They'll smash a window. They'll graffiti some beautiful statue that was put up 50 years ago. It is very much this, this will to destroy, basically just because something is good or beautiful. And I think that's also why you see them, they almost have this like perfect radar or this perfect scent for embracing evil ideas around the world. Like as an example, they, you know, they love the pro-Palestine cause, but it's not even that they love the pro-Palestine cause. It's that, for example, there was a BLM group in Chicago that was celebrating the people who flew in on hang gliders to that concert, where they massacred a bunch of civilians and raped people.

Speaker 2:
[14:25] They tried to turn it into like a flyer and iconic symbol.

Speaker 3:
[14:27] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[14:28] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[14:28] Like, and the left has done that, for example, you know, Franz Fanon, who got quoted after that atrocity was committed, they were talking about, they were directly quoting his ideology. And he was a guy who said, rape, raping people is a form of resistance. The most evil things imaginable get justified on the left through a political lens. And if we don't confront it honestly, this is the tumor that is growing on the left. And that's, as Charlie warned, they're going to embrace more and more radical means of getting their agenda done. We already see this with the war on ICE agents. ICE agents are enforcing America's laws for our borders. They're saying, you can't break into this country. And they don't just say, we want to change our immigration laws. They say, we want to hunt ICE agents. We want to throw them in jail. And a lot of them basically say, it's justified to murder ICE agents.

Speaker 2:
[15:20] The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is this dichotomy between chaos and order. God spoke creation into being. He spoke order into being. We read in the scriptures. And the agents of chaos want to destroy that order. And that's why I think we can't say it enough. We are in a spiritual battle because the agents of chaos want to destroy all that is good, true and beautiful. They want to undermine it. They want to villainize it. They want to kill it. And that's how I can kind of look across the landscape and I can say good guy, bad guy, good guy, bad guy. Because guess what? It doesn't mean that we dehumanize the bad guys like they do to us. But it does mean that you need to have your radar highly attuned to understand who is doing what and for what ends. Right? So if you see somebody that's building up and is creating, good guy. Typically a good guy. Doesn't have to be 100% good. You see the guy is trying to burn it down and destroy it. Bad guy. Pretty simple on one level. America is entering its 250th year. And the direction of this country is being decided right now. In our culture and our economy. And who we choose to support matters more than ever. Most wireless companies don't care who you are or what you believe. They just want your money. Patriot Mobile is different. For more than 12 years, they've stood with Americans who believe freedom is worth fighting for. Funding the Christian conservative movement when others stayed silent. And here's the deal. You don't have to give up quality or service when you switch to Patriot Mobile. They deliver premium priority access on all three major US networks. So you'll get the same or better coverage than you have today. Think switching is a hassle? It isn't. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. Their 100% US based support team can activate you in just minutes. Still paying off a device? Patriot Mobile even offers a contract buyout. This is a defining year. We've got to work together to save our country. So go to patriotmobile.com/charlie or call 972-Patriot and use the promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com/charlie or call them at 972-Patriot using the promo code Charlie and switch today. So I am very excited to have this young man on our show, Peter Fernandez. He's our TPSA Baylor chapter president. Welcome to the show, Peter.

Speaker 5:
[17:42] Morning. How are you all?

Speaker 2:
[17:44] We are great and thanks for being flexible. I know our time kept shifting around as our schedule shifted around. It's good. I just want to say congratulations on a heck of a job last night. I could tell by your speech and we'll play a clip of that in just a second, but you're like an old soul. I could see that with the poise that you had. I mean, this was not an easy event. For those of the people in the audience that aren't aware of it, we had this as open to the broader community. I think some progressive students complained, and so then they tried to limit it, and then they were like, no, you can have 20 outside non-students. We're like, come on, that's not even enough for the parents of, Peter's family probably couldn't all fit in that. They're like, here's 120. It didn't matter. You guys packed that place up with over 1,000 people. I think all but 50 of them were students. The energy was incredible. The Q&A was incredible. And you just comported yourself brilliantly. Peter, the floor is yours.

Speaker 5:
[18:44] Yeah. So we had a fantastic event. Like you said, the turnout was amazing. The university threw everything they could at us. And they didn't outright say you can't have an event. But they said that we couldn't have people from the outside. And believe me when I tell you, the Waco community wanted to be there. There's a community college down the street and members of their chapter and members of their community reached out to us saying that they wanted to come. We had countless alumni reach out to us just asking about attendance for the event. And they were unfortunately turned away by the university. And it's hard to tell members of the Baylor family, which we like to call anybody who's past or present member of the university, Baylor family. And it's hard to tell people in the Baylor family that they can't come. But the university had no problem doing that. And that's something that I really, really think that they're going to feel the pain from that. Because the donors and the alumni are not happy about it.

Speaker 2:
[19:45] Yeah, I can tell you, I got a ton of... I have zero connection to the Baylor community other than friends. And I was talking with Ken Paxton's team because he obviously spoke last night. It was just shocking that they wouldn't allow that to happen. And by the way, just so we're very clear, they made some statements saying this was originally, this is how it was always originally designed, this event. That's not true. We got the paperwork. We got the approvals for the original requests when we booked the venue. So anyways, whatever. I don't even want to dwell on that, Peter, because you guys pulled off an amazing event. But just to be clear, we had 4,500 people from the Waco community, most of them probably alumni of the university. And like you said, other neighboring schools that wanted to be a part of this event. I mean, it really is tragic because then they green light this counter protest movement, this inclusive event trying to sabotage the event. And they were claiming some of their decisions were based on security protocols, this and that. Well, if you were worried about security, why would you green light an event at the same time with a bunch of people that probably wish us ill and maybe worse?

Speaker 5:
[20:57] Absolutely. And I have two points on that. First, the event that they had, I'm sure Charlie would agree, I have no issue with alternative organizations hosting something on campus. In fact, I encourage it because both sides need to be heard. But I feel like there's a lot of dishonesty behind hosting it on the same day. Because if you really wanted to make sure that both voices were heard, you'd have their event on one day, which I would love to have attended it, by the way. But I couldn't because we had to set up for hours. And then we would invite them to ours, and then both sides could be heard by the entire Waco community or the Baylor community. But I just think it was dishonest on their part and on the university's part by putting them at the same time because you have to choose one side or the other when it's really not supposed to be about that. It's supposed to be about hearing both sides and then making a decision for yourself.

Speaker 2:
[21:46] Yeah, well said. I'm going to play a clip from part of your speech here. I thought you did a great job. I watched it all. I really do. Peter, I can't say enough good things. Man, you persevered in one of the toughest event situations that I've seen. I've been around this game for a long time at this point. You crushed it. You came through with flying colors and that speaks so highly about the quality of person that you are and the quality of students that we have at Baylor. If I sound effusive, it's because it's authentic. I really mean that. So here we go. Let's just play Cut 26 from your speech.

Speaker 5:
[22:28] We table. We'll ask a controversial question. We'll also make sure that it's known that it's okay to disagree with us. My favorite days of tabling are those days when the agrees and the disagrees are pretty even. Because those are the days that the most civil discourse is happening. And those are the days that Charlie would be the most proud of.

Speaker 2:
[22:49] You continue, SOT 27.

Speaker 5:
[22:51] There's been a great decline in civil discourse. People don't talk about the issues anymore. I'm too scared to be judged or canceled. So instead, we confine ourselves in a political monolith. We surround ourselves with people who think exactly like us. And I don't mean we only. I mean everybody.

Speaker 2:
[23:11] I love these clips, Peter, because I can tell that you really believe in the mission. And that is free and open dialogue, open debate, civil debate. We opened the show today talking about Hasan Piker, who's promoting an idea called social murder, which is basically you can justify all sorts of terrible evil things, including assassination and murder culture. You here are representing our vision, the Turning Point vision of open dialogue, Charlie's vision of civil debate, civil discourse, the things that make this country great and have made this country great for now 250 years. Why is that so important to you? And do you see the, I guess, the building, the gathering of momentum for those beliefs, or do you see that they're declining?

Speaker 5:
[24:00] I really do feel that the point where my, as I said last night, my goal and my role at this university and in this chapter became clear to me was after what happened to Charlie. Because the only reason that what happened to him occurred was because people have stopped having those conversations. Ten years ago, civil discourse was just another thing that happened every day. People would talk about the tough issues, but it wouldn't be something that would make you say, I don't want my family at Thanksgiving because they're supporting this candidate. Now we're at this point where people don't talk to their family members because they figured out who they voted for. I think that that's probably one of the craziest examples that exists. But it really goes down to the fact that people don't talk about the issues anymore. Because if we talk about the issues, I find more often than not when we table that even the craziest of liberals, with notable exceptions, will find common ground with them, and we'll shake hands after the conversation and they'll walk away and I feel good about it, and I'm sure they do too. That's the kind of thing that I know Charlie was promoting and doing every time that he went on a college campus, and that's what I think we need to keep doing, and that's what I mean when I say continuing his legacy.

Speaker 2:
[25:16] Yeah, God bless you, man. There's this graph that I've thrown up on the show a lot, but it's something that I keep with me, actually. It was taken by YouGov and The Economist, September 12th through the 15th, 2025. And so this is just a few days after Charlie's murder, and I would suspect that even some people that were polled on this probably didn't say exactly what they thought because of the rawness of Charlie's murder. So I actually think these numbers would be higher. But if you look at that left side of that graph in that blue bubble up at the top, what that reveals is about 29% of 18-39-year-old self-described liberals, progressives, believe it is justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals. Almost one-third, essentially, of 18-39-year-olds believe that violence is justified to achieve political goals. What do you think when you see that graph, Peter?

Speaker 5:
[26:25] I think that is the result of spending eight years calling one political ideology Nazis and fascists. Because when you label somebody something that's been historically demonized, right? I mean, Nazis were bad people. But when you label an entire ideology as that, violence doesn't seem like it's unacceptable. And I'm sure that that's what's gotten into the minds of plenty of people on the left. And that's why we see so much violence toward alternative opinions. Turning Point is another one of those trigger words. It's kind of funny because I've been told that I lead a white supremacist club on campus. But I'm not white. And neither is our vice president or our treasurer or our secretary. And I know that sounds like DEI, but it is not. They're just very, very strong believers in the conservative movement.

Speaker 2:
[27:20] Great. Peter, well done again. Great event last night. Huge triumph. And I want to ask, you had Attorney General Ken Paxton there last night. I don't know if you got to interact with him at all. What is the vibe on campus when it comes to this Senate race that's looming in Texas? Paxton versus Cornyn. Do you guys talk about it? What's the vibe?

Speaker 5:
[27:42] I got to say that's one of the things that doesn't seem to come up too often. I know that when we when we table, we like to mention voting and all that. But I do know a few people are really, really excited about getting Cornyn out of there since he's been there since 2002, which I think is one of the biggest problems we have in our entire government, is that people get to sit in Congress for 24 years. But I'd say there's not a huge buzz, but people know that it's an important race, especially within our club. And we were excited to have him come.

Speaker 2:
[28:20] Awesome.

Speaker 3:
[28:20] He's been there since 2002, and he seems to think it's still 2002.

Speaker 2:
[28:24] He seems and he thinks it's his. I mean, there's a huge backlash, just I don't know, Peter, if you're aware, but everything that happened in Virginia, which we're going to get into at the top of the next hour with Ken Cuccinelli about what the courts are going to do with the redistricting in Virginia. But there was $100 million spent in the primary, not even the runoff, right? So it's probably going to tally up to $150 million to attack a Republican in that state. So it's a big issue there. What other issues are kids talking about? When you're tabling or when you're talking with your campus, the chapter members, what are people passionate about? What are young people thinking about right now?

Speaker 5:
[29:05] Totally honest. The thing that seems to come up more than anything else in conversation is the Epstein files. And everybody, anytime that we try to go on to another topic, and we will get productive conversations there, but everybody's saying, you know, I would just feel so much better about this administration and about our country if I knew why the pedophiles are being protected and why we haven't gone after them yet. And I have to agree with that sentiment.

Speaker 2:
[29:33] Yeah, interesting. So when you do you have a note for President Trump? I mean, I, you know, Turning Point is a C3 in your personal capacity, however, how would you like to see the administration handle this to make it easier for a student like you on campus to table and talk about it?

Speaker 5:
[29:48] I really just think that the I don't want to say maybe flip flopping is the right way to put it on on what the message about Epstein was where it's, oh, we're going to release it when we get in the office. Oh, wait, it's on my desk. Oh, wait, there is no file. And then they release it and all of the names of the people we want to go after are hidden. And I feel like it makes me have a little distrust. I can't lie. And I had right up there a Trump flag and I didn't take it down because I don't like him anymore. But I realized this flag is the most important one. And but I do really think that a lot of people who voted for him would have a lot more trust if those names and things like that were to be released because those are bad people and there's no doubt about that. And I think we all voted for Trump to see him make our country better. And I think a lot of the biggest way you can do that is to get rid of the bad people and bad people like that.

Speaker 2:
[30:51] Yeah, I think that was really insightful. And I'm not even saying you're right or that the vibes are right because I actually have thoughts about basically a lot of that. But it's very important that the people in power understand what kids like you feel about it. Do you see what I'm saying? So whether or not you could argue the details on that, and I know Blake has a lot of thoughts, but it's so important that they understand that this is the perception. Blake, I don't know if you have thoughts.

Speaker 3:
[31:20] I think that's very strong. I think you can complain about what the public thinks, but you can't override what the public thinks. You can't ignore what it thinks. And I think in all of our discussions with youth leaders, and we want honesty about this because that's the only way you can get truth. We have seen there has been a vibe shift in a way we wouldn't like over the past year. And we're basically six months away from an election. Besides those names, is there anything, maybe an issue that's less appreciated that people aren't talking about as much? Like what could be something the administration might come out, catch people by surprise that might excite conservative leaning students or those who were independents who gave Trump a shot in 2024?

Speaker 5:
[32:05] I'd say the two biggest things that I feel like our chapter focuses on a lot, I think there's a lot of people who think that the deportation efforts haven't gone far enough. Now I'm happy because when compared with the previous administration, the numbers are great. But I would also agree, I'm a son of a Cuban immigrant. My grandparents brought my dad here, started a new life in America, did it the right way. That's also something I love to bring up when people say, oh, you don't know what it's like. I said, I am Hispanic. I actually do know what it's like. But I think the immigration issue is certainly something that people are really focused on. They want more deportations. And also the position on pro-life and how I don't know how true that is, but I saw something that said that Planned Parenthood is getting funding again from the government. And I believe that to be one of the gravest evils that is in our country. And I wish that our government would stop funding it.

Speaker 2:
[33:04] I'm not sure I know the answer to that, actually.

Speaker 3:
[33:07] I'm not sure.

Speaker 2:
[33:08] I'm going to look into that. If that is the case, then I'm going to raise holy hell about it as well. So what about, we got about a minute and a half here, Peter. What about Israel?

Speaker 5:
[33:18] Yeah, that's another one. I think that it's something that one of our chapter members kind of got a little famous off of a clip at Amfest talking to Ben Shapiro about it. And he, a lot of people agree with him. And I can't say that I'm fully one way or another on it. But I do know, as I said before, this is the flag that I care about. And when I cast my vote in 2024, my intention behind that was that I want our president to serve us. And I'm not saying Trump's not, but I want our government, the people who we elect to serve us. And I can't lie when I say it feels like that hasn't really changed a ton since the last administration, because you have Biden, right? And money is going to Ukraine, money is going here, money is going there. And I still see those checks being written out to other countries. And I'm wondering, hey, I mean, other than the border, which of course is a great thing, what other issues are we handling with the money? Because that money could go to homeless people in New York City. I'm from New York. There's so many things I just wish that the money we are sending to other countries who have issues could be put in for issues in our country.

Speaker 2:
[34:38] Well, Peter, again, I think there's important details to all of these topics that could be in the administration's favor. But I think it's, I didn't want to argue, and I think your perspective is so valid and so important to hear. And I'm going to clip this up and put it on social so they can. Peter Fernandez, great job last night at Baylor University, one of the truly great leaders we have. I wasn't expecting this, I have to say. But death of recess, it stopped me in my tracks. This isn't about dodgeballs and jungle gyms. It's about control. The modern American classroom didn't just happen. It was intentionally designed. It was standardized and centralized. And once you see who built it and who protects it, everything clicks. Billions of dollars are flowing through education bureaucracies every year. Test scores collapse and somehow the answer is always more money and less parental authority. The documentary breaks down how organizations like the NEA amassed enormous influence, how radical gender ideology entered classrooms and why something as basic as recess, movement, freedom, childhood, you know, had to go. That's not random. That's systemic. Institutions protect themselves. They do not protect your kids. And that's why this documentary exists on Angel Studio streaming platform Angel Guild. Angel Guild is willing to distribute films that challenge powerful systems when legacy media won't touch them. So right now go to angel.com/charlie and watch Death of Recess right now. If you're a parent or plan to be, you need to see this. That's angel.com/charlie and watch Death of Recess.

Speaker 6:
[36:20] Breaking tonight, a circuit court in Virginia ruled a short time ago within the past two hours that the redistricting referendum passed by voters yesterday is unconstitutional. The judge is now blocking certification of the election and denying a motion to stay pending appeal.

Speaker 2:
[36:38] So big news out of Virginia. We have been following this story closely. I have all credit to Blake. He's been forcing us and actually I was very into it. I didn't fight him on it, but he's been banging the drum on Virginia for quite some time now. We've had a number of guests trying to raise the alarm, trying to raise awareness about Virginia. We lost barely in a very winnable race, but there still remains legal troubles for this new map. Here to help us unpack that is Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of the state of Virginia. Should have been governor as a matter of fact, and a really brilliant legal mind. Ken, welcome back to the show.

Speaker 7:
[37:15] Good to be with you all.

Speaker 2:
[37:16] Yeah. So it's the first time having you back on after Charlie. And so it's good to see you honestly. It's good to see old faces that we've had on and have you back on. And we're trying to hold it down and we're just honored to have you here. And you're brilliant legal mind that Charlie really respected. And you've been out in the public saying, hey, not so fast, everybody. There could be still problems for this map. Tell us your thoughts on it and what you see that's going to happen here.

Speaker 7:
[37:42] So the way the Democrats jammed this through, they broke the rules. I know that will shock everyone. But like many states, Virginia's Constitution, so this is state constitutional issues we're talking about, not federal. So the no federal courts will be involved in most of these decisions. But our state constitution requires that if you want to amend the Constitution, in this case to get rid of our bipartisan redistricting commission, which is what they were doing, you have to pass an amendment through the General Assembly, have an election of the General Assembly, and then have what's called second passage, and then at least 90 days have to go by before it is submitted to the voters. But let's review what happened. Virginia has 45-day elections thanks to the Democrats. The last time they had three-way control, governor in both houses, they gave us 45-day elections, and they didn't do first passage of this amendment until Halloween last year. Now, a reminder to folks that Virginia is one of those states that has odd year elections. Abigail Spanberger was elected governor last year. I didn't particularly appreciate that, but it was in the odd year. Well, they did this on Halloween, but voting started on September 19th, six weeks before. Over a million people had already voted, and they wanted to count that election as the constitutionally required intervening election. And that's going to be very challenging for them to pull off. That was problem number one with that effort on Halloween. The other problem was they claimed to be in a special session. A lot of state legislatures, unlike Congress, they do very discrete sessions. We only have a 45-day or 60-day session in Virginia. They were claiming that the special session called in May of 2024 to finalize a budget was still alive and open, and they could propose the constitutional amendment in it. And the problem with that is that get outside the boundaries of what the special session was called, for which it was called, you need a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. And of course, they don't have that kind of a majority in Virginia, and Republicans would never go along with it. So there was no two-thirds vote. Those two issues are in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia right now as we speak. The ruling that you ran the Fox piece on from yesterday, from Tazewell Circuit Court, is a third constitutional challenge. Because the second time they passed the amendment was January 16th, I want to say, of this year, 2026. And the Constitution says, there must be 90 days between second passage and when it is submitted to the voters. Well, the referendum end date, April 21st, was more than 90 days later. But because we have that 45 day election, this was submitted to the voters on March 6th. And the judge in Tazewell said, that's not 90 days, folks. You have violated this part of the Constitution again. And so he threw it out for that reason. And on top of it, there were statutory reasons as well, like the unfair ballot language and so forth. But there are just so many. We could list it. The judge put a laundry list together yesterday of ways they violated the Constitution and laws of Virginia, to his credit. But this is going to go fast in the Virginia Supreme Court. They are hearing oral argument 9 AM on Monday. I think they will probably rule in just a couple of weeks.

Speaker 3:
[41:40] So, I guess that's the obvious question. What's the setup of the Supreme Court? Do we have a reason to be optimistic? And I suppose if they don't rule the way we want, is there a potential for federal involvement in this case?

Speaker 7:
[41:53] So, our Supreme Court has behaved in a less political manner than most Supreme Courts have. It is 4-3 Republican-Democrat in terms of appointees throughout 2026, but I would foresee the possibility of a 7-0 ruling on the intervening election question before them, and possibly even the special session question. So the partisan question about justices would go away, if it was unanimous, of course. And the folks who barely squeaked by 51 1⁄2 to 48 1⁄2 on Tuesday with the referendum to undo our bipartisan redistricting, which, by the way, passed 2 to 1 in 2020. It was wildly popular. This referendum outspent the no folks by 3 or 4 to 1, and early on it was 10 to 1. So they needed all their money to get by, and now they have to win every single constitutional challenge to hold on to their win. We only have to win one. It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional for one reason or for four reasons. If it's unconstitutional, the referendum will be thrown out.

Speaker 3:
[43:11] So I know that there was already a lot of skepticism from the courts on all these questions that you bring up, and yet they allowed the referendum to go forward anyway. The worry that goes in my heart is, I can just see the courts coming up with some excuse where they would basically say, you know, there's these constitutional questions, they seem really bad, but could we really overturn the expressed will of the people, as shown in this referendum? I'm worried that the entire setup was to engineer that excuse that they could offer.

Speaker 7:
[43:42] Let me ease your heart a bit. So the reason the earlier two constitutional questions that went up to the Supreme Court were held there, and they let the referendum go forward, is that we have over 100 years of precedent in Virginia that treat the vote of the people as part of the legislative process that has to be completed before courts can take up any of the issues related to the referendum. It's very much analogous to the governor signing or vetoing a bill. The court would never take up, we got an assault weapons ban coming, I expect to sue on it, but I'm not going to sue until the governor either signs or vetoes the bill. Of course, she vetoes it, I won't sue. But that completes the legislative process. And the courts will not, as a matter of separation of powers, take up a challenge to a law or a referendum until after the legislative process is complete.

Speaker 2:
[44:43] That's really thorough there, Ken. Former Attorney General of the great state of Commonwealth, that's how we do it, right? Great Commonwealth of Virginia. And you should have been governor. You, okay, so the reason I bring this up, Ken.

Speaker 3:
[44:58] I was talking to you about it.

Speaker 2:
[44:59] Totally.

Speaker 3:
[45:00] This referendum.

Speaker 2:
[45:01] You do it, Blake.

Speaker 3:
[45:02] This referendum, we threw no money at it. And then we end up losing by less than 100,000 votes. And I was telling Andrew, I used to live in Virginia and I've been around the block a bunch of times and I moved to your state in 2013. And I remember that race. Ken Cuccinelli, he can't win. Let's not spend any money on this. And you lose by 100,000 votes.

Speaker 2:
[45:24] Yeah. And there was a Libertarian in that race, right? That siphoned some of the vote for you as well. You could have been governor, should have been governor. And now here we are, fast forward, 2026. And we have all these court questions that you're making really good points on, Ken. But we shouldn't even have to get there because listen, so I just want you to kind of give your POV. I don't mean to make this political. You're very legal minded and you're pretty good about staying above the fray. But what does that mean to you as a Virginian and an American, as a conservative, when you see the way that we are prioritizing different races around the country? Ken Paxton versus Cornyn in Texas comes to mind, $100, $150 million, blown on RVR fighting. What do you think, Ken?

Speaker 7:
[46:08] Well, certainly in this referendum, the money that did come to our side came late. And so, let's break out the voting. We have three types of voting in Virginia. I told you we have 45 days of voting, thanks to the Democrats. No state needs 45 days of voting. That's silly. But the in-person voting, the in-person early voting, yes beat no by about a point and a half. It was actually only half of the margin of the total. On election day, and that was about 29% of the vote. On election day, our side won 54-45 in-person voting on election day. That was about 56% of the vote or so. But where they won the race was the mail-in balloting, which they won by 45 points. Even though it was only 11 or 12 percent of the total vote, the margin was so big. This is where your supposedly non-partisan, non-political entities that people get tax deductions to support and their donations are not reported in election spending. This is the kind of dark money that the left loves while ranting against dark money, and we got hammered with it in Virginia for sure. You need that money early to run a mail program. You don't just stand a mail program up at the last second when money starts to come in. So we got hurt in two different ways because of the amount of money and when it arrived.

Speaker 3:
[47:48] Now, I know we've seen some complaints on X and other venues where people have said, I mean, the classic thing is Fairfax always drops their votes last. Some people have said mail-in votes came out last. Do you think there's any signs of foul play or do you think we should focus on just the money stuff, the constitutional questions and so on?

Speaker 7:
[48:12] Well, first of all, we should absolutely focus like a laser beam on the constitutional questions. We are believers in constitutions and we are in our well-positioned to rely on it to protect us here. Constitutions in part are to protect minorities and to reign in governments, and that's exactly what's happening here in Virginia. We have a good chance of winning on that basis alone. So, you know, there are a lot of other issues. There's national political consequences of this, and that's how the Democrats argued this. They ran against Trump. You know, they said Trump is terrible and he's trying to take Congress. So we need to skew our map 10 to 1, and because there are national reasons. And that's a pretty rare and new power play. I mean, the people voting yes knew what they were doing. They knew they were just grabbing power. And they're risking an escalation here. The pendulum does swing, right? I am a believer in our Virginia court system as it stands now. I think the Virginia Supreme Court will strike this down. And I think the Democrats will have wasted $70 million of money that could have gone to other places. But to your point, we ended up with around $23 million being spent on our side, so about $3 to $1 or more. If that had come earlier, we would have won. If there had been more of it, we probably would have won on the vote without the legal fight. So there's always a limited amount of money. And where it gets spent is always controversial. But it does drive me crazy where you get so much establishment money that far and away their first priority has nothing to do with principles. It's just protecting their own power. So here we are complaining about a power grab by the Democrats. And it happens on the Republican side too, in how they keep, gather and spend money.

Speaker 2:
[50:14] Yeah, Ken, I totally agree. And we're going to see it, by the way, in South Carolina as well with Lindsey Graham. So just keep your eyes out for that. But Ken, what about Fairfax to his point? They always hold their vote back.

Speaker 7:
[50:23] Yeah, so that's, first of all, it's big. And Fairfax likes everybody to think they're well run. It's not that well run. It just isn't. And so there's a lot of just they're lumbering along. They're the biggest oaf in the race. And so don't read too much into it. We do have to pay attention because Fairfax was caught cheating in Youngkin's race in 2021. They were handing out ballots without voter ID for mail-in ballots, hundreds of them. So they do have a history of cheating. But I haven't yet seen that scale that would have turned this vote.

Speaker 2:
[51:04] Ken Cuccinelli, please, if somebody offers you a job in the DOJ, please take it. That's all I'm saying. Great to see you again and thank you for your really important analysis there. I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face, and that's health insurance. There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith-based alternative to health insurance. This is real stuff, folks. You've got to listen in. With CHM, you're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need. Because they're not insurance, you get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. If you want to see massive savings in your healthcare budget, CHM has four low-cost programs for every stage of life, starting at just $115 a month. Plus, you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith. Start today by visiting chministries.org/charlie and use promo code Charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's chministries.org/charlie and use promo code Charlie. You know, Charlie used to talk about rubber rooms a lot. Do you remember that?

Speaker 3:
[52:39] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[52:40] He was really, really not a fan of rubber rooms. And we're going to get into that. Blake, why don't you take us away?

Speaker 3:
[52:46] All righty. Well, this is an interesting segment that we've heard about. As you said, yeah, Charlie used to talk about rubber rooms. For those who've forgotten, that's the classic thing in American public education. Our public schools have unionized teachers across the vast majority of the country. That gets them a lot of benefits for them. And one of them is they're very difficult to fire. Is that good for our kids? Is that good for the country? Well, we're going to talk about that with John Manly. He is a partner at Manly Stewart Finaldi, and he's got a case about the Los Angeles Unified School District. John, are you there?

Speaker 8:
[53:23] Yes, sir. Hello.

Speaker 3:
[53:25] Welcome to the program. Why don't you just lay out for our viewers, what is going on with teachers in the city of Los Angeles?

Speaker 8:
[53:32] Well, we've had cases against LA USD since 2012. When the Supreme Court first allowed people to file against school districts. In most states, you can't sue a school district, even if they know that a teacher has molested kids, and they don't take them out of circulation. They allow them access. Fortunately, we changed the law. But to give you a scope nationally, there's two national studies, one in 2004 by Carol Shake Shaft, who was hired by the Department of Education to examine how many children in public schools in this country, in K-12, will suffer some sort of sexual misconduct by a teacher or other school employee. The figure she came up with was 10 percent. That's in the George W. Bush administration. In the Obama administration, the Justice Department initiated another study, how many children in K-12 schools will be molested by, or suffer, excuse me, suffer some sort of sexual misconduct by teachers, administrators, school employees, et cetera. And what the Justice Department concluded, it's 10 percent. So to give you an idea, there are 57 million children in K-12 public schools in this country. That means every year 5.7 million kids will suffer sexual misconduct. That's more than the population of many states. LAUSD is perhaps possibly the worst example. They've paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle these cases. And it's important to understand in these cases, it's not enough to prove the abuse happened. Sadly, that's the easy part, because many of them are charged and convicted. We have to show a jury that the school district knew or should have known that this teacher was molesting kids and did nothing.

Speaker 3:
[55:31] Well, we've got a specific example when we were told about. Apparently, there are two teachers still employed by the Los Angeles School District who have been convicted of sex offenses, but they're either reassigned or they're even just assigned to fake jobs. Apparently, in LA. USD., their policies explicitly say you can just get reassigned instead of fired for sexually harassing students or apparently deliberately exposing students to pornography. Is that accurate?

Speaker 8:
[56:04] I think the two student teachers you're talking about were convicted of sexual offenses. What they were convicting of is knowingly failing to report someone who was molesting children, and that's Jesus Angulo and Maria Sotomayor. They themselves didn't molest anybody, but they pled guilty to violating or no lo, violating California's mandatory reporting laws. And by not reporting him, this individual who was molesting kids went on to molest more children and so they were charged by the DA, pled guilty. They were on a leave from the school district and then they hired him back. So what message does that send? And the message is, play ball with us, conceal and we'll take care of you.

Speaker 2:
[56:50] So this is not...

Speaker 8:
[56:53] Go ahead.

Speaker 2:
[56:54] I just wanted to pause there really quickly, because if you know about a crime and you do not report it, that makes you complicit. And I think that there is some weird cultural phenomenon. I've been thinking about this a long time, because you think about what happened with Charlie and there was all these people that seemingly knew that something was going to happen that day. And it's one of the things I pull my hair out about, candidly, that there hasn't been more action on it. I'm trying to work proper channels and get action on it. But the point is, if you know something is going to happen, if you know something did happen, you are morally and legally obligated to report that, so justice can be done. And so I feel like what's probably happening here is you've got the unions and they're, you know, the people that are supposed to be protecting these teachers. They are not drawing the moral weight that is, you know, mandated by that crime, that inaction. And it frustrates me because there's no moral weight behind it anymore. If you know about a crime, you have to report it. And I don't know where we lost the plot as a society in that. I don't know where our bureaucrats lost the plot on that. You have to report it. And so I just, it makes me infuriated when I hear stories like that. It's just as bad.

Speaker 8:
[58:11] It should. It should. Let me tell you how bad it is. And this is largely driven by teachers union and school districts. And because most members of school boards actually are former teachers. Now, let me tell you, not all teachers are bad. In many of our cases, the teachers who are heroes are the ones who actually report. And you know what happens often when they do report? They get run over because they're, you know, they're a rat or something. Teachers unions nationally oppose mandatory reporting. Imagine someone who represents people who catch children and you oppose mandatory reporting of someone you suspect is a child molester. You know, people are exercised and rightfully so about Epstein. But Epstein had 200 or 300 victims. We're talking about thousands and thousands of children victimized in this country.

Speaker 2:
[59:01] This is morally repulsive to me to hear. I did not know that, John, that the teachers' unions nationally oppose mandatory reporting of crimes that they see take place. Are you freaking kidding me?

Speaker 8:
[59:15] Randy Weingarten, the American Federation of Teachers, absolutely. They've put stuff out on it, policies out on it. We're talking about third graders, little boys and little girls who are in schools and no, let me tell you a shocking statistic. So most parents, I think, assume if they send their kids to a public school and the school suspects and credibly suspects that the teacher, their child's teacher is a molester and they remove them from the classroom, they tell the parents, not the law, not the law in any state. In fact, LAUSD has a policy that says, well, the local administrator or the local superintendent, excuse me, may tell the parents, not shall, may. I have cases in LAUSD in Miramonte, the Miramonte case all over the district where teachers were removed from schools because they were suspected of child abuse, and parents weren't told. Children don't typically spontaneously report. If that teacher is in a classroom with children, MLS1, he probably or she probably MLS 20. And so you have people, you have little boys and little girls that are going through their whole lives that were molested that typically don't report till their 30s and 40s and living with this. And let me tell you, when this happens to a child, it is emotional murder. It is the worst, most evil thing. And I mean evil in the satanic, evil sense of the word.

Speaker 2:
[60:53] You know, we were talking earlier in our one about Hasan Piker talking about social murder. I want to talk about social murder. How about Randy Weingarten needs to be brought before Congress and explain herself for opposing something so fricking common sense as mandatory reporting of the molestation of a child?

Speaker 3:
[61:10] As we mentioned, another thing, since we're looping in Piker, he also believes private schooling should be illegal. So we're kind of creating this world. They want it to be required to go to public schools. And then these public school teachers aren't mandatory reporters, don't have to be fired for extreme misconduct in cases like this. And then just to paint another part of this, this school district, they just negotiated a new contract with the city of Los Angeles because they were going to go on strike otherwise, where their base salary, when you start fresh out of school, 70,000, and you can get $160,000 a year as a teacher in LA. USD.

Speaker 2:
[61:48] For failing to report molesters in your classroom.

Speaker 3:
[61:51] For nine months a year of work where you don't have to report molesters.

Speaker 2:
[61:55] This is obscene. I genuinely don't think that the average person understands that teacher, that the public school teacher unions, and Randy Winegarden, is opposing mandatory reporting of an incident, of a criminal, disgusting, evil, vile incident on young kids.

Speaker 8:
[62:15] They actually have reports on their website. You can go on it. If you search opposing mandatory reporting, teachers' union on Google, it will come up.

Speaker 2:
[62:22] What's their rationale, John?

Speaker 8:
[62:25] Well, what they say is, oh, we're going to separate families. They don't focus on the sexual abuse at all.

Speaker 2:
[62:31] What do you mean they're going to separate families? What do they even mean by that?

Speaker 8:
[62:34] Mandatory reporting doesn't just include sexual abuse. It includes child abuse and this sort of thing. And they basically say, look, we need to support parents, not report parents. But what they don't address at all is the sexual abuse component. And here's my theory. Imagine if the Catholic bishops in 2002 at the height of the pre-scandal took the position they opposed mandatory reporting. Imagine the reaction that that would have incurred. Imagine 10% of picket airlines, flight attendants were molesting children. Imagine the outrage that would occur. And here we have 10% of school of our America's children, America's children in public schools. And by the way, it's not like, you know, church. You have to go to public school. You have to go to school or your parents go to jail. So we're making people go to this place that's not safe. You know, we've hardened schools and put fences around them because of a fear of school shootings. I think we've had less than 300 kids tragically killed in school shootings. If those statistics are correct, and these are not my statistics, this is Barack Obama's administration statistics and George W. Bush administration statistics. We have a holocaust of children in public schools, and the teachers that are trying to stop it are punished.

Speaker 2:
[64:01] That's, that's, that's obscene. And I, you know, they're conflating two different issues here with this policy. But Randy Warringgarden is an absolute crazed lunatic leftist. And I'm, I'm not kidding. John, hearing this, I want, I want her dragged before Congress to explain herself on this. Blake, this whole mandatory reporting thing is true. We have, like, images of it. When mandatory reporting does more harm than good, tools for a new, new approach-

Speaker 3:
[64:27] More harm than good. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[64:29] More harm to them. Does your student have bruises all over his arm and is lashing out? Well, here's a new approach. You know, it's true. This is a real thing.

Speaker 3:
[64:38] We've built- I think a lot of people are not aware of just how much power these unionized teachers have. And keep in mind, when you have a union in the private sector, there's certain limits on what they can demand because if the company goes under, everyone loses. But when you have the union at the Los Angeles Unified School District, they're negotiating with people who are members of their own party, who actually have a political interest in placating them, and they can just soak taxpayers for it. It's a completely messed up arrangement, and they can just demand more and more and more. And the end result is your children are basically left as prey for predators, and they're subject to the state, basically.

Speaker 2:
[65:23] I mean, anyways, John Manly, you were about ready to hold forth, so please continue on with what you were saying.

Speaker 8:
[65:31] I wanted to give you an example in California what we're dealing with. So I think what I'll call the public educational establishment is afraid of, is that if Americans understand the magnitude and the scope of the molestations, that there's going to be a political volcanic reaction. So we have Assemblyman Robert Revis, who's the Speaker of the California Assembly, a guy named Senator Ben Allen who represents the Santa Monica Malibu area, and Assemblyman Ward who represents San Diego, and Assemblyman, I'm sorry, Senator John Weiner who represents San Francisco, who's currently running for Nancy Pelosi seat. Collectively, these individuals are trying to get a bill passed that would effectively eliminate the ability of parents to sue school districts when they knowingly allow a molester in a classroom. Instead, what they wanted to do is put together what they called a 9-11 style victims fund. Now, if you have to put a victims fund together, you have a massive problem. And fortunately, we, and actually, it was a coalition of Republicans and a few Democrats, heroic Democrats, who stood up and said, we're not doing this, this is wrong. We're not going to allow you to do this to children. And that's their solution to the problem. Their solution to the problem is effectively make it go away. Because every time we file a lawsuit in one of these cases, the perpetrator gets removed from the classroom, and most of the time, they get charged. Because of the failure to report, the widespread failure to report, the only two people, I've been doing this since 1997, I've ever seen charged in any abuse case, and I've probably done thousands, are those two people at LAUSD. That's it. The statute's two years for failure to report, and it's a misdemeanor. No one goes to jail. In the priest cases, what really happened is the bishops took notice of the liability, but what really stopped it is when, you know, people who were in high positions in diocese knowingly covered this up, they went to prison, it stopped. And the church adopted in 2002 this rule that said, hey, if we have a credibly accused priest, we're gonna disclose it. There are very few, very few current priest abuse cases because of those policies, and frankly, because of the courage of survivors that came forward. The public schools have nothing like that. There is no central list anywhere in any state of teachers who are abused. You can't figure it out. You can't go to the bar and say, was this lawyer disbarred? You can't do that on these sites. It's completely opaque.

Speaker 3:
[68:36] Well, I'm getting so angry. They're sending us more stuff. The outrageous justifications they do. This is more from the American Federation of Teachers, Weingarten's outfit. Mandatory reporting disproportionately harms black and indigenous children who are more likely to be involved in the child welfare system. This is sometimes due to implicit bias in mandatory reporters.

Speaker 2:
[68:54] This is crap, by the way. You know why that's crap? Because everybody in the LA US Unified School District is like minority. There's only, what, 10% white kids. So stop with this crap.

Speaker 8:
[69:06] All of our clients are Latino and black.

Speaker 2:
[69:08] Yeah, exactly. So stop with this crap. It's not you're not like it's us versus the world anymore. You are LA now. You are LA Unified School District. I'm going to play this Ted talk that you referenced before. It was a Shake Shaft, Cheryl Shake Shaft.

Speaker 8:
[69:22] Cheryl Shake Shaft.

Speaker 2:
[69:23] Yeah, SOT 28.

Speaker 9:
[69:25] Does this happen a lot? Yes. At any one time, 10 percent of elementary, middle, and high school students are the target of school employee sexual misconduct. That's 5.7 million students at any one time. As to the second question, why do school employees sexually abuse and exploit students? I now know the answer to that too, because they can.

Speaker 2:
[70:02] Five minutes to you, John.

Speaker 8:
[70:04] Yeah. Well, here's the really bad news. That woman published a book. Actually, she didn't publish it. Harvard University Press published it. Not exactly a bastion of right-wing thought. In December of 24, they published her book. She now comes to the conclusion, and I think rightfully so, the number is actually 17% of children are subject to some sort of sexual misconduct by school personnel in public schools. This needs to stop. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. We need national hearings, Senate or House hearings, on this issue. There is, to my knowledge, there has never been a public hearing anywhere on this topic. And, you know, I beg any right-thinking person, left-wing, right-wing, Democratic Socialist, Conservative, Republican, please step up for our kids because this is real. John, we deal with it every day.

Speaker 2:
[71:04] John, great stuff, really important.

Speaker 8:
[71:08] Thank you.

Speaker 2:
[71:08] We need to get some action items for folks, so we're going to revisit this. But thank you so much.

Speaker 8:
[71:13] Thanks, guys.

Speaker 7:
[71:18] For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.