Who Rules: Judges or the President?

Hey everybody, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. Charlie is out today.
So myself, Andrew Colvett, executive producer of the show, along with Blake Neff, anchor this hour. And we also welcome Senator Rick Scott to the show.
We talk about the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, how President Trump and the Trump administration defied a court order. We talk about national injunctions.
We talk about Trendy Aragua and the utter disarray of the Democrat Party, how we should best respond to that. This is an amazing episode.
Please consider joining members.charliekirk.com. That's members.charliekirk.com, your one-stop shop for being on the inside of the show, being on the inside of the team, joining our live calls, live events, all the things.
You get it? That and more. Please consider joining members.charliekirk.com.
Buckle up. 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 whygoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Everybody, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Andrew Colvett in for the one and only Charlie Kirk, who's a little under the weather today. Never fear.
He's on the mend. Full schedule this week.
Going to go straight from Phoenix over to Wisconsin for Rally with Don Jr., then over to Atlanta for a pastured summit. Full steam ahead, but he is on the mend.
So your prayers are appreciated, but he's doing better. Still getting better.
So I'm in the chair today. Always an honor to be with you.
I am joined by the one and only Blake Neff, who, if the show, you know, goes off the rails too much, we're just going to talk about Roman history. That's what we'll do, Blake.
Exactly. You and me.
I get to be the quizzer. So, Blake, there's so much in the news today.
Genuinely, a fascinating weekend that we had. I mean, we've got egg prices have been dropping off a cliff, thankfully.
The left loves that. We've got reciprocal tariffs coming in.
Scott Besson had a fascinating interview this weekend. Those are coming into effect on April 2nd.
The market's all up in arms. We're going to see what happens there.
This right-track, wrong-track polling is incredible, historic. We've got attacks against the Houthis that have been messing with our trade routes in the Middle East.
We've got the Alien Enemies Act, which is probably the big story of the weekend, Blake, and that's what we're going to start with. And then just polling in general.
So, you know you know, we were so, we were so used to getting

polling all the time during the election and the run up to the presidential election that it's kind of novel now to get a set of polls out that tell us anything about the way the country's feeling. Blake, let's start with the big news of the weekend.
And that is President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of like 1789.

It's over 200 years old.

This, this act. And he did it to deport a plane full of about 250 Trenda Aragua gang members, and he sent them to El Salvador.
Bukele was involved. While the plane is in flight, a judge orders this plane to be turned around.
He puts an injunction on it, says Trump doesn't have the authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. And the Trump administration defies that order, claiming that the plane was already in international airspace.
Therefore, the order was null and void. It did not apply to that situation.
The criminals, the Trenda Aragua gang members are now in El Salvador at the terrorism detention center there. But the controversy is ongoing.
Everybody on the left is claiming this is going to be a constitutional crisis. And actually, Blake, on the one hand, they might be right.
You're even hearing voices on the right now saying this is a constitutional crisis because these national injunctions by these district court judges, of which there are more than 200 of them, actually have, this has been a crisis that the Trump administration wanted to pick. They wanted to pick a fight.
And the question was, which was the right pick or fight to pick? Your take, Blake. Yeah, I mean, it is true.
We are headed towards some sort of constitutional showdown. We discussed I think we tweeted last week the number of nationwide injunctions from federal judges in the first two months of the Trump administration.
In fact, I think just in February alone was more than the first three years of the Biden presidency. And some of that's not super surprising because Trump has been very aggressive.
He has been very assertive. He's done more things that could provoke a nationwide injunction.
But at the same time you're getting to the point you're realizing there's going to be like if a district judge has the power to do a nationwide injunction and you have these judges who've been appointed by obama appointed by biden they've been radicalized to hate trump for a decade they're going to come up with a justification for a nationwide injunction on anything. And immigration is the best example.
During Trump's first term, this isn't well remembered, but during Trump's first term, you had judges ruling that Trump couldn't be deporting illegal immigrants, couldn't do his immigration enforcement stuff. I think this was maybe DACA related, but he couldn't do immigration enforcement stuff basically because he'd made anti-immigrant tweets during the campaign.
And so this showed that Trump was doing these things for hateful reasons. So, you know, Obama could have done it, but Trump couldn't because he was doing it with hate in his heart.
He had the wrong motivations. And so here, now we're coming around to, okay, like the president doesn't have the power like we have had an absolutely blown open border under biden unprecedented incursions and you have these judges issuing nationwide micromanagement of actually you need to turn these planes around right now or or else even though they're in international waters at that point like okay could the judge say actually the planes have to keep flying until they crash and you you have to move these troops elsewhere like you get to the point where the judges clearly think they can rule on absolutely anything nationwide and you don't want to reach the point where a president can just veto anything a judge does but at the same time we don't we one president.
We don't have whatever number of district court. We don't have 240 presidents nationwide who can all veto each other.
It is impossible to have a country in that way. And it's impossible to have a border in that way.
Well, I'm fascinated. I mean, you bring up an interesting point that we had over 200,000 or maybe depending on what the number is, it was either 10, 15.
Trump has said it's up to 20 million illegal migrants entering the country. Hard to know what that number is.
But, you know, there wasn't national injunctions saying, you know, Joe Biden actually has to enforce the border laws that we have on the books. There wasn't, you know, it only seems to work one way.
And I think that's ultimately where the frustration lies, is that they do a lot of judge shopping. And these activist, liberal judges view the judiciary, the role of the judges of the Article III courts in this country, they view it more from an activist lens.
So we're almost at a structural disadvantage because conservative judges tend to not overstep their boundaries as much, whereas an activist judge sort of feels the need to do so. Right.
And so there's actually it's easier for the left to activate this policy now. I don't think you should overstep that, Andrew, because we have we've definitely had nationwide injunctions under the Biden administration, under the Obama administration.
I think there were nationwide injunctions on provisions of Obamacare until that went to the Supreme Court. I think there have been nationwide injunctions on I think some gun-related stuff.
So there's definitely – There was some in the – Both have used this tactic. The Texas showdown.
No, no. absolutely.
I'm saying that by and large, one side does it more than the other. You alluded to as much.
Yes, Trump has been more active that would provoke more of a reaction from the left. But in general terms, this is a tactic that the left has employed far more successfully in far more times than has happened on the right.
And I think just by disposition, a conservative judge is less likely to go stick his foot into matters that he or she doesn't feel they need to. But yeah, it does happen, both sides, granted, point taken.
But what I'm also fascinated about, like, is this idea that of the strategy behind this. So they've essentially been itching for this fight in the Trump administration.
All of these national injunctions that have come down. There is a whole legal theory behind this where a district court is.
And by the way, this is there's act. There's more activities happening.
There's more people that are working on this behind the scenes. The theory is that a district court ruling should only apply to the people that are involved in it from the plaintiff and defendant standpoint.
It should not, therefore, be a nationwide injunction. And, you know, I think there's some strong, you know, historical rationale behind that.
But this idea that one judge can then essentially rule the country, at least in specific policies, is a very, very new phenomenon in the republic. And we can break all that down.
But this is the showdown of the early Trump administration. Can judges overrule the will of the people and the Article 2 vested powers of the presidency? That is the question.
That is the showdown that we are in. Gentlemen, let's get real for a second.
Are you frustrated with today's woke dating scene? The apps, the games, the endless swiping. It's a waste of time.
Finding a woman who shares your values, faith, family, and patriotism feels nearly impossible, but it doesn't have to be. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm, is changing the game.
They connect strong, successful men like you, men who love God, love America, and want a family with incredible women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith-driven women who put family first and still believe in traditional values.
Imagine that. If you're single, 35 to 40 years old, conservative man in Southern California, listen up.
Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for the real thing. Here's the best part.
Their candidate program is 100% free and confidential. So my closest friends have used Selective Search.
And let me tell you, they're meeting incredible women. This is your chance.
This is not an app. It's your answer.
The perfect conservative woman is out there waiting for you. Visit SelectiveSearch.com slash California today.
Let the professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like you in Southern California. Don't wait for the perfect moment.
Take action now. Go to SelectiveSearch.com slash California and start building the future you deserve.
Blake, so I mentioned before the break that I was really fascinated about the strategy of this. And so just to let people in behind the scenes

of what happened is they basically tried to, you know, oftentimes Trump will sign these executive orders really publicly. It's for all the world to see.
They did this in sort of secret where he's invoked the 1789 law, the Alien Enemies Act. And then it got leaked.
They found out about this. They rushed to get these 250 Trendaeragwa gang members, domestic terrorists, if you will, but from a foreign gang, on the plane as ASAP.
The thing goes to court. These guys are in the air as this ruling happens.
They say, well, over international waters. Do you think this was the right fight to pick just because of the optics? Because essentially it puts the Democrats in a place where they have to say, well, we're defending criminal gang members.
Do you think that's the right pick? Do you think this was the right fight to pick this with these courts? Well, if we were going to have a showdown with the courts, I think immigration is the best place to have a showdown with them. It's where we most consistently have judges trying to do things that are insane, where they're basically saying you're not allowed to deport any illegal criminals.
Like it's almost like 25 percent of the federal judiciary is just far left radicals who believe there's like Article One of the Constitution is just america has open borders no matter what and so it's a good fight to have in that sense i do hope that they're 110 on like all of this implodes immediately if they ever accidentally deport someone who is a u.s citizen for example so i hope they're 110 on that but if all of them of them are foreign gang members and they've come in huge numbers under Biden, that's definitely the best way that Trump can justify, I need dramatic action. It's also a good area to fight because the president's authority over immigration under the law is very high.
The president basically can exclude people that he deems a threat to the United States. The president, as commander in chief, has the very explicit constitutional authority to defend the United States.
And I think they're on strong grounds if they say, okay, maybe a hundred years ago, this would get invoked primarily during wartime. But these days, you don't have as much war between states, but you have far greater ability for non-state actors such as criminal gangs to just intrude into your country and cause mayhem.
And I think the Trump administration is on strong grounds to say that is the modern version of a military invasion, of a foreign horde showing up and trying to sack your cities and the president needs emerge like needs to invoke aggressive powers to combat this i'd much rather be having them showdown with the courts over this than you know for example over we'll probably discuss this later like the auto pen thing with biden i think this is something where the interest of the american people is very clear. And you're forcing Democrats into this box of defending, oh, yeah, we don't want gang members deported.
And eventually they'll be able to say this guy was involved in a home invasion. This guy was involved in murders.
This guy was caught with 10 kilos of fentanyl. There's so many things they can get them on.
Well, in this district judge, James Boesburg, you know, this is the judge that essentially stepped in and said that, you know, you can't be using the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to deport these 250 alleged Trendyrago gang members. This is also a guy, by the way, that gave Eric Cimarella, if you will recall from the FBI investigation of Trump, he was the one who falsified the actual FBI documents, which is a federal crime, a very serious one.
This is the same judge that basically gave him a slap on the wrist. So that's a weird little wrinkle here that some, I've heard other Republicans say, hey, this guy has it out for Trump.
He's an anti-Trump judge. You can't trust this guy.
It's a very serious crime that Cimarella committed against, well, the country, specifically targeting President Trump. And so that judge has come back around now and is a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.
My two cents here is that if you are going to pick a fight, the authority vested in the president to handle foreign activities, whether that be immigration or war or treaties with other countries, is pretty established within the courts. If you're going to pick a fight, do it there because it's the firmest footing that a president has constitutionally.
I love this. I think it politically, optically, I love all of it.
And I love that the White House was essentially, you know, specifically Stephen Miller was itching for this showdown with Article 3. So it's an Article 2 versus Article 3 showdown.
I think it's the perfect one to do it. Nobody likes Trendy Aragua.
They need to go. And the American people agree with them on that.
History, economics, the great works of literature. Did you study these things in school? Probably not.
Or even if you did, maybe it's time for an enjoyable refresher. Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses, including their newest course on totalitarian novels.
In this free eight-lecture course, you'll learn from Hillsdale College president Larry Arnn as he goes in-depth on four novels, 1984, Brave New World, Darkness at Noon, and That Hideous Strength. I love all four.
Even though these novels were written in the 1930s and 40s, they're highly relevant today as they show what a tyrannical government does to human nature. More importantly, they can show us that faith, family, and friends are worth fighting for.
Maybe you read these books a long time ago in school. Maybe you've heard others talk about them and they seem a little intimidating.
Let Hillsdale College, America's greatest college, help you make the most of them. Go right now to charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll.
There's no cost, and it's easy to get started. That is charlieforhillsdale.com, C-H-A-R-L-I-E for Hillsdale.com.
I mean, who in their right mind, whether you're a judge or not, wants known publics, TDA, a recognized terrorist organization, sent here by the Maduro regime to create havoc, to unsettle the United States, to use fentanyl to kill thousands of Americans, violence to American citizens, raping and murdering young women in this country. They are enemies of this country, and President Trump treated them as enemies, and we did exactly what we should have done.
Again, President Trump is going to make this country safe again. He's going to do it one illegal alien at a time.
And this weekend, we did 261. The great Tom Homan, border czar, friend of this show, friend of the country, friend of every patriot, telling it like it is.
There's another clip going around, and maybe we'll get to it, of him defending a 200-year-old no it wasn't the alien uh enemies act it was actually the constitution so good for tom homan good for the president i love this fight uh we are joined by the great senator from florida senator rick scott uh welcome to the charlie kirk show sir honored to have you uh thank you for making the time even though uh charlie's out sick today Well, I hope he feels better. I'm glad you're healthy.
Well, yeah, we're hanging in there. I got three little kids.
I'm surprised I'm not down as well. Usually they're passing around their germs very successfully over at the Colvett household.
Senator, I want to get your take on this uproar over the Alien Enemies Act, 1789.

Trump is invoking it to rid the country of Trende Aragua members.

Meanwhile, a judge, activist judge,

who's got a history with Trump, by the way,

comes in and says,

you got to turn that plane around.

The administration defies that order,

says it's over international waters,

continues down to El Salvador.

Bukele has our back, says too late, too bad. What is your take on this? Do you like this approach from the administration? Did they make the right call here? They made the right call.
Number one, thank God President Trump's the president, so he's going to try to keep our kids and our grandkids safe. I mean, who in their right mind, one, who filed a lawsuit? You don't care about kids and grandkids that might be raped or murdered or killed through fentanyl.
That's number one. Number two is, does this judge not have a family member that he cares about? He doesn't care about the crime in this country.
I mean, this stuff, this is stupidity. This is crazy what this judge has done.
But I don't know who filed the lawsuit and why they don't care about this country. So I'm glad that President Trump does.
I'm glad Tom Homan does. I want them to keep fighting every way possible to get rid of criminals, terrorists, people that are selling drugs to our kids and our grandkids and killing them.
I want them out of this country. I want people to be safe.
Yeah. And I think, you know, Senator, it occurs to me that we're going to get into some of this polling that we're, I mean, it's just shocking the polling that's coming out over this weekend from NBC, CNN.
But, you know, it shocks me that the Democrats seem to continually find themselves on the losing end of an 80, 20 issue and they keep doing it and they're digging their heels in. It seems like just to get Trump.
Um, I personally love the, that president Trump, Stephen Miller, the white house is picking this fight, uh, amongst all the other fights they could pick. Now there's some stat Senator where, uh, national injunctions.
There was more in the first month of President Trump's administration than there were in the first three years of the Biden administration. What can the Senate do? I know Chuck Grassley's chimed in on social media.
What can the Senate do as part of its role to rein in this judicial activism? Well, we've got to get Trump judges confirmed. So number one, we've got to make sure that, you know, Trump's White House counsel and Pan Bonney give us the names of those that they want to appoint.
Also, we've got to get new U.S. attorneys, you know, in position and U.S.
marshals. So the big thing we can do is, number one, do what Chuck Grassley talked about, is we've got to do everything we can to help the judiciary.
And then number two is we've got to make sure that President Trump has the resources. We need to get this reconciliation package done as quickly as possible.
So he has the resources to deport the tens and hundreds of thousands of people that should be deported from this country because they're doing illegal things. And I want this country to be safe.
Yeah, millions. I mean, Tom Homan, I think he's asking for like $170 billion.
And meanwhile, we're cutting everything else, which we should be. It's the one area of the federal budget that I think Americans are going to look at and say, yeah, we need more there.
Do you have high hopes now that we've gotten past this showdown with Schumer, which his base is very upset with him about Senator Scott. They're very, very mad.
And we're going to get into that in just a sec. Do you have hopes that the Senate is going to be able to move on from this CR showdown and get this budget reconciliation, one big, beautiful bill on the president's desk? Are you feeling good about our prospects there? Absolutely.
And here's what we're going to do. We're going to get the president money for the deportations.
We're going to plus up the military to make sure we can defend our freedoms. We're going to extend the Trump tax cuts, and we're going to start the process of balancing the budget.
I think all those things are going to happen. We've got to get 218 people in the House to vote for it, 51 Republicans in the

Senate. I think we're all going to come together to get this done.
So we all know why President Trump won. He won over the border.
He won over inflation. He won over a woke federal government, an unaccountable federal government.
So he's doing his job. I believe we're going to do our job and get all these things done.

I really hope that,

I think after the Schumer cave,

in... He's doing his job.
I believe we're going to do our job and get all these things done. I really hope that, I think after the Schumer cave, and it really was a cave, I mean, I think I like our chance.
I like our momentum, Senator. And I want to get into this.
Now people are talking about AOC primarying Chuck Schumer. You know, Chuck Schumer is just now, this is breaking this morning.
He's canceled a book tour, Senator. Let's go ahead and play cut 81.
We have learned that Schumer and Jeffries did meet behind closed doors yesterday in Brooklyn, trying to get back on the same page. They have huge and consequential fights ahead.
But the backlash from the left is real. In fact, Wolf, Chuck Schumer is scheduled to do a book tour in a number of cities on a book that he has authored on anti-Semitism.
He has just canceled that book tour, we are learning, because of protests that were scheduled from activist groups who wanted to go after his decision to agree and allow the government funding bill to go forward to avoid a government shutdown. They were furious at his decision to do that.
Senator, what do you make of this backlash to Schumer and his choice ultimately to fund the government? Break that whole scene down for us. You were there, you were inside the halls.
What happened? Well, here's what happened. Republicans came together.
We did what we should have done. We had a simple continuing resolution.
Now, none of us really want to vote for continuing resolutions because we wouldn't have passed budgets. But unfortunately, this started last summer when Chuck Schumer wouldn't bring these appropriation bills to the floor.
So we're stuck in the position we're in. We came together in the House.
Our Republicans came together in the Senate. And we said, we're going to pass this.
And so it was up to the Democrats to shut down government. Now, you had Democrats that clearly wanted to shut down government.
Andy Kim, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, and others, they wanted to shut down government. But what they realized, I think what Chuck Schumer realized is that was basically playing into Donald Trump's hands.
One, they would get known for the shutdown. And number two, it would give even more authority for President Trump to do exactly what he should be doing, reducing the size of the federal government, reducing the number of people in the federal government.
Because here's what we've got to do. We've got to stop growing the government and start growing the private sector.
What we've been doing under the Biden administration, and the same thing happened under Obama, is the government sector grew, not the private sector. We want private sector jobs, not more government jobs.
And that's exactly what Donald Trump is doing. You know, there's a crazy stat, Senator.
In the last two years of the Biden presidency, one out of four new jobs created were government jobs. One out of four.
And so when we talk about the blow... Yeah, Andrew, on top of that, they're part-time jobs.
We were losing full-time jobs, only adding part-time jobs. And people born in this country were not getting jobs.
Only people born out of this country. Some of them, I'm sure it'd become legal through the green cards and things like that.
But here's what we knew. It was getting more difficult for people that grew up here to get a job, easier for people that didn't grow up here to get a job.
I mean, that doesn't make any sense. So Donald Trump didn't walk in with a good economy.
Donald Trump walked in with an economy that was struggling, struggling for jobs, struggling with inflation, struggling with interest rates, all these things. He's committed to balancing the budget.
When we balance the budget, what's going to happen is interest rates are going to come down, inflation is going to come down. I think you're right.
Structurally, this economy was surviving on a sugar high. There was a bunch of monetary games being played to juice it for Kamala right at the finish line.
Trump has to get our economy back on stable footing with free and fair trade deals with

all these partners, especially the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and so on.

Now, Senator, I want—Charlie put this clip up over the weekend.

Your team said that you guys saw this.

So let's go ahead and play this.

This is right track, wrong track.

The country is responding really positively to the Trump agenda. Let's go ahead and play cut 64.
First of all, the mood of the country. This really jumped out.
We ask folks, is it on the right direction or the wrong direction? That 44 percent, you say right direction, that's up since November. And if that doesn't seem like a lot, the last time it cracked 40%, you got to go back to 2012.
The last time it actually hit 44 or higher, January of 2004. So a lot of this is Republicans, but independents, that number is also up since the election on the direction of the country.
All right. So I want to pair that, Senator, with one other clip.
So 44 percent of Americans think the country's on the right track. Meanwhile, Democrats are struggling.
Play cut 60. Americans' favorable views of the Democratic Party's brand are at a record low, just 29%.
That's compared to 36% for Republicans. It is the lowest ever recorded for Democrats in CNN polling going back more than 30 years.
As you can see, the party's numbers dropping a staggering 20 points in just four years. Now, this survey was taken before this week's tumultuous battle over funding the government, which resulted in one of the ugliest intraparty Democratic disputes in years.
Trump is just scrambling their brains. Meanwhile, the American people are seeing action and they love it.
Senator, one minute, your reaction to all of that? Well, number one, as I travel around Florida, people come up to me all the time. Aren't you excited? We're finally headed in the right direction.
And they just laugh at the Democrats because the Democrats are still focused on an open border, men playing in women's sports, some of the things that are completely appalling to most of this country.

So we're on the right track.

Democrats are on the wrong track.

I'm very optimistic about where we're going.

Well, Senator Scott, you are one of the good ones in the Senate.

You're fighting for us, the people, the base.

We got your back 100%.

Thank you for fighting as well to balance the budget.

I love that you brought up that phrase, balance the budget. We are like a heat-seeking missile on that.
We know we got to get through some of this stuff in the short term. We want to keep our eye on the prize, a balanced budget, a made-in-America economic boom, low inflation boom.
These are the prizes that if we stay the course, I really genuinely think we have a chance of seeing materialized in the near future. So thank you for fighting for that, sir.
And thanks for your time this morning. All right, Andrew.
We're going to get there. Bye-bye.
Amen. If you are a patriot in this audience and you have private student loan debt, or your brother does, or your niece does, or your nephew does, maybe you're just thinking back to Christmas or Thanksgiving, and someone's like, oh my gosh, I have these student loans, and I took them out, and I shouldn't have, and it was a private loan, and boom, you're just thinking like, wait a second, I remember that.
Well, that's why refi. That's where they come in.
They are not a debt settlement company, but they help you work with each borrower, you individually. Why refi does not care what your credit score is.
It may not be available in all states and bad credit is accepted. Do you have a co-borrower? Y-Refi can get them released from the loan.
You can give mom or dad a break. You can even skip a payment every six months up to 12 months without penalty.
You don't have to ignore. Go to 888-Y-Refi34.
Log on to Y-Refi.com. That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com.
YREFI.com may not be available in all 50 states. YREFI refinances distrust and defaulted private student loans, which are different from federal loans.
Go to YREFI.com. Y-R-E-F-Y.com.
That is YREFI.com. Blake, react, if you will, for a moment to the senator's comments.
I mean, you've got a Republican Party that seems there is chaos. There is tumult.
I mean, there's tariff craziness going on. But the Democrats are in disarray.
This reaction to Trump and his policies and the force of Trump, despite some of his own shooting himself in the foot sometimes, President Trump or the Republicans, we've got him on the run. There's no doubt about it.
Yeah, they're in disarray for sure, but I think you want to be careful about these because it's getting very caught up in the moment-to-moment of the political noise. And the truth is is is i mean the democrats are half the country they're inevitably going to get together and they could get together in ways that could be pretty scary like yeah if chuck schumer is getting denounced by everyone in his party for making the deal on spending that's a sign that they could shift in a more in a more radical direction that's scary for us because they'll have scarier ideas for America.
But it doesn't even necessarily mean they'll be more popular. I think we saw that in this past election.
There's a lot of people who were Bernie supporters who became Trump supporters. They're not people necessarily just moving to the right.
They're people who almost, they're just dissatisfied with the Democratic Party

as it is. They could be won over

by a party that's like Medicare for

all, you know, way

more burn it all down on a bunch of other stuff.

It's like, their position is

I want to blow up the system and I don't

really care how they do it.

And so we should be prepared for that, for sure.

Yeah,

to your point, it reminds me of Republicans saying I'm just so disaffected with the Republican Party. We're going to go to the Patriot Party.
All right. So, Blake, I'm going to play this clip and get your reaction.
59. The grassroots is furious, right? Most of the caucus is furious.
I never before, my parents were Democrats. I've been a Democrat my entire life.
Never before did I say, I should leave this party.

Because if democracy is at risk, and you had no idea what to do, and you have no plan,

and even now at this moment, you know nothing of what to do, and you're capitulating to this?

This is disgusting.

Are you thinking about leaving the Democratic Party?

Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Yes, me personally, yes.

I'm not an elected official, but I have always voted with the Democrats.

Over this issue? Yeah, over the inability to figure out what to do in the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face Over this issue. Yeah.
Over the inability to figure out what to do in the face of fascism and the rise of Trump. Yeah.
So the big thing with it is just that they're disaffected, but it's not it's certainly not a disaffected where they're going to say, you know, I guess I was wrong about Trump. I want to support him.
They're angry because they feel they're ineffective at resisting Trump. And that reminds me a lot.
I think we remember, like, that's kind of what the Tea Party felt like in 2010. It was a lot of anger at a perceived ineffectiveness of Republicans, that they were without direction, that they betrayed the party on important issues.
And that, of course, led to a pretty big wave election in 2010 for Republicans who branded themselves differently. And then on a longer time basis, it set up the candidacy of Donald Trump.
So I definitely want to tamp down. We can't have too much triumphalism on the right where it's just, oh, wow, those Democrats are in disarray.
Because what you're really seeing is you're seeing fertile ground for new leaders to

emerge they might have some sort of demagogic figure take a hold of their party that they're able to like whip up the base into again like i said a more radical direction that could still be electorally potent uh so i i would strongly push back on anything where we're in great shape because Democrats are angry with each other

because that can very easily turn into a potent new force. Now, that doesn't mean you want to slow down.
You want to take advantage of their disorderliness to get things done because that's the point of politics is to get things done. I totally agree.
We always have to be vigilant. I think the difference between this conservative movement and one of the eras past is we are more vigilant.
We are more activated. There's a really powerful graphic, actually, if I can pull it up just really quick, that shows the power of the conservative media world compared to Democrats right now.
These are unprecedented times. And I have the team throw this up really quick.
And actually, Charlie is prominently featured in this display. But it shows the conservative media sort of, if you will, ecosystem versus the Democrat ecosystem.
If you see, there's a lot more red blobs out there. And I think this is actually what they're freaking out about, Blake.
I think Democrats have been so accustomed to dominating media, dominating narrative from the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN, and MSNBC, and so on, that they are not sure how to react because everything that they're throwing at the wall doesn't seem to stick because all of those red bubbles in there, and Charlie's up in the upper left-hand corner,

if you're watching this, are able to push back against the lies and nothing is sticking. So

even when there's turmoil or chaos, and some of the cell phones from the Trump administration,

which do happen, we're able to push through it, unlike previous moments. Thanks so much

for listening, everybody.

Talk to you soon.