Leftist Sydney Sweeney Gaslighting, Beyonce Joins Discourse, and New Russiagate Revelations, with Charlie Kirk and Michael Shellenberger

Hi, we're Mochi Health, your long-term weight loss solution.

We'll connect you with a board-certified provider to discuss your unique goals.

Eligible patients can access custom-formulated GLP-1 medications at an affordable fixed price, delivered to their door monthly.

Take our free eligibility quiz at joinmochi.com and use code Audio40 at checkout for $40 off your first month of membership.

That's joinmochi.com.

Results may vary.

Eligible GLP-1 patients typically lose £1 to £2 per week in the first six months with Mochi when combined with a healthy lifestyle.

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start.

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is.

With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.

We have Charlie Kirk coming up in just a moment, but we're going to begin with explosive new revelations on how the Obama administration pushed the Russiagate hoax.

There's a whistleblower now coming forward who's still inside CIA.

That person has spoken to Michael Schellenberger.

And Michael has a new exclusive that he's going to talk to us about right now.

The whistleblower says CIA Director John Brennan had an almost quote pathological need for control over the 2016 investigation that would frame Donald Trump as a Russian puppet.

Michael's the founder of Public News on Substack and chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin.

I've been talking a lot about Riverbend Ranch steaks lately, and for good reason.

The ranch is just a few miles from West Yellowstone, Montana, and their steaks are incredibly flavorful and surprisingly tender.

Listeners have shared similar feedback.

Riverbend Ranch raises Angus cattle, but they've taken it further.

For 35 years, more than three decades, the owner has selectively bred Angus cattle with superior genetics for marbling and tenderness, creating a herd that truly stands out.

Their beef is born, raised, and processed entirely in the U.S.

without artificial growth hormones or antibiotics, and it's shipped directly from the ranch to your door.

Riverbend Ranch is not just another beef company, it's a legacy of quality care and craftsmanship that you can taste in every bite.

Order from RiverbendRanch.com and use promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order.

And let me know what you think.

That's riverbendranch.com, promo code Megan.

Michael, welcome back.

Great to have you.

How are you?

Good.

Good to be with you, Megan.

Okay, so walk us through it like we're little babies in the crib.

You have a whistleblower who worked on what would eventually be known as the January 17 ICA or intelligence community assessment.

And just so the audience knows, and I think they basically have a basic understanding now from our reporting, that there was one presidential daily brief that was about to go to Obama in December of 2016 saying the Russians, they really, they...

They didn't succeed in interfering in any meaningful way in our election.

They did not hack voting machines.

And it was going to downplay Russian interference.

And then

they stopped the presses.

Obama interfered and said, hold on.

And there was a memo saying per the president's directive and they're going in a new direction.

Lo and behold, what happened next was we're going to do a new assessment and we're going to see what Russian interference was.

Immediately, the media started reporting.

It was huge.

They interfered in everything.

They tried to help Trump.

So the answer to the homework was delivered to the media before the homework had been done.

And then when the homework was officially delivered in January of 17 to Obama, shock of all shocks, it said what Obama wanted it to say, which was Russia, Russia, Russia, they wanted to help Trump.

And off we were on the collusion allegations that would dominate the Trump first term.

So now you have spoken to a whistleblower still inside the CIA who worked on that 17 ICA.

And this person is telling us what.

Well, yeah, so this person, just to put it in context too, I mean, this was one of four analysts at the CIA, one of, and there was also two to four analysts from the National Security Agency, which of course does signals intelligence, and then two other analysts from the FBI.

These were the people that were involved on that.

They were on the drafting committee to write this ICA intelligence community assessment.

And what this person said was that really Director Brennan, CIA Director Brennan, really rode roughshod over the process, that Brennan demanded that the ICA include the debunked steel dossier.

This was a piece of fraudulent memos that suggested that Trump was being sex-blackmailed by President Putin.

It appears that Brennan coordinated with the FBI, that the FBI insisted that this steel memo be included in the ICA.

The analysts were misled by Brennan, thinking that, oh, he was on their side.

In fact, Brennan also wanted wanted to keep it in the ICA.

And then, as you quoted there, this person said that Brennan had a pathological need to control this process.

Totally inappropriate.

I think it's important for people to keep in mind that, you know, we think of spying, the sort of the glamorous world, the James Bond, the people, you know, the human intelligence, or maybe even some of the, you know, the cryptography and the signals, but so much, so much importance is on the analysis because that raw intelligence has to be interpreted.

It has to be put in context.

And of course, it doesn't make for a very good Hollywood movie, a bunch of people just sitting around their computers.

But the directorate of analysis at the CIA is incredibly powerful because they're, in fact, more powerful in many ways than the people gathering the intelligence because they're the ones that are waiting at deciding how credible certain things.

So when that process is corrupted, and of course, one of the most famous recent ones is that the CIA process of analysis was corrupted around the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This is on par with that.

In fact, several people have said that this is the worst corruption of the analysis project, of the analysis process within the CIA since the weapons of mass destruction.

This person also said that they were under duress.

That was their language in describing Brennan's insistence that this fraudulent steel memo, again, that was commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign,

that they were under duress to include it.

This person expressed a significant amount of anger at

the CIA Director Brennan.

And of course, all of this is coming at a time.

You know, we published yesterday, the day before yesterday, the Attorney General Pam Bondi said that they were seeking to prosecute and seek indictments for a grand jury.

And it seems very likely that Director Brennan, ex-Director Brennan, would be one of those individuals.

Michael, can you answer why we're only learning about all of this now?

Like, why John Durham was a special count,

special, special prosecutor

appointed, counsel, appointed to look into this.

And he was a fair guy.

He wasn't a leftist bent on destroying Trump, to the contrary.

So why didn't he find all this stuff and indict people accordingly back in 2020?

Well, it appears that the intelligence community used the secrecy of their intelligence to hide a lot of information.

And so there's been a lot of documents that have come out.

One of the most important ones is the annex to the Durham report, which is, of course, this investigation that was done into how did the Russia gate hoax start in the first place.

That annex was quite extraordinary.

We also reported on it.

I think I spoke to you about it.

I know you reported on it.

Basically, what we did was.

We let our show going through your report bit by bit.

You weren't available because you were on a plane, but it was great reporting, and we walked it through with our audience about those Russian emails that had been unearthed by the Dutch and then shared with us showing Hillary Clinton's emissaries both pitching the campaign to take down Trump and distract from Hillary's email problems with these fake lies about Trump and many other things.

Keep going.

Yes.

Well, and so fascinating, these pieces all start to connect.

The FBI was dismissive of that intelligence, the FBI being a very politicized organization.

The CIA analysts said that that intelligence, as you said, gathered by the Dutch,

spying on the Russians,

that the CIA said that that intelligence was credible.

They said that it wasn't fabricated by the Russians.

And that those emails and other documents sort of showed that Clinton had this plan to smear Trump as a Putin puppet.

And so then you see this plan goes right from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

into the FBI and into the CIA.

But I think it's important to point out that

apparently there was objective, honest CIA analysis that showed that it was real intelligence, and maybe that was part of the reason, or clearly, that was part of the reason.

Certainly, the person that we interviewed made clear that the analytical analysis was good.

The problem was Brennan was corrupting it.

On terms of the steel dossier, this person said that all of the analysts were in agreement that it absolutely should not be included in the intelligence assessment and that they had the support of everybody up the chain.

This person said, including all of the Russia experts who just looked at it and said, this is total garbage.

And so what you see here is that I think what we're seeing, just to kind of sum it all up, is that there had been a lot of theorizing about the nature of this conspiracy.

And I use that word deliberately.

It was a secret illegal, secret illegal behaviors.

There's a lot of theorizing about it.

It really all turned out to be correct.

And now what's happening is that the evidence is coming in to support the theories that people had been putting out there, which made sense from various behaviors that people had.

But we now know, given the documents that have come out and this really extraordinary person who has spoken to us, who has given us this inside view, you know, I also think there's just, you know, the CIA, they really do

protect their own, you know, for better or for worse.

And so it's disappointing that there were no whistleblowers from the CIA coming forward until now.

There was obviously people involved, but that's just not how they roll.

And

I was only to get this person to speak on the condition that I would not reveal their name, which of course I agreed to.

But I think

you've gotten this person.

Hopefully these other CIA analysts, I hope other CIA agents and analysts who are part of this now see you as a viable option to go to.

And the anonymity for now should be protected.

And hopefully they'll get to the point where they say you can say who they are because we need all of them to tell us what actually happened here.

I mean, it's shocking.

And what we're getting right now from the other side, and I love Dave Ehrenberg, he's one of my favorite guests.

He was the Palm Beach County state's attorney.

He's a Democrat, but we had him on yesterday.

We were talking a bit about this, and he was saying, well, you know, that stuff is, that's been dismissed as Russian disinformation.

Like that, that the reason that never made it past the John Durham annex, it didn't make it into the John Durham report.

You know, those emails amongst the Hillary acolytes saying, we need to come up with a Trump is a Russian asset plan to distract from our emails.

And then this guy,

Leonard Bernardo, who

he wrote those plans down and the Russians saw his emails.

They did hack his emails and the Dutch saw it.

Dave's point was that Durham and others feel that was Russian disinformation.

And that's why he's saying you shouldn't credit that this was all a Hillary Clinton plot, that the FBI helped, because

the emails themselves that show this guy, Leonard Bernardo, writing about Hillary's plan were faked by the Russians.

But your point is, no, that's not true.

Dave's misinformed.

It came from the New York Times, which is also reporting that.

And many on the left are now dismissing this whole thing by saying the Hillary Clinton plot piece of this is itself Russian disinformation.

Well, right.

And

I think that the key point here is that the CIA did not agree with that.

And the CIA, of course, being responsible for evaluating Russian intelligence.

And so the CIA being much more qualified than the FBI.

But we've seen now, both with this new whistleblower interview that we published yesterday and with the Durham Annex, you see the FBI behaving very badly in a very partisan way.

And we knew that the FBI had used the Durham,

sorry, that had used the steel dossier as one of the justifications for getting the FISA warrants to be able to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

Then we see the FBI dismissing this intelligence, probably didn't even have the expertise to do so, but dismissing it where the CIA said it was accurate.

And now we see.

The intelligence about

Hillary plotting this whole thing.

Keep going.

You know, this plan.

And look, I mean, it's really all, these people are all like intelligence.

So the person that wrote the plan to smear Trump as a Putin puppet is somebody who worked at a CIA-linked think tank called the Center for New American Security.

I mean, you go onto that website and there's just

Juliana Smith.

You look at these people and they're just thick with people that were at the CIA or

currently are at the CIA.

I mean, it says so on their bios.

Moreover, she then, Biden then gave her the position as special ambassador to NATO.

And so she was a senior military intelligence person who came up with this plan.

And Megan, I'll also just point out that this playbook, you know, it's funny because the people that are dismissing this always talk about the Trump playbook.

Not sure there is one, to be honest, but the real playbook is this CIA playbook, which is the one that they had been using for years, maybe decades in Eastern Europe, which was to smear their opponents.

as Putin puppets.

Many of those cases, I think a lot of those people were.

So I mean, I'm not suggesting that they weren't Putin puppets in Eastern Europe, but that was this strategy of smearing your political opponents as Putin puppets that they did to Trump is something that was their playbook that they had been using for many years earlier.

Yeah, they did it to Trump.

We've watched them in real time do it to Tulsi Gabbard, too, both before she became DNI and since she's become DNI and has been.

responsible for releasing this information.

I mean, we actually are seeing, once again, people suggest she's doing this to like help Russia somehow.

This is so farcical.

These are documents she's revealing to us that have been in place long before Tulsi Gabbard had any role in a presidential administration.

That's just not going to work.

Okay, so your reporting is that the CIA believed,

and the people who ran the Russian desk, they believed that the Russians did hack

Leonard Bernardo, no Bernardo, that they did see emails from Julianne Smith, who was a Clinton advisor at the time, saying, we're going to do do this.

We are going, hey, Leonard, and Leonard's writing about it.

We are going to create this lie about Trump to distract from Hillary's email scandal.

And they believed that that was real.

The FBI said, oh, no, it's not real.

But the CIA said, no, it's real.

And conversely, the experts at CIA and on the Russian desk saw the steel dossier that said Trump went over to Russia and had some interlude with Russian prostitutes.

And now Putin had compromised on him.

Said, that's bullshit.

That piece is a lie.

There's no way that happened.

And yet, the FBI said, no, that's real.

And not only said that's real, used it to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

So, I mean, it's very interesting.

And now you have an actual CIA person who's still there saying, you know, verifying all of this.

Now, having said that, take a listen, Michael, to how the media is portraying the story.

All right, we'll kick it off with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC on Tuesday, SAT 6.

This is extraordinarily stupid.

It's extraordinarily stupid on so many counts.

If you look at the timeline,

the timeline doesn't add up.

You look at the timeline here about what happened and when it happened,

Barack Obama had nothing to do with this by anybody's accounts,

and especially by the Senate Republican Intelligence Committee run by Marco Rubio, who afterwards said that it was Donald Trump's 2016 campaign that created a, quote, grave

counterintelligence threat to the United States of America.

We even found out that the two documents that supposedly

fed into the Clinton conspiracy, that she was the one pushing this, actually was Russian disinformation.

So,

again,

they know in the Justice Department that this is all BS.

I think this is a desperate attempt to distract, reviving old old conspiracy theories, supplying the hits, if you will, knowing that it will be eaten up on certain conservative cable channels and in the MAGA podcast sphere.

So what did that boil down to?

The Senate Intelligence Committee report that post-dated that January 17

intelligence community assessment and

the lie that we just discussed that

the Russian emails discussing the Hillary plot were themselves disinformation.

Yeah, and I mean, basically, everything that Joe Scarborough said there is false.

All the main points he made are false and easily disprovable.

Even on the Obama one, we asked

the person that we interviewed that's still at the CA, that was one of the authors of the ICA about Obama, and they said, we do not know President Obama's role in the ICA, but presume that then National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco, and in particular Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haynes, who was Cohen's predecessor

as Brennan CIA deputy director, played a role in the ICA's timeline and rollout.

So, this idea that sort of they've somehow proven that Obama wasn't involved is belied by the reality of how this works, which is that Obama is at the top of a hierarchy of intelligence officials, all of whom were involved in the ICA.

Now, of course, they could have

kept him from it, but this idea that somehow there's proof that Obama wasn't involved is not true.

The personality.

And just to interject, there is proof that they were going to give him a report on December 8th that said, that downplayed Russian interference.

Then there was some meeting with his chief of staff that resulted in a memo saying per the president's direction, we're going a new way.

And then came December 9th, where they started anew on the new project, which would result in that January 17 ICA.

But between December 9th and January 17, they did all the leaks to the media saying the Russians interfered and they did it to help Trump.

And we have a memo saying per the president's direction.

So it's not just supposition that Obama authorized this.

Yeah, that's right.

In fact, the very night that they, so they had a huge meeting on December 9th that included Susan Rice, including the entire, all of the cabinet officials for the intelligence and security agencies.

That night, multiple people, according to the New York Times and Washington Post, had went to the New York Times and Washington Post and said, the Russians favored Trump, you know, and framed this early on before ever doing the ICA.

So, you know, and this person we interviewed that's at the CIA said there's no reason to believe that Brennan, a political operator with many friends in senior roles in the Clinton campaign, was not either directly or indirectly engaging or being influenced of it, regardless of his claims.

You know, this person pointed out that we know that they felt personally deceived by Brennan, who had suggested that, oh, it was just the FBI that wanted to keep a steel dossier.

And in fact, we now know from Brennan's emails that Brennan wanted to do that.

I I mean, I just wanted to add one other key thing here that I think really needs to, that really people need to understand is that what was in that Durham annex, again, with intelligence that the CIA said was real, was

a number of allegations, including that

Obama was pressuring the Attorney General to pressure then FBI Director Comey to drop the investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails.

The other thing I want to point out is that in terms of that intelligence, FBI general counsel Jim Baker, in addition to the CIA, so really senior person, the top lawyer for the FBI, was also very troubled by this intelligence, did not believe it should be dismissed, and then was particularly concerned by the reaction to then Attorney General Lynch, Loretta Lynch, when the FBI presented her with this intelligence.

Her reaction was sort of calm.

The normal reaction was...

Just to be really clear, when the FBI went to her and said, Yo, the Russians have have documents that say you are pressuring comy to not take this investigation into hillary quote too far i mean you normally like that could be an oh shit moment for somebody if you were innocent you'd probably respond by saying that's absurd that's completely ridiculous but james baker describes her reaction loretta lynch's reaction when she's told the russians have intel that you are pressuring the fbi not to actually indict hillary and you take it.

Yeah, and then she was caught.

She didn't go, oh, that's outrageous, or I can't believe somebody said that.

She was very calm about it.

You almost got the perception, and again, we can't prove this, but the sense was sort of that

she was reacting, that she didn't understand that this was a real problem, that she didn't seem to understand.

She didn't seem alarmed.

that she was being named in this way

and that she sort of thought that they were all friends or that this was just sort of they were she was being told it was almost like she had her role that she was playing and she didn't understand that it had gotten that it had sort of leaked out inappropriately Megan then the other thing of course that happens right after as soon as the FBI sees this intelligence that the CIA says is real

Director Comey of the FBI does a press conference where he announces that the investigation into Hillary's emails is over.

And, you know, he said he did that without the permission of the Attorney General.

It almost looks like he panics.

Like they get this intelligence he's scared it's going to come out, showing that he would been under political pressure to drop the investigation.

So he rushes out because he wants to get out in front of the intelligence, cancels, announces that he's canceled the Hillary Clinton investigation.

So, I mean, this is

these pieces are now in place to see that there was an effort that really this all starts with putting the kibosh on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, that that sort of effort was revealed to the U.S.

intelligence community.

That then provoked them to accelerate the dropping of that case.

And then we also, I think it's also just worth pointing out that, you know, the whole, the whole Russia thing, I mean, there's multiple motivations for it, but the Hillary Clinton campaign was very concerned that they were going to be attacked

because her husband, Bill Clinton, had taken a half million dollars from Russians tied to uranium interests.

And then Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had approved uranium imports.

So it's sort of this classic projection, you know, psychological projection.

Yeah.

It's a classic, you did it, you did it.

By the way, this is dying for a Michael Schellenberger documentary.

Dying.

Like this would be so much easier to understand if you just spelled it all out, like this is what was happening, dropped in the documents, dropped in the witness SOTS.

And

like you've done it before, you've done such a good job.

You helped me so much understand environmental issues.

So we need a Michael Schellenberg documentary on this.

I have to ask you about one other media SAT because it's just so galling.

This is back on, hold on, this is MSNBC.

Is it not or is it NBC?

It's NBC.

And their White House reporter, Monica Alba.

And she was on MSNBC yesterday.

Watch, SAT 8.

A couple of weeks ago, Hallie, when really the headlines were dominated by the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, and then the president was sort of trying to change the topic.

Then you had the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, come to the White House briefing room, come to the podium, and try to share some of this alleged new evidence.

Well, now you have the Attorney General saying that they're going to try to take that information and try to evaluate it to see if there could be any potential criminal indictments that they would follow.

But it really does bear repeating.

This is looking into something for which there is no evidence to back it up.

And it's really, it seems, a politically motivated move to keep the focus on one of the president's clear political foes and talk about basically anything else.

That's the White House reporter for NBC News Now, which is their digital property.

That's supposed to be a straight news objective reporter, Michael, just giving us the straight news facts.

Yeah, it's incredible.

I mean, of course, the media was really part of all of this.

I mean, it was really working with the intelligence community to smear Trump as a Putin puppet.

And, you know, so they really, you know, and of course the New York

and other publications won Pulitzer Prizes for their disinformation.

I think it's really important to underscore that really the whole thing was aimed at spreading disinformation.

The reason they opened the investigation into Russian interference, we believe, the reason that they did the ICA, we believe, was precisely so they could go leak it to the media.

In other words, once you are saying, so once you have it, once you say, and you know, that Kohino Comey leaked his, when he briefed President Trump on Russian interference, that Comey then goes and leaks it to the media.

So they open the investigation, maybe knowing that really there's no there there.

It's not going to go anywhere, probably did know that.

And then they, but they do it to be able to go to the media and say, oh, there's an investigation going on.

And then it's suddenly, you know, I mean, it's just game changing.

And obviously it had this just massive impact on the Trump presidency.

And there's, you know, I think a lot of evidence that there was criminal activity.

I think this is obviously not going away, and it'll be really interesting to see how long the media can maintain this fiction that there's no there there after we've had, you know, three major reports and now finally a whistleblower who was in in the process and

has explained how fraudulent it was.

Right, right.

It's incredible.

All right, just one quick point before I let you go.

Can we clarify?

Susan Miller.

We played a soundbite from Susan Miller about a week ago, who was running around saying she was the author of the intelligence community assessment of January 17.

And she told NBC, we definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected.

And as it turns out, there's some real problems with Susan Miller's allegation.

Well, and credit first to Blaze TV, because they actually confronted her on it, and she admitted that she wasn't, she didn't have anything to do with the ICA.

And then our person that directly involved, was directly involved in writing it said, quote, Susan Miller had no role in the ICA.

Members of Miller's analytic team participate in the ICA, but she had zero role.

So here we go.

Like the people that have actually, that were out there putting their name on it publicly, who are outside the agency, are just continuing to spread disinformation.

And in this case,

again, because of Blaze TV confronting her on it, she had to walk that back.

Right on.

Right on, Blaze.

Right on, Michael.

Great to see you.

Thank you.

Great to see you.

you.

Wow, what a story.

Just absolutely incredible.

Coming up next, Charlie Kirk is here.

You know the feeling someone in your family gets sick and then you're stuck waiting for a doctor's appointment or the pharmacy's out of stock or you're left wondering why something so basic must be so hard.

Too many American families face this reality and that's why many are turning to all family pharmacy.

They're doing what big pharma won't, which is putting families back in control and making it possible to be proactive, not reactive with your health.

This is not just some online pharmacy.

All Family Pharmacy is based in Florida and family-owned.

You can order ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, daily maintenance meds, emergency kits, everything you'd want to have on hand before you need it.

Order online and they will work with licensed doctors to provide the prescription for you.

Then your medications get shipped right to your door.

Visit allfamilypharmacy.com/slash Megan.

Okay, allfamilypharmacy.com/slash Megan.

Use the code Megan10 to get 10% off today.

Again, Again, go to allfamilypharmacy.com slash Megan.

Remember to use my code Megan10 to get 10% off today.

Be prepared, be in control.

This is healthcare that works for you.

Hi, we're Emochi Health, your long-term weight loss solution.

We'll connect you with a board-certified provider to discuss your unique goals.

Eligible patients can access custom-formulated GLP-1 medications at an affordable fixed price.

Delivered to their door monthly.

Take our free eligibility quiz at joinmochi.com and use code Audio40 at checkout for $40 off your first month of membership.

That's joinmoci.com.

Results may vary.

Eligible GOP1 patients typically lose one to two pounds per week in the first six months with Mochi combined with a healthy lifestyle.

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

Cold plunges, gratitude journals, screen detoxes.

How do you know what actually works?

With a 4.9 rating from 1.7 million client reviews, you're in good hands with BetterHelp, where you can talk with real licensed therapists, not AI.

Wellness shouldn't be overwhelming, and therapists can help figure out what's best for you.

And yeah, it might involve a screen detox.

Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.

That's betterhelp.com.

Joining me now on all things related to the news, Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA and host of the Charlie Kirk Show.

Charlie, welcome back.

Great to see you.

Thank you, Megan.

Great to see you.

Been loving your commentary on all this.

So excited to chip in where I can.

Thank you.

All right.

So I thought we were kind of done with the Sidney Sweeney controversy, but yesterday it resurrected for a couple of reasons.

Number one, Beyonce has now dropped a similar ad for Levi's without the Jeans, Jeans, double entendre commentary, but it's Beyonce in a Jeans ad and it is being received like she, again, is the second coming, like everything that Beyonce does.

and touches, because you're not allowed to criticize Beyonce.

You're only allowed to lavish praise upon her.

And so that's gotten it going again.

And now we're seeing a concerted effort on the left to turn the whole Sidney Sweeney controversy into a right-wing manufactured controversy that there really were no leftists who were upset about the Sidney Sweeney ad.

And it's really just Republicans like Trump and J.D.

Vance who are fueling a made-up controversy.

That's completely dishonest.

This was entirely a left-wing freak out.

And my own thought on it is, having engaged in a back-and-forth at length with one of the Pod Save America guys last night, again, who remains a mystery to me, the only one I know is that Tommy guy.

I don't know the other ones.

And this guy seemed genuinely hurt that I didn't know who he was after arguing with him.

And any event, one of the other guys,

Tommy Vinny.

No one knows.

Literally, nobody knows who they are.

And my final advice to this guy as we were feuding on Axe was, good luck.

Maybe one of these days you'll solo a show and then I'll learn your name.

But until then, you're just one of the pod Save America guys.

Sorry.

Not everybody can do it.

I'm a low-testosterone group of complainers and whiners.

But please continue, Megan.

Sorry.

I just, I find them, their show unwatchable.

And they're just 100%.

Well, so he

was one of the main people saying, no,

this is a right-wing generated thing.

And when I called him out on what bullshit that was, he said, name one Democrat politician who's pushed it.

Okay, that's not the standard.

It was an entirely leftist.

I mean, I'll go through the list with you, but BBC News did an entire segment on it, which is one of the most important things.

Good morning, American.

Good morning shows.

Yeah, I mean, people are going to be able to do that.

Here's just a couple of headlines, okay, and then I'll give you the floor.

MSNBC, Sidney Sweeney's ad shows an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness.

Vox, Sidney Sweeney, and the unsettling legacy of the blonde bombshell.

Yahoo, Sidney Sweeney's Great Jeans ad slammed as Nazi propaganda.

Yahoo, Sweeney takes heat for tone-deaf messaging.

Boston Globe, how American Eagle Sidney Sweeney's Good Genes ad went wrong.

Slate, Sweeney has caused an uproar.

It was always going to come to this.

Salon, Sidney Sweeney's new campaign draws fire for racial undertones and goes on about eugenics movements in the U.S.

often promote the idea of good genes to encourage reproduction among white able-bodied people and sterilization of others.

Just a couple more.

This is via the Washington Times.

that did a great rap of it.

USA Today reporting that many, for many, having a blonde, blue-eyed woman talk about jeans felt like a reference to eugenics, Vanity Fair.

The ads have been criticized by onlookers who see a sinister message lurking beneath the pun.

Entertainment Weekly fretting that the commercial for denim clothing promoted an ideology supporting forced sterilization on

marginalized groups and giving voice to a TikTok user who said, it's all evidence of a rise of fascism in America.

The media found experts to win, like college professors who said the campaign's pun isn't just tone death.

It's historically loaded.

The Washington Post style section writer did something on it talking about how the right wing mocking this ad only justifies her initial alarm at seeing the ads to them.

And on and on it goes.

This is a left wing freak out.

The right wing is sitting back, mocking it and laughing at it.

Yes, and also benefiting from it.

So

that's where I'm most interested in this.

So every generation of young men have

a woman or a series of women that they really look up to or that they put posters of in their bedrooms.

That's not really a thing anymore, whether it be Kathy Ireland or Brooke Shields or Farah Fawcett or Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra, you know, or Denise Richards.

I mean, this is not a new phenomenon with the men of America who want to, I would say, look up to is a kind way of putting it, Megan.

But let's, I mean, look, they're young men and they're trying to find their place in the world.

And

it's better than being trans, okay?

It's better to have a Farah Fawcett poster than being trans, okay?

Yes, there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, like, I mean, come on, this is how we're wired.

It's how God designed us.

Like, get over yourself.

So, for Gen Z men who have been just force-fed with androgynous, metro-sexual, low-testosterone, soy-fed type garbage since COVID, you know, they now have

a woman that many of them

not just look up to, but they like and understandably, obviously.

And so

the one woman that is kind of their generation's Farah Fawcett or Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra in a, you know, rather sultry, lusty ad, probably a little too lusty for my taste, but I I don't want to be legalistic about it.

I found nothing wrong with it at first because on the spectrum of advertisements, it was actually not nearly as bad as some of the stuff we've seen, but fine.

But

when the reaction to this has been so delightful to witness because you know in political circles, we were worried this summer, are we going to start to lose young men?

Are young men going to start to get disaffected?

Are they starting to get a little worried about disagreements on foreign policy?

Or, you know, they can't afford stuff.

I want to thank the freak out against the Sidney Sweeney thing because every time you call Sidney Sweeney a fascist, another 20-year-old man registers as a Republican somewhere across the country.

And it is bringing, it is bringing a whole generation as a voting bloc, which is like, wait a second.

So we have a general, we have

our own

like modern American tradition.

Our Farah Fawcett, our Pamela Anderson, I'm not saying me, but I'm saying that's how they're saying it.

And you're calling us a Nazi for doing that.

And for an ad that honestly, when I first saw it, I actually thought it was kind of, I don't want to say cringe, but I don't think it was as funny.

I was like, okay, yeah, fine, sure, whatever.

It wasn't like that scintillating.

I think you would agree, Megan, right?

It wasn't like overly witty, right?

It wouldn't have caught my notice at all had it not been.

Totally.

It would have been like, fine, great.

Good for American Eagle.

Honestly, it would be more notable that it wasn't like Megan Rapineau wearing it.

Like, okay, you know, fine.

We're more in like the

traditional.

You know what I I mean?

Yeah, it's like not not Dylan Mulvaney.

It's not Rear Admiral the guy that got woman of the year that worked for Biden or nor the luggage thief that worked.

Yeah, Rachel Levine, right?

So we're not there.

So I guess that's noteworthy, correct?

And yeah.

But but it goes, there's so much here.

And I I don't want to paint too broad of a brush because I don't I try not to do that.

But an element of the backlash, Megan, and we have to be honest, is that a blonde white woman who is not full of like tattoos or disfigurement surgery is like so repulsive to them to the point where they think that it's the rise of the third Reich.

Again, I don't want to overly racialize this.

I'm not trying to say every point of criticism.

has that kind of sentimentality, but it definitely exists.

It definitely is an energy source here that they just find something so repulsive and offensive that a white

blonde girl will be profiled in an advertisement like this as if this is regression away from the wokening of the country.

And let's call it for what it is.

That is unadulterated naked racism against the white women of this country.

Yeah.

And we've been dealing with it for years now, and we're sick of it.

That's part of why the right wing is enjoying this so much because they're sick of this BS.

They're sick of seeing white people be erased in their roles in movies and TV shows.

And, you know, we have to reinvent all these cultural characters that are actually white and make them black now.

And on top of it, I said this the other day, there's something about Sidney Sweeney that's very refreshing because she's like the anti-Kardashian.

She's, yes, well endowed

in the chestel region, shall we say, but she's not fake.

She doesn't have like the enormous lips and like the enormous ass that's clearly been injected and like the teeny tiny two inch waist that's also been surgically manipulated.

She's got a normal, you know, womanly shape, but it hasn't been enhanced to double D's to where it looks absolutely bizarre or the lips same.

And I think people appreciate that she is a beautiful girl who's just showing off her natural beauty.

And for me, this is one of the reasons why I don't think the Beyoncé ad was done in reaction.

This seems to be part of a series for Beyoncé and Levi's, which is a woke brand that ruined Jennifer Say's career because she questioned school closures.

Remember, she came from Levi's.

And anyway, I think it's a woke brand, and they've been partnering with Beyoncé for a while.

So the latest installment shows Beyonce in this jeans outfit.

And I have to say, my own reaction to it was, especially on the heels of the Sweeney one, it's a fail because it doesn't have what the Sweeney ad has, which is one of the things we're reacting positively to.

Look how fake this is.

That's not Beyonce's hair.

It's not even Beyonce's hair color for the listening audience.

It's blonde platinum.

It's obviously a wig.

She does not have blonde platinum hair.

It's mostly straightened.

The breasts are enormous.

The shape is extra curvy.

She's got extreme like makeup on, the big, like sort of glossed lips with the extra long fingernails.

And it's just, it's not even trying to be natural beauty.

It and which Beyoncé is, in my view, a completely artificial creation.

It's right on brand for her.

She was made by Jay-Z.

She was marketed and paid for by Jay-C.

He's basically bought all of her awards.

People in the music industry will get bullied by this pair if they don't say about her what they want them to say or advance her award prospects in the right way.

And she's got, as you know, is typical for folks who get in the limelight this way,

skin that is as thin as tissue paper.

Yours truly rolled her eyes, I did, when she entered country music with all this fanfare.

Like we didn't have country music until Beyonce

got there.

It was a mild commentary.

She's now running videotape of me before every concert to paint herself as the victim.

Poor Beyonce.

That's a great name ID, Megan.

Bullied by, you know, the big bad Megan Kelly.

Anyway, so I made this comment about how the ad ad doesn't work.

It's not natural.

She's not natural.

Everything about her is bought and paid for.

Cue more leftist meltdowns from people like the Pod Save America guys.

Look,

I hope Beyonce knows that there's a lot of people that really don't care that much about her.

I am one of those people.

I talk about Beyonce if it just kind of like comes across the news and kind of surfaces.

But

I will say, and I think it's an important point, which is, first of all, as a side note, just came the note.

Levi's is the money behind Daniel Goldman, who is probably one of the most repulsive members of Congress.

Daniel Goldman, just so you know, he got all his money from the Levi Strauss fortune.

Just a side note, this is a kind of a totally woke company and then a woke fortune that he inherited.

Anyway, but look,

the Beyoncé, of course, she has a right to do the jeans ad, but it just looks so forced and it just looks so manufactured.

And it goes to show, like, why did she feel the need to go do that?

Was it to try to balance out the quote-unquote racial conversation?

I don't know.

We'll never know.

It's all just kind of suspect.

It's all just kind of speculation, I guess you could say.

But there is something to this, and you mentioned this, which is that like Beyonce, even though she's, I guess, one of the biggest music stars ever, I find her music to be awful, unlistenable,

just quite honestly, just noise.

It's not music.

It's disgusting.

It's fine.

She seems like a sweet person.

I'm not saying about her personally.

I mean nothing about her personally.

You can comment on her personally.

I know nothing about it, but I think her music is just awful.

But

she needs to get in the position of being the victim at all times.

And that is a pattern that I've seen, which is that, like, yeah, I'm being attacked.

Mehmet, you're Beyonce.

Like, you're kind of a big deal.

Like, what do you somehow I am under assault?

And she did this kind of shtick, remember, during the Kamala Harris campaign, where she's like, yeah, our rights are under attack.

Your rights are not under attack, Beyonce, as you come parachute in, charge $10 million, give a speech, left all of your fans super disappointed and mad at you that you didn't perform.

And the speech wasn't even good.

It was in Houston.

It was all about, you know, like women's autonomy or whatever BS that is.

And so, look, I think what we're seeing though is Gen Z especially, they want to return to authenticity.

They want to return to real.

They do not want artificial.

They do not want synthetic.

You are much better equipped to make, you know, to charge the indictment against Beyonce being fake.

I will say, though, that the Sidney Sweeney appeal is partially what you're saying completely, Megan.

But to go even deeper, young men are like enough with the over plastic presentation of women.

There's something about how Sidney Sweeney presents herself where a lot of these young men are like, well, kind of remember a girl like that in high school.

Or I can kind of, it's more realistic.

It's more almost attainable.

If I dare, it's not this kind of like, okay, I'm never going to be able to meet a Kardashian.

That's just not going to happen.

But for a lot of young men, the way they tell me, I say, what is the appeal of Sidney Sweeney?

Beside the obvious, you know, visual aesthetics.

They say, you understand, is that she's real.

She hasn't had like overwork done.

She hasn't been butchered into the place where, like, again, the Kardashian gang is, you know, they have a whole team of people that are constantly.

Well, and Beyonce's in that same category.

Beyonce's in that category.

J-Lo's in that category.

Lauren Sanchez is in that category.

Now, I will say it, and I'll show it to to you.

Look at Beyoncé in this ad.

Okay, for Levi's, check this out.

Sod 3.

Baby, let me rattle that snake with my venom.

Denim on, denim, on, denim, on the bottom.

Enormous,

enormous bottom, two-inch waist.

This is how it opens up.

Close-up of the rear ad.

Playful.

Know you wish

She wins pool, and the man she's playing against has to lower his pants.

He has to be humiliated.

Then she gets on a motorcycle and drives away.

See, that's the leftist idea.

You humiliate the man, a white man.

Yes, you have to humiliate white men so much the better.

There's a controversial take, so I'll do my best trying to navigate it.

But you saw in that advertisement a heavy focus on, you know, the caboose or the derier.

And young men see something very different in Sidney Sweeney, which one could argue is a return to a different aesthetic.

I'm not saying it's better or better or worse, but it's different.

And because, again, that advertisement, some people like that.

I'm like, okay, that's a little much for me.

I don't know why you're kind of like, you know, putting that right in my face, but some comments repeatedly super clock.

It's like a little bit too much.

But

there is a move away from that sort of emphasis towards a different one, which Sidney Sweeney.

You can see the contrast there.

Again, I'm not like Sidney Sweeney's biggest fan.

I don't hate her.

Like, whatever.

I actually have never talked about her.

I didn't really know much about her.

And she has her own career.

She's a registered Republican.

Good for her.

But it is a very interesting cultural moment where it's like, if you put that up on screen, it's like, which way, Western men, right?

The The fake victim, you know, abortion screaming, left-wing,

manufactured, bad music, fake hair, lots of work done, your own words.

Or Sidney Sweeney, who's just a girl from like rural Washington who became an actress.

I don't even know if she's a good actress or not.

People could be a good judge of that.

I don't know.

I don't haven't seen her work.

But she's kind of an all-American girl that hasn't necessarily gone through the sort of

Kardashianification.

Designed by committee.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's exactly.

That's what people are responding so well to.

I will say, a word in defense of fake hair.

It's very nice.

If you don't have naturally thick hair, it's nice to get a few extra pieces in there.

But honestly, what we've done in our society

is

we've gone so far the opposite way.

I mean, like, truly, thanks to the Kardashians, it's not all their fault, but they're chiefly responsible.

This new sort of quote-unquote ideal of women has got like the triple G breasts outsized only by the fake asses, which are as wide as Montana.

And then in the middle has to be like literally a 10 inch waist, which is not attainable by any natural human without massive surgery, which by the way is potentially dangerous.

And on top of that, lips that are enormous, that basically go up to your nose and down to your chin and then get smushed.

I don't know.

I don't get it.

It's like

is obviously an affront to our senses, but why do the women think the injected lips is attractive?

I want to know the argument.

My husband

always says, like, he doesn't mind.

I get Botox and I'm very open about that.

He's like, that doesn't bother me at all.

Please don't ever touch your lips.

It's so weird.

It's very strange.

The lips thing, and it's weird.

It's also just, it's so clear.

It's fake.

And I don't know, at least from a male perspective, when I see it, again, very sweet people, pleasant.

It's not an indictment of the character, but just from the physical presentation, and maybe, Megan, I'm wrong.

You could just like throw me down here and be like, nope,

it's great.

Maybe it's kind of like one of those things like in Seinfeld where like women care about men's eyebrows and like we never cared about it.

Like women care about other women's lips.

It's I think, look, there are some women who don't have any lips.

You know, there really are.

Like, I remember some guys too, Doug Llewellyn, who did the outside interviews to Judge Wapner's People's Court.

Now I'm going back, but he had no lips.

What happened to Doug Llewellyn's lips?

I could see getting it if you had no lips.

I really can.

And some women get lip injections.

I know somebody in particular who gets them.

She looks great.

You would never be able to tell that you that she was having her lips injected.

So whatever.

I don't judge people for that.

It's the Mr.

Potato head approach to beauty that I recoil in response to.

They go too far, like the Kardashians.

The lips are bigger than eyes on their faces.

They're so huge.

It's not.

Dorn Sanchez used to be a beautiful woman when she was younger.

She looked natural.

She was a natural beauty.

She's ruining her look by all this fake artificial shit she's having pumped into her face and body.

It's unnecessary.

It's almost like a sickness.

I mean, help me understand the psychology because for men, we find that to be so unattractive, so wrong.

Is it for other women?

Is it a self-confidence thing?

I think it's a self-confidence thing.

And I think some women get addicted to plastic surgery.

You know, they have one thing done and they think more is more.

And like, and I think aging women tend to like abuse it.

They think, oh, I need more to keep looking young.

And, you know, I've got to like make my breasts huge or my bottom huge in order to stay a sexual like kitten and attractive to men.

It's like an overcompensation.

And I think they don't realize less is more.

Like, who's in the headlines right now in a very positive way?

Pamela Anderson, her newfound relationship with Liam Neeson.

They're clearly falling in love, and it's totally charming.

And she's not wearing makeup anymore, or very, very little makeup anymore.

She looks great.

We all know Pamela Anderson can look like a 20 on a scale of one to 10 when she dons, you know, all her A-game makeup and all that stuff.

But it's really refreshing to see her lean into just like this is me now thing.

And she's 58.

He's totally enamored with her.

You can see it in the interviews.

Like that, look, I'm all for makeup and hair.

Obviously, that's true.

But if you can see me in my day life, I don't walk around like this.

I put this armor on to go on television and go on screen.

But my real life, my hair is in a ponytail and I really don't wear that much makeup.

I wear some.

In any event, I think we've had it.

And I think that's part of the Sidney Sweeney magic of this ad and is part of the recoiling that I had when I saw the Beyoncé response.

One word on Beyoncé.

Okay, so she's all about the women.

In the Kamala Harris campaign, she said it.

In the speech, she said it.

And even Levi's, in their statement, which is completely anodyne about this ad, says it.

They say, oh, we're marketing a final celebration of a partnership that has explored reinvention and reinterpretation at every turn.

What?

The campaign represents a new level and scale of collaboration that has put women at the center of the narrative and set set in motion a new iconic chapter in Levi's history that continues to reaffirm the brand's place at the center of culture.

My note reads, did Kamala Harris write this?

It's so empty and rambling, but it's all about centering women.

So Beyonce wants to center women.

Where was she in the centering women

when P.

Diddy was on trial?

Her good friend?

and the good friend of her husband?

I don't remember her speaking out about his serial abuse of women he was supposed to love.

She didn't say anything.

Why isn't P.

Diddy in the video montage before her concert, Charlie, if she's all about girl power?

Well, because you're a perfect villain, because we know why.

You're an outspoken, successful, I would say conservative.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but conservative, you know, white woman.

And that's kind of what she's trying to put back, push back against.

And again, I I don't know what's in Beyoncé's heart.

All I know that how she acts and how she speaks and definitely the kind of worldview she represents and that she plays into is kind of a enough whitey, like enough of you guys.

Yep.

And sit down.

Again, totally sit down.

Like you guys are the problem.

Your ancestors own slaves.

Like enough.

And

yeah, I think that they've created a massive, by the way, multiracial backlash.

Hispanics don't like this.

Asians don't like this.

It's not just about white people that don't like this.

But to compare a Sydney Sweeney ad for 20 minutes to Gobles and Hitler and eugenics, I mean, that's really, that's really dark stuff.

And then for them to gaslight us, that, you know, that little dwarf on Pod Save America that you were getting in a debate with,

he was like, oh, no one was saying it.

Hold on.

The

ABC News Good Morning America platformed a quote-unquote subject matter expert for a multi-like a pretty long interview by morning showtime.

You know, morning showtime is precious, Megan.

And she's going on about how this is eugenics and a return to Nazism.

And then they gaslight us against it for even saying that this became a major issue.

And so look, by the way, we have some of that, Charlie.

Let me play it.

It's no, let's go because

they're literally trying to gaslight us in real time.

Yeah, here it is.

Now, in one ad, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed actress talks about genes as in DNA being passed down from her parents.

The play on words is being compared to Nazi propaganda with racial undertones.

The pun, good genes, activates a troubling historical associations for this country.

The American eugenics movement in its prime between like 1900 and 1940 weaponized the idea of good genes just to justify white supremacism.

Unbelievable.

And Charlie, let me give you one more.

It's not just the little man over at Pod Save.

Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone magazine out with a new piece.

Fox News blitzes airwaves with Sidney Sweeney coverage.

It's Fox's fault.

They say

this is actually not crybaby liberals who are hopelessly obsessing over the euphoria actors.

That's Sidney Sweeney, she was in that show, genes.

It's Republicans and Fox News.

Then they go through and counted the number of times Fox News mentioned Sweeney, and then they make the same point as the little man over at Pod Safe.

No prominent Democratic lawmakers have weighed in on the situation.

That's the new test, you see?

Notwithstanding all that whole laundry list I went through.

So dumb.

The test is whether we've seen, I guess, Joe Biden or the Autopen say something about it.

Or whether Chuck Schumer gave a Senate floor speech about the Sidney Sweeney ad.

Like, you know,

whether or not Hakeem Jeffries introduces a motion.

Like, that's the threshold of whether or not this is a big deal or not.

So sorry, we actually understand culture, guys.

And again, just, I want to just go back to one part, though.

In that ABC news clip, do you notice the first couple of words were so disgusting?

The blonde-haired blue-eyed actress, as if like they're trying to set you up that like, oh, this is like pseudonym.

Do you notice that in the copy script?

I just

heard that

I've heard that clip multiple times.

I didn't catch it till now where someone put that in their teleprompter.

Someone wrote that down for them to read.

The blonde-hair, blue-eyed actress.

Okay, what is the relevance of that exactly?

So if it was, you know, a Hispanic person that says, I had good genes, you wouldn't, okay, fine.

But no, because of that, You're trying to shame an entire part of the American population, which happens to be the majority of of the country, by the way, still, into you can't talk about having any sort of good genetics or any sort of good ancestry.

And boy, that's dark stuff.

I mean, if you want to talk about who's actually pushing forward pseudo, like race politics, it's them, not us.

We don't look at that ad and think of race at all.

We're like, okay, yeah, good genes.

If anything, you could think of like there, it's a sexualization thing, okay?

Yes.

Like, okay,

my first reaction was they're talking about her breasts.

And yes, a hundred percent of course it's like she has she's got good genes because you know

she doesn't have to go to plastic surgery where a lot of women would have to okay yeah she's got a round that would be like

that would be like exactly that was my initial reaction when i saw it i was like okay next thing i got i got a busy day but they look at that and they immediately think third reich hitler

not only are these dark people they are so

their their

worldview that they process everything through, the matrix that they that they put all their information through is so broken and dangerous, Megan,

that

this is why I'm so glad Trump won is that you can't have people running your society that immediately think everything goes back to Hitler and everything goes back to Nazism.

It's destructive.

It's wrong.

And then it also just,

they don't care about this, but it cheapens the word Nazi if we ever need to use it.

If we ever see, like, for example, there's some of this repulsive Jew hate that we see sometimes on social media.

I hate it, you hate it.

But then if you and I want to call that person a Nazi, it doesn't mean anything.

It has no currency because they're like, oh, am I a Nazi?

Like Sidney Sweeney?

And boom, there's no...

There's no zing.

And what they have done is they have created yet another subcategory.

Racist means nothing anymore.

And now Nazi means nothing anymore.

When people call me a Nazi, then they call me a Nazi,

so they have diluted the potency of the word that we can no longer use it rarely where appropriate.

And no, these are sick people.

And I don't put that lightly.

If you think that ad had anything to do with eugenics or the Third Reich, there's something deeply wrong and troubling with you.

They've done it with misogyny.

They've done it with the word bigot.

If you say anything about the trans community too.

I mean, there's a whole list of words that used to be powerful and they've ruined them.

They've taken away their sting because they've used them so indiscriminately.

All right now you raise the Jewish issue and this is actually really important to me.

I really want to discuss this with you because you and I are both supporters of Israel and have defended Israel since the beginning of this conflict and spoken out about the anti-Semitism that has erupted on these college campuses many, many, many, many times.

And something's happening though with this whole debate that is really bothering me And I wonder if you're feeling it too.

So

I mean, I genuinely believe you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody in the public eye who's been as outspoken a defender of not every move Israel's taken in the war, but of Israel's right to defend itself and of the

just backward awfulness that we've been seeing on college campuses and the backlash against American Jews.

Then yours truly.

I mean, I have been at the pointy end of the spear on this.

I completely agree with that.

And it was all heartfelt, and it remains heartfelt.

However,

however,

my contention here is that some in the pro-Israel camp are so knee-jerk about calling you anti-Semitic or getting deeply offended if you say anything that doesn't align with their narrative that it undermines their own cause.

And I have to tell you, I find it very irritating because I do feel like some of us have earned the right to have some credibility on the subject of Israel and don't want to be called those names when we have some mild pushback on some of the overreaches, whether it's, you know, whether they're winning or losing the propaganda war right now.

And my contention is they've begun to lose it.

And I realize it's propaganda coming at us from Hamas, but they their numbers have turned here in America.

They've turned, not so much with Republicans, a little bit with Republicans, but completely with the Democrat Party and with independents.

They have shifted mightily from at least double-digits highs to single-digit lows now

when it comes to approval.

And

also with respect to, you and I speculated about this at the turning point event, whether the possibility of Jeffrey Epstein possibly being a Mossad agent or asset or affiliated with, that's been turned around on me too, to you must be anti-Semitic.

What the hell?

That's such bullshit.

The same people who say you can criticize Israel.

That's fine.

We won't call you anti-Semitic if you criticize Israel

turn around immediately and say you're anti-Semitic for even raising that.

I completely reject that.

And I raise this as a pushback against my friends on that particular strain of the aisle to watch it.

Because you don't want to alienate people who are openly your friends by going nuts in your crackdowns on mild pushback on anything related to Israel.

Now you take it.

I'm so glad you brought this up.

And I would second that.

Megan, I think I have a bulletproof resume showing my defense of Israel both on campus, on social media, to great, you know, let's just say mockery and scorn at times where I, because I believe it, right?

I believe in the scriptural land rights given to Israel.

I believe in fulfillment of prophecy.

And again, I'm not a theologian, but I'm a Christian.

My life was changed in Israel.

The spiritual energy is so amazing there.

I want them to win.

I've said that repeatedly.

And however, Megan, you're hitting on something very potent and important.

Now, let me first say, I don't want to judge an entire group because there's been many people in the pro-Israel world that have been very sweet, very kind, very nuanced, very charlie.

You know, you're with us.

You don't have to agree all the time.

However, and I and I will say this, the behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away.

Not like we're going to be pro-Hamas, not like we're going to, but we're like, honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive.

I have text messages, Megan, calling me an anti-Semite.

I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat.

I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath.

I visit Israel and fight for it.

And there's another article out in the Times of Israel today.

I could read it on air.

I was just reading before I got on.

Charlie, what are you doing?

Like, why are you...

What am I doing?

I'm sorry.

Like, let's just take a step back here.

Like, I'm an American citizen.

Yes, I want Israel to win.

Yes, I'm a Christian.

But, like, some of the mess, and you saw, and you've seen how I've been treated, Megan, by some, not all, by some.

No, it's very irritating.

It's almost like this is unfair.

They were coming after you after a turning point for, among other things, so you had Dave Smith there.

Dave Smith is allowed to criticize Israel.

You had both sides.

The israeli side you're not allowed

no you're not allowed to it's even worse than that again i just want to repeat for the fifth time i love israel i want israel to win but my moral character is now being put into question megan not my decisions not like hey are you doing this is it smart or is it dumb but no i am a bad person if i do this And it's, I could go, I mean, you saw it, Megan.

It was trending on Twitter.

Thousands of tweets and text messages.

And if I were to be charitable and generous, I will say the people that are attacking me are in a hyper-paranoid state because they're at war and war tends to make things black and white and you're a hammer looking for a nail.

So I'm trying to be charitable, Megan.

Literally, I'm trying to cut as much slack as I can, right?

Like, okay, what would it be like if all of a sudden I'm starting to see a pattern of behavior similar to what my grandparents saw in 1930s Germany online?

How would I behave?

So that's like my charitable kind of over compensation spirit.

At the same time, I'm like, but you're, it's, it's not defensible to be dumb, right?

So

it's offensive to those of us who have been out there defending them in many instances against critics on our own side.

And now you have a couple of comments like, well, what about this?

Well, has it gone on too long?

Like, is it time to wrap it up?

And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre.

I don't know who he was an agent for.

It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody, but we're allowed to speculate about that.

It's like so rural, you can't go there when it comes to Israel.

Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first, period.

End of story.

We are citizens of this nation, okay?

And Israel, we have funded, we have supported, and they're up against a sea of Islamic totalitarianism, and we should be cheering for them, right?

Because they're up against barbarians and monsters, and we want them to win.

However, here is Megan Kelly and Charlie Kirk combined probably 30 million social media followers, like pretty, right?

And you and I have been holding this down and you, you probably get the negative, oh, you're just shilling for Israel, whatever.

I'm like, okay, I'm going to do what's right, regardless of the feedback, right?

But then all of a sudden, like I host a person that

I moderate the debate of, mind you, right?

And I give equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro-Israel advocate, and my moral character is being put into question.

And so I just, I think it's a hyper-paranoid, like, we're just going to try to, we're going to just stamp out everything

type of practice.

But it goes to the point where, if, for example, if I, I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government without backlash than actual Israelis do.

And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?

That's not right.

It's so wrong-headed.

I'll tell you, this for me, so I got some blowback after saying Mossad possibilities with Epstein, a comment behind which I stand.

I mean, I realize, and I've, of course, reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer.

He says, I think he would have told me.

He didn't say he had any of those connections.

I hear all that.

That doesn't mean it's not true.

I think all these things should be explored.

It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein.

But saying that and also saying he might be a U.S.

asset, et cetera, doesn't make you anti-Semitic.

That's fucking crazy.

And then

we get to last week, I go on Piers Morgan, right?

So I go on Piers Morgan last week.

And I don't talk about Israel a lot in this show.

I just like covering the day-to-day of a conflict like this is not my thing.

It's not what we do here at the Megan Kelly show.

We haven't done it for Ukraine.

We haven't done it for Israel.

We haven't done it for a lot of conflicts, but we'll talk about it when big things happen.

So Piers talks about it a lot.

Piers asked me, it was a very interesting kind of culture study.

So he asked me about the photos of the starving children out of Gaza.

And I said a couple of things, both of which got a fair amount of pickup.

All right, so first, this is what I said about the photos.

Listen to Sat 10.

Well, I'm always reluctant to put too much stock in the images coming out of Gaza, that phrase, because they're manipulated and they're masters of propaganda and they're fine having their own children starve, just as long as they can put them on camera and show them off to the world.

That's Hamas.

And frankly, it's a lot of Palestinians.

So I'm very skeptical of taking those images at face value and saying it's Israel's fault.

Okay, so that clip gets circulated

a million times by my Israeli friends and my Jewish friends online.

Like, go, Megan.

Yeah, okay, great, cool, cool, cool.

Yeah, she's right on.

Look at her, you know, speak truth to peers.

And then Piers released as a separate clip my follow-up to that comment.

Okay.

And here's that.

Not allowed any nuance, Megan.

It's only tribalism.

That's right.

So here's Sal 11.

Israel, whether it realizes it or not, has made itself the villain of the world in letting this thing go on so long.

They have lost support amongst their dearest friends.

And even the entire Democrat Party here in the United States has turned against them, and they're losing Republicans by the day here in America, which is their most important ally.

So whether the fight continues to be just or not is almost irrelevant.

As Trump said when he was running this time last year, not yet elected, time to wrap it up.

And that's how I feel too.

And I've given Israel a long berth.

I fully understand as an American who was attacked on 9-11.

My country was that, you know, when you attack the United States and you kill thousands of our citizens, and Israel was in this position on 10-7, it's fine to respond.

And it doesn't have to be proportionate.

Whoever said it has to be proportionate.

But what Israel is doing now is losing its standing with the rest of the world.

It's starting to lose, too, even with its closest friends, its moral reputation, its moral high ground.

And as Trump said a year ago, time to wrap it up.

Cue

the 25 text messages from people I know, like friends who are pro-Israel.

Like, I'm so sad that you've left us.

I'm so sad you let's debate it.

You know, many Jewish advocates saying, Let me come on your show and we'll debate.

There's nothing to debate.

I'm on Israel's side.

Just stop.

Me observing

that you're losing the propaganda war and that this has gone on for about two years now.

And look, I mean, I pulled the stats, support for Israel's military action in Gaza by Party ID.

GOP in June of 2024, 76%.

Now 71.

So they lost 5%.

Dems in October of 2023, 36%.

Now it's at 8%.

Independence, October of 2023, it was 47%.

Now it's 25%.

You go under 35, you have almost zero support across the United States, your closest ally.

I see what's happening and it's my job to comment honestly on it, but I am sick of being lectured on like,

you have to see it exactly as we see it and support everything, or you're, you're against us.

So, so this is so important, Megan.

And again, I don't want to, not every, you cannot say every one of the pros or, and I don't say it acts that way.

But I, right, I got texts about you, Megan,

saying,

why is Megan like doing the bidding of Hamas?

I was like, what are you talking about?

Megan's the best.

Like, she's amazing.

And I said, why are you texting me about Megan?

And I, I, at that point, and so this is what they don't understand.

You and I, Megan,

and Tucker is in the same category and they've tried to go after Tucker.

Yeah.

Is that the, and the more you attack our moral character, actually the more we're going to double down in direction because screw you.

I don't do it that way.

Okay.

Right.

Like when,

tell me I'm wrong.

Cool.

Tell me if I've got my facts wrong.

By the way, in the Epstein thing, Naftali Bennett says he was an Epstein agent.

We have to be pursuers of truth.

They've denied it.

Fine.

Let's keep digging.

Okay, fine.

But

the thing that I don't think is being lost is like on some part of the population, you can scold them into silence, right?

But

if I have any deviation of a purity test, any deviation whatsoever, such as hosting a focus group, right, Megan?

With a bunch of our students that went viral, having Dave Smith or Tucker at my event, it is all of a sudden, oh, Charlie is a, he's, he's no longer with us and all that.

I said, wait a second, what do you mean, what does with us mean exactly, right?

I'm an American, okay?

Like, I represent this country, and I don't even understand that paradigm.

But, Megan, I think you would agree with this.

I want to make sure we fast, like, really zero in on this.

Personality types like you, myself, and Tucker, the more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question,

which is not isolated, right?

I'm Megan, it would be one thing if it was one text or two texts.

It is dozens of texts.

Yes.

Then we start to say, hold the boat here.

And to be fair, some of my really good Jewish friends are like, that's not all of us.

It's all.

But these are leaders too, though, right?

These are stakeholders, right?

And so, look.

I'm afraid because, again, I want civilization to win.

I want the West to win.

I don't want the Islamo-fascist barbarians to storm the gates of Jerusalem.

I want the holy sites protected.

I believe in the Holy Land.

I love that Jesus walked on water there and rose from the dead and preached in the Mount of Beatitudes.

Like, I feel the connection to Israel.

But at the same time, simultaneously, when the hostile reaction is that now Megan and Charlie are enemies,

boy, I'll tell you, like,

you're not going to, I wouldn't say lose, but you will weaken and just basically deflate two of your strongest advocates if that continues.

Right.

And to me, I laugh because it's like, I've been bullied by the best of them.

The best.

And

it didn't work.

And it's not going to work with them.

The more you try to tell me I can't criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it, to focus on exactly what you're doing, right?

Like, what are you doing that you're so defensive?

You don't own me.

I don't take one dollar of money from any Jewish-affiliated group.

That's not, that's never been what my show's model.

I take, you know, Cozy Earth is my sponsor.

People like Genucelle.

Those are the people I take.

And I, and I probably would feel reluctant to criticize Genucelle, which is a great product.

So I probably wouldn't do it anyway.

My point is simply, I have my honest opinions, which is why I had credibility.

for the two years I've been defending them, right?

And I still have that credibility.

And I don't need lectures from my friends who are more pro-Israel than I am or who are just American Jewish people who are concerned about what's happening.

I don't need lectures on my coverage, okay?

I'll call it like I see it.

And you have no right to come on this show and demand a debate with me because I've said something you disagree with.

It's my show, and I'll decide the coverage we do here.

In any event, okay.

I'm glad I got that up.

I just want to repeat for in closing, you and I are on the same page.

We want to see civilization win.

And by the way, can I just say, why does the Israeli government not have a Caroline Levitt?

Why don't they do daily press conferences?

Why are they not going to the sticks every single day and explaining, no, this is actually what happened with the church thing.

It was accidental.

This one was fake.

This one was real.

Why are they not doing daily briefings about Gaza, about troop movements?

Like, why is it that we have to constantly be the ones that kind of sort through all this?

Messaging is abysmal.

The PR is awful.

And

I say this with a great degree of sadness, right?

Not bitterness, a little bit, because

when you're trying to win an information war or propaganda war, you should be like, wow, Charlie Kirk and Megan Kelly are the ones that we should really

want to keep going.

Some in the space have been wonderful.

Rabbi Pesach Walicki, I can name the list, Siggy Flicker, they've been wonderful.

But a fair amount, and Megan, you would agree, have decided to resort into nastiness and almost as if they don't want us anymore.

And

it's certainly suicidal.

Yeah, it's very short-thinking.

I mean, I remain an advocate of

a defender of Israel's right to defend itself in this.

They are the victims.

They are the ones who were attacked, and the United States would be doing the same thing.

And I stand by what I said about proportionality, too.

Some of them said, oh, that's a war crime.

It gets enforced around Israel only, around Israel only.

The double standard is ridiculous.

They get held to a standard that no other country gets held to.

Correct.

And of course they are.

And the propaganda war is real.

I mean, every day, Time magazine just got caught in this ridiculous propaganda on its cover.

And they use these so-called Palestinian journalists, which, by the way, is a red flag.

That term in and of itself.

You're going to be spoon-fed propaganda.

Not to mention what happened on the New York Times with that one child who was allegedly starving, but they were forced into admitting, oh, he had other problems that they chose not to hide.

It happens every day.

Hamas is amazing at the propaganda, which is part of Israel's problem.

But for better or for worse,

Hamas is winning the propaganda war.

And you're right, in part probably because they don't have a Caroline Levitt, because they don't fight like disinformation with actual

representatives who will come out and set the record straight every day.

People like you and I have been doing the lion's share of making sure people understand what's true.

So I have very little tolerance for the lectures.

I'm with you, Megan.

We got to get you.

I'm with you.

We have to take a break.

Come back with Charlie in two seconds.

Don't go away.

Time for some life talk.

Life insurance talk, that is.

You probably have it, but do you know how much you're paying and how much coverage you're actually getting?

Odds are you're paying too much for too little.

And if your policy is through work, you could lose all coverage if you are laid off.

It's scary to think about, but it's easy to fix with SelectQuote.

For over 40 years, SelectQuote has helped more than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in coverage.

Their licensed agents shop top-rated carriers to find the best policy for your health, your needs, and your budget.

And they do it for free.

No medical exam?

No problem.

Same-day coverage?

Up to $2 million is possible, even with conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes.

Life insurance is never cheaper than it is right now.

Get the right life insurance for you, for less, and save more than 50% at selectquote.com/slash Megan.

That's selectquote.com slash Megan.

Select quote.

They shop.

you save.

That cookie calling your name at 3 p.m.,

you know, the midnight fridge raids, the extra slice of pizza you swore you wouldn't eat.

If you feel like your cravings control you, it is not just willpower.

It could be your gut crying for help.

That's why I want to tell you about Just Thrive probiotic and their digestive bitters.

See, modern diets often lack essential bitters compounds that manage appetite hormones like GLP-1, the same hormone in those expensive weight management shots.

Just Thrive's digestive bitters give you the power of 12 clinically proven herbs that help your body break down food efficiently while naturally supporting GLP-1 production.

Controlled cravings, less bloat, steady energy, and comfortable digestion.

Try Just Thrive Digestive Bitters and Just Thrive Probiotic 2 today at justthrivehealth.com and use code Megan for 20% off your first order.

That's justthrivehealth.com, Code Megan.

Your body will thank you.

Hi, we're Emoji Health, your long-term weight loss solution.

We'll connect you with a board-certified provider to discuss your unique goals.

Eligible patients can access custom formulated GLP-1 medications at an affordable fixed price.

Delivered to their door monthly.

Take our free eligibility quiz at joinmochi.com and use code AUDIO40 at checkout for $40 off your first month of membership.

That's joinmochi.com.

Results may vary.

Eligible GLP-1 patients typically lose one to two pounds per week in their first six months with Mochi when combined with a healthy lifestyle.

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

Cold plunges, gratitude journals, screen detoxes.

How do you know what actually works?

With a 4.9 rating from 1.7 million client reviews, you're in good hands with BetterHelp, where you can talk with real licensed therapists, not AI.

Wellness shouldn't be overwhelming, and therapists can help figure out what's best for you.

And yeah, it might involve a screen detox.

Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.

That's betterhelp.com.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.

It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr.

Laura, Ben Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriXM at home or anywhere you are.

No car required.

I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app.

It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.

Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com slash MK Show and get three months free.

Offer details apply.

Charlie, we talked a little bit about so-called journalists reporting fake news news before the break.

And now that brings me to Jim Acosta with one of the most deplorable,

awful, exploitative things I've ever seen anyone in so-called journalism do.

Charlie, he, quote, interviewed, air quotes there,

a dead teenager from the park.

Oh, I heard about this.

Oh, this is as bad as it gets.

Florida.

As bad as it gets.

The parents of the young man who was killed wanted it to happen.

I'm sorry, but that's almost irrelevant.

Your job as the journalist is to not exploit the dead or grieving family members for ratings.

I mean, literally, like,

this has always been a principle of my own personally.

I've never been that person who's been begging, going, knocking on the doors of grieving family members.

I just, I could never be a GMA booker or a Today Show booker.

I just can't do that.

If somebody,

yeah, if somebody wants to talk, some of them want to, you know, bring a message to television, I'm there for them.

But this is next level.

These parents are mourning the loss of their son.

They created an AI version of him.

And Jim Acosta was only too happy to put this AI version of a dead child on his

show and interview him.

It was truly jarring.

It was so exploitative.

It was deeply wrong.

I'm going to show you some of it.

I do this only so that the audience understands what we're dealing with.

Forgive me for showing any portion of it, but I want you to know what it sounded like and looked like.

It's SOP 28.

Joaquin, it's Jim Acosta.

I was wondering if you could tell me what happened to you.

I appreciate your curiosity.

I was taken from this world too soon due to gun violence while at school.

It's important to talk about these issues so we can create a safer future for everyone.

Oh my God, Charlie.

Man.

And then one other piece.

So then Jim has on Joaquin Oliver, that's the child's name, who's 17, has on his dad Manny

and has the nerve to talk about how

we've never heard from the victims at the Stoneman Douglas mass murder before.

Like,

what are you saying?

They were killed.

They're dead.

You're doing an ai interview listen to the this ridiculous comment in sat 27.

what's amazing about this manny is that you know we've heard from the parents we've heard from the politicians now we're hearing from one of the kids that's important

yeah that hasn't happened

wow it's shocking it's shocking in its depravity your thoughts on it

i'm usually not at a loss for words i mean other than i mean this is so dark and

I hope it doesn't spread to other kind of theaters, but it probably will because AI will allow it.

But

obviously these parents are super grieving, so I don't know if this helps them with their healing process or not.

I wish I, I pray to the Lord, I never have to deal with that.

So I don't want to attack the parents, because obviously that's a mental torment that I don't understand and that very few do.

But I will attack Jim Acosta because that's different.

He here is the naked opportunist who is talking to a bunch of lines on a screen, which is literally what it is.

AI is just a bunch of numbers, right?

Trying to represent a political point and political opportunism.

Again, Megan, I usually have like a somewhat of a witty or a quick response.

I don't have anything else to say except this is just as dark and as depraved as it gets.

And then Jim Acosta treating it as if he's talking to a real person is also very creepy.

Like the way Jim Acosta was like, oh,

you know, Joaquin, tell us about what you, what you learned.

And

yeah, I don't have much more to say than that.

I mean, Jim Acosta, I don't know what kind of show, I don't know what show that is.

Some irrelevant podcast he's doing or something.

He's kind of been

kicked into the Substat show.

I don't know.

When I looked at it on YouTube this morning, it had 20,000 views, which is really not a lot.

It's pathetic.

But if you watch the whole interview, which I did for research purposes,

he talks about like, what's your favorite?

What do you do for fun?

What do you do for fun to this dead child?

Basketball, I love.

Who's your favorite basketball player?

They talk about LeBron James.

Like, they have, you know, he turns it into an interview that you would do with an actual teenager who you were getting to know.

And I'm just thinking.

The whole thing felt

wrong.

Yes, Charlie.

I just feel like, look, the father, I forgive for anything.

I'm completely on his side.

I actually share his deep concerns about the safety of our children in the school environment and so on.

But I agree.

It's not about the father.

A grieving family member coming to you with an idea about their, you know, like this must be hugged and loved and understood, but not platformed, but not indulged on this.

If that father wants to do it on his own, YouTube.

Right, right, exactly.

Now, his son's name and likeness is being caught up in a very controversial, obvious exploitation campaign by this disgusting person, Acosta.

I hope Acosta is getting backlashed.

I don't know.

I actually, one of the guys on my team, Blake, sent me this story.

I hope Acosta, I mean, his career already seems to be

largely ruined.

He's kind of in exile.

And I hope this only furthers that trend, right?

Because what would you have to do?

I mean, it's one thing to go, like you said, interview, you know, for a political purpose, but then a fake AI-generated video simply for like gun control and gun confiscation.

Like, what was the pre-show meeting, Megan?

I want to know him and his, you know, producer, when they're like, yeah, you know, it'd be a really good idea if we're going to go talk to a AI representation of a dead kid.

at a school shooting to try to push a political agenda.

That says a lot more about Jim Acosta than anybody else.

That shows that he is willing to use his platform and then to talk about it and engage with it.

Now, it'd be one thing if he talked to the father solely and be like, okay, you created this AI and is it helping you heal and is it helping with your trauma?

You know, okay, let's watch a little clip of you talking to the AI.

And it could have been maybe kind of a heartfelt, like, you know,

school shooting, you know, father finds healing with AI of son.

Okay, like that would have been a better story.

Instead, for him to interview that, like he's Barbara Walters or that he is sitting down for like a major interview,

that tells us everything we already knew about Jim Acosta.

I mean, my separate worry about this is, you know,

AI should not be used like this on the airwaves.

You know, the person, this child is dead and whatever his parents do to make themselves, bring themselves comfort, that that's fine honestly it's uh

i'm only loving and praying for them but

when when someone dies it should not be okay it should not be lawful for journalists or public personalities public commentators to use their image and create fake conversations with them i mean it's just deeply wrong i understand everyone involved thought that this is what this child would say if asked these questions.

I'm still totally uncomfortable with it.

AI is going to a place that's potentially really dangerous and it's already spinning out of control.

I have it on very good authority that Sam Altman, who's the guy behind ChatGPT and Open AI, said that we're within a thousand days of superintelligence on these computers.

A thousand days.

I mean, we were debating whether it was going to be a hundred years.

And so it's coming soon.

And we're going to have to, like, the law hasn't caught up with the technology, Charlie, where we're still allowing things like this.

And we're allowing fake parodies of actual people who are still living to go out there as though those are real and the voices and the reality of the world.

Me and I'll tell you.

Yeah.

So Megan, on our podcast, someone alerted us.

They said, hey, Charlie, there's a Facebook ad that has 6 million views with your name and likeness.

Is it real?

It was an insurance company that was being run foreign running an ad.

It literally looks like me in my chair.

People like Charlie Kirk endorsed insurance and hundreds of people were buying this scam because they were using a totally fake video of mine.

And we, you know, we asked Meta to take it down.

They did a great job.

They did.

They were wonderful to work with, but it keeps on popping up.

And so we are at the beginning of

the societal.

erosion that artificial intelligence might represent when it comes to not just name and image and likeness, but also what is real and what is fake and what is reality in general.

And I agree with you.

I don't think we are nearly equipped.

I think AI is going to be to determine the 2028 election.

I think it's going to be the AI century.

I think it's the greatest shift that we're going to see since the Industrial Revolution.

I think we are underestimating how much it's going to change our lives and change our perceptions and change our relationships.

And anything to the contrary is just delusional or willful ignorance.

You worry for your kids, you know, especially yours are babes.

Mine are still young too, 12 and 14 and 15.

Like, how are they going to work?

What job are they going to have if everything is replaced replaced by computers, especially super intelligent ones?

Which, I mean, now you're talking take over the world, super intelligence amongst the computers.

Okay, we'll put a pin in that.

There's something to stew over as you live the rest of your day.

I wanted to ask you about something I saw.

There's a lot of hard news we could get to, but I really wanted to get to this.

I saw a clip of you online.

I don't even know the podcast.

Forgive me.

You'll tell us what it is.

But I loved it so much.

I wanted you to say it here and expand on it.

Here it is.

Watch.

Women want to be able, they want to be taken care of.

I know this is like super provocative, but like deep down, they want a man to be able to provide for them financially.

Should a man pay on the first?

100%.

Like, what kind of a wuss beta male is splitting the check?

Like, who are you?

It's like, I'm just sorry.

It's

like debt and like

scrub dishes before a woman.

I split the check quite a lot.

So

I'm sorry.

I don't mean to offend you.

You guys are great.

That's incomprehensible to me.

To me, I thought it was a great financial decision.

I've just okay.

So from your prism, I totally get that.

And like, you have really good financial discipline.

I'm sorry.

Like,

I would be so humiliated if I was.

I mean, I find that to be like the greatest beta male, like, humiliation.

Save money?

No, no, to like the idea that a woman that you're trying to court.

Now, if it's like a friend or...

As a first date, you don't even know if she doesn't matter.

It's not equality.

She does not matter.

I'm sorry.

By the way, that money you save is not worth the honor that you compromise.

It is such a big deal.

It's a massive deal.

I love

everything you said.

Please explain what was happening there and who that was.

Well, so first of all, those are two great guys.

I don't remember their names, unfortunately.

It's from the Iced Coffee Hour podcast.

So at least I got their show right.

They were really sweet.

They came to Phoenix.

They brought their mobile studio.

They're up and coming in the podcast world, which I have a soft spot for, as I'm sure you do, Megan.

They were really great, right?

And so they asked this question, and he was just so terribly wrong on this.

And what was so interesting, I have multiple takes on this, the first of which is that the comments I got, the video went super viral, right?

It got tens of millions of views.

The comments

from the women were so overwhelming.

Yes, thank you.

We need more of this.

Why don't men do this anymore?

Then from the men, it's like, Charlie is wrong.

Like women aren't worth it.

Now, let me just say, hold on.

Let me just take a whole recalibration.

Now, there were some men that agreed, but overwhelmingly, the women were the ones that were driving this video, which is unique because that's not always the case for Charlie Kirk videos.

Usually it's the opposite, but it's good.

Listen, a man needs to demonstrate leadership and the capacity to provide early on.

That doesn't mean that you end up have to have that role when you're having a marriage, but from the outset, what it means to be a man is to take directive, to be leadership, to be to have the protector of the family.

And not to mention, the

young lady that is there, deep down, she wants to show that when all the crap hits the fan, the man can take care of her and that he will do the alpha move and that he's not going to split the check.

And there's also a, I didn't mention this in the video, so I'll say this here, Megan.

It filters out ingratitude.

It filters out the character of the person you are courting.

I was shocked.

I learned this, that so many men came to me and they said, Charlie, when I pay for a lot of the first dates, the women never say thank you.

I said, ah, yet another good reason to pay on the first date because you learn as much about her as she is learning about you.

And I asked a group of women, 100 women, I said, appealing or unappealing, attractive or unattractive, the man on the first date pays the check without you even knowing and goes to the mate or D enhands the credit card while he goes to the bathroom.

They said, it's beyond a turn-on.

I said, so for men, I mean, for men, you're talking about a way that you could advantage yourself.

Now, as they say, well, what if the date didn't go well?

Still does not matter.

What if you think that it will never go anywhere?

Still does not matter.

You have a role to play.

And on a date, the woman is there to be courted by you.

That is the way this works, right?

You are the one that is hosting.

You are the one that is hospitable.

and I think a breakdown of that has been so destructive but to complete the point so many of the men that pay for it they find out a lot about the women so I could go endlessly about this Megan but I think I learned about that this was happening by the way in this podcast afterwards I said are you telling me that that men aren't paying for everything on the first date they said oh yeah all the time that we're splitting it I say no wonder why male female relations have fallen down so much we need men to be men again we need to raise our sons to be men of honor, of character, and leadership to look after the women in their lives, to say that women are not just beautiful, but they're honorable and they're sacred and that we provide for our wives and that we honor our mothers and that we protect our sisters.

That's the men that we want to raise in our country and we've gotten away from that.

Oh, I love it.

Right on.

I agree with every word.

Shoot it into my veins, as they say.

A shout out to the podcast.

It is hosted by Graham Stefan and Jack Selden.

They explore very nice guys.

You're so wrong on that, but they were sweet young.

Yeah, well, sweet young man.

Totally.

And I'll tell you, I can relate to that even as a working woman who obviously can support herself.

But when Doug and I met, and I was still working, I was at Fox News.

I was in my infancy at Fox News.

He was making a lot more money than I was, and he was running his own company.

And I mean, if he had actually suggested that we split the bill or that I pay,

he would have been out the window window in a New York second.

I mean, it was a, it wouldn't have even been a consideration.

It was clear that he was taking care of me in that way.

We both understood it.

And then eventually, in the course of our relationship, just because media is what it is, I wound up earning more than Doug just because, you know, that's, you know, how it is.

But still, he takes care of me.

Still, he's in the alpha role in our personal life.

And I'm more in the beta role in our personal life, which I love.

That turns me on.

Like, if it were something else,

I don't think it would work.

And I don't think people understand that.

That's true, I think, universally for 99% of women, whether they're working women or not working women or women who work in the home, et cetera, they do want to be taken care of.

It's biological and they want to take care of their men in different ways too.

Yes.

And also, this is very important that the man, if he is not providing or if he is not productive, then something happens to men that's really hard for us to sometimes put to words, but

the statistics show it.

They kind of get emasculated, they get into pornography, they gain a bunch of weight, where it is best for a man to have pressure.

Men succeed under pressure.

And so many young men are without pressure.

And sometimes you go on a first date, you know what?

You have to have the pressure to provide on that first date.

So many young men are in a pressure-free environment.

What does that mean?

They don't have to provide for themselves.

They don't have to provide for others.

They don't have to show up.

So when all of a sudden pressure makes the man, where you have to show up at 5 a.m.

for work, that you have to make enough money to pay for rent.

And then yes, you also have to provide for a family.

And I can say this as a married man with two kids.

Something happens the way God wired us once you get married with kids, where you just figure it out.

And you're like, I'll take a second job.

I'll work all night.

I'm going to, you know, ask the boss for a raise.

I'm going to come up with a new idea.

Because all of a sudden, you feel this biological need that I have to feed these kids.

And it sometimes happens subconsciously, but it's so important.

And the same thing happens, by the way, for moms, right?

They are like, we got to get the house organized, right?

We have to make sure it's clean.

We got to make sure the meals are.

It's the same sort of thing.

And they always can't put words to it.

But for the man, it gives them purpose in their work.

It gives them satisfaction.

Like, okay, it was a rough day at work, but I came home and these kids are fed and they can go to school and we live in a nice neighborhood.

And it gives man a sense of contentment and satisfaction that is so missing from modernity with these young men, largely because we've taken them out of this kind of purpose-filled life.

And I think, again, I would say, and it's so interesting you said what you said, Megan, that the women that are the prizes,

if you split the check with them, there probably will not be a second date.

Oh, hell no.

Hell no.

And can I say the other thing that you're talking about that

I think people need to be reminded of and I think is important is the man should be the pursuer in the early relationship.

And frankly, I mean, Doug and I have been married, I don't know how many years now, 18 years, and he's still pursuing me.

He's still not sure where it's going to land.

It has to be, it's biologically conditioned.

Yes.

Men and women are to for the man to be the pursuer.

He's the lion and you're the gazelle.

And he's like programmed to run after you.

And if you upend that in any way, you're messing with nature.

You know, so that like

men, young men should know you do need to make the phone calls.

Even if she didn't call you back, you have have to be the one to text first.

It's like almost like a reporter going after his source.

In a way, you're subjugated, but you're not actually subjugated.

You're doing it because you're the leader in the relationship in this way.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

It's actually hot and appropriate and part of the game and the turn on.

Yes.

And if you're a young woman, I have to say this, and you think that it's pervy or weird.

If a man is pursuing you, you got deep problems.

I hear this a lot from men.

And so young ladies out there are like, oh, well, I think it's weird if he approaches me at a bar.

Get over yourself.

Like, that's nature.

That's biological, right?

Have enough self-confidence.

Be like, I'm not interested.

Thank you so much, right?

Correct.

Don't go out alone if you feel unsafe.

And you talk about this all the time, right, Megan?

But what has happened is this hostility.

And I think men are overcompensating, but men have just retreated.

They're like, forget it.

We're done.

You don't want to talk to us.

You're going to accuse us of sexual harassment.

I don't think that's the right reaction.

But young ladies in some ways ways have unintentionally created this kind of like, oh, I can't believe that guy at work came up to me and he wanted to talk to me.

And that's what I'm saying.

And they will wind up alone.

They will wind up.

Exactly.

And they wonder why they're alone.

Exactly.

And for the women, I think they need to remember: yes, it's his job to sort of be the alpha and pursue you, but you should stay playful.

You can be somewhat elusive, you know, because men like that.

Hello, but also playful.

Like you have to be signaling back, I'm into you, if not always available to you.

That is how it works.

Yes.

Men want what they cannot have, and they will keep on pursuing what they cannot have if they think there's a chance.

And there's that beautiful thing where it's like, so you're telling me there's a shot.

You're telling me there's a chance, right?

And so, again,

for the women out there, you know, exercise class and piety properly understood.

But, you know, again, you could be playful.

You could be artful with it.

Don't you have to be overly flirty, but you definitely can be classy classy in the way that you engage with it, right?

Because a man will also,

women will find this, a man will improve himself, his income, and his character to elevate towards a woman.

And so you will find that men will do things that they will not do for anybody else in the pursuit of a woman.

They'll stop drinking.

They'll stop watching porn.

They'll get a second job.

They will not eat for a week.

They'll go to the gym.

Like it does things to the male mind and women don't always understand that.

so I say women hold yourself to such a high standard that the man wants to pursue you that they have to elevate themselves towards that That's right.

That's exactly I couldn't agree with this more I think you and I need to start like a conservative dating service Charlie because you and I both know there are so many young conservatives out there who want to be connected with people but are having a difficult time and maybe don't even know how to behave or what the so-called rules are anymore but I think we could help them.

We should let's give us some thought.

I think we should help them.

I think we should.

And we could also do classes,

90-second to two-minute classes, what to wear, how to act, right?

Yes, it'll be like the Jordan Peterson model, only we're actually, we're really going to help young people get together.

And it will be very applicable, right?

Which is like, look, make sure your breath doesn't smell.

Men dress properly.

Open the door for the woman.

You know, make sure she gets home safely, right?

Check in as soon as she wants.

Be playful.

Be appreciative.

Don't give it up too easily.

Respect yourself, and that's the only way you're going to get respect.

You teach others how to treat you, right?

You can give too.

You, you're he's not the only provider, you provide certain things to him, and and they'll want to take care of you forever if you do so.

There's all sorts of things we can go over with them.

All right, this is just episode one in our series.

Uh, I love to think of a name, and I think we're gonna help a lot of young people.

I love it, lots of lots.

See you again soon, Charlie.

Thanks, Megan.

Talk to you soon.

Thank you, guys.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show: No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Hey, everybody, Conan O'Brien here with an ad about my podcast.

Conan O'Brien needs a friend.

I've had so many fantastic conversations with people I truly admire: people like Michelle Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Maya Rudolph, Tom Hanks.

New episodes are out every Monday, and we have a really good time.

So subscribe and listen wherever you you get your podcasts.