This is the US Report with James Morrow. Good evening and welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up tonight. War on Antifa. It's been a long time coming, but now Donald Trump has a new terror target in his sights. Plus, blimey, Donald and Malania takes the UK by storm. We'll see how he was received. And what are they teaching kids in schools? Well, apparently that political assassinations are a okay
by the times of home schooling. Hey, but first, the censorious cancel culture left the same tribe of people who's spent the last decade or more telling us that words are violence, that feelings are more important than reason, and that the right should be censored for all their hateful hate speech have suddenly become dyed in the wool free beach First Amendment die hards. Why well, because late night Comedian, Yeah,
I know, but that's the official title. Late Night Comedian Jimmy Kimmel has been pulled from the airy airwaves over a joke, or an attempted joke about Charlie Kirk. Have a look at. Hold on to your sides here, because you might split them from laughing.
He hit some new lows over the weekend with the Maga gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and do everything they can to score political points from it.
Well, there was more to his routine. But this is the bit I really wanted to show you, because it is not just a bad joke, but it is a lie, a lie about which I'll have a lot more to say a bit later on in the program. But there is a lot to unpack here beyond the stupidity of claiming that Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter was Maga, and it goes to the heart of questions about free speech, government overreach,
and political sensitivities. Now, on one level, and I say this as a near absolutist on free speech, I get why people are concerned about broadcasters seeming to tow the line to the Trump administration or really any administration. And I can see why people think Kimble's bosses might have
read the room politically and given Jimmy the flick. After all, speaking about Kibble's routine, the head of the FCC, Brendan Carr, He's the guy who regulates the airwaves in the US said that quote, this is a very very serious issue right now for Disney, the parent company of Kibble's broadcaster.
We can do this the easy way or the hard way, he said, So just to take him at his word there, well, there was a clear implication that there was a broadcast license on the line, and critics have left upon this
as proof that Kimmel's suspension was simply political. But you know what, I say, not so fast, because I am old enough to remember all the far more direct censorship the Democrats and the left have engaged in, like that time CIA contractors colluded with the Biden administration to block the Hunter Biden laptop story, arguably interfering in the twenty twenty election, or when the Biden administration had a literal hotline into Facebook and the social media giants where they
could call up and get any posts they did not like taken down. And of course, who can forget when Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter before Elon Musk Talk took over, literally banned the president's candidate, Donald Trump because he didn't want him to have the reach. So spare me, please, everyone who's now complaining about Jimmy Kimble losing his gig. I'm sorry, but you know what, You set the rules
and now you've got to live with them. This idea that Kibble has somebody had his First Amendment rights violated is when you dig further, really pretty laughable. Almost as laughable as the left, which used to celebrate when people on the right lost their jobs, and now they're suddenly crying victim. I mean, back in twenty twenty three, the left was cheering over a book called The Case for
Cancel Culture, saying it was good for democracy. In twenty twenty two, Squad member Ilhan Omar was tweeting that just because you had freedom of speech did not mean you were insulated from the consequences of said speech. Your opinions have consequences like everything else in life, she said, speaking of Squad members, what do you think Alexandria Okazi Cortes had to say when Tucker Carlson lost his gig at Fox News?
Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News.
Couldn't have happened to a better guy.
And while we're on the subject, here's Jimmy Kibble himself in twenty twenty three on that very same subject. And listen to the crowd go wild.
Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson.
After all these.
Years, they are parting ways, which means he was fired. I mean, that's really what parting Waites made Tucker. Tucker couldn't be reached for comment. He's already on a plane to Moscow to meet with his manager. But what a shock, I mean, what an absolutely delightful shock.
This is Well, what's the old saying turn about his fair play and payback is? I think you know the rest. Now, there is more to this too, because this decision by Kibble's bosses would surely have had a commercial angle to it as well. Kimmel's ratings were let's just say, not so hot, and in the first quarter of this year alone,
his ratings had doubled by twenty four percent. Now I'm no network boss, but all I can imagine is that ABC chiefs saw this as a convenient excuse to give the flick to a money losing proposition that was, oh yeah, also alienating half of the network's potential audience. But let's go back to what Kimmel said, Because, to use the left's own language, he was spreading misinformation, disinformation if you like, about the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk and his motivation.
Kimmel said that it was a mega guy who was responsible. Now, yes, it is still before the courts, but all the evidence suggests that this was a lie. And Kimmel's not the only one pushing this line. It's become a massive part of the information ecosystem, deflection, redirection, and even sympathy for an alleged killer. Here's an American ABC reporter, Matt Gootman, describing what came out and You're gonna love this year.
What came out of the press conference where authorities revealed text messages between Charlie Kirk's alleged killer and his roommate, slash Lover.
Also, it was very touching in a way that I think many of us didn't expect, a very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself, with him repeatedly calling his roommate, who is transitioning, calling him my love and I want to.
Protect you, my love.
So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said, not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd, but was doing it in front of children, which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case. And on the other hand, he was speaking so lovingly about.
His partner, touching really Montell Williams had something very similar to say on CNN check this out, talking about a.
Love torn child, a kid. This is probably his first real relationship and somebody was disparaging the person that he loved. He sat on that building for thirty minutes before he took the shot. Why do you wait until the first word trance came up? Then he took the shot.
You think he heard it?
He could hear I think he could hear it.
I think he also. I don't believe he was motivated politically. I think this was motivated emotionally. I think this was an emotionally stunded person who literally, I want to say it this way, just hear me, tried to defend his significant other.
No, it wasn't political at all. It was a crime of passion, a crime of the heart. Because, of course, who among us has not avenged an insult against a lover by blowing a hole in someone's neck from a rooftop two hundred yards away. Absolutely romantic. Personally, I'd rather say it with flowers or better yet, martiniz and Steak.
But that's just me. Yet, this effort to retell the story from the left's perspective, to turn it from a political murder to a crime of innocence and passion, is creating an ecosystem of lies, an ecosystem of lies that is starting to bear fruit. Now, despite everything you would know about this case, a Yugo of poll found this week that of those in America who had an opinion either way, more people thought a Republican shot Charlie Kirk than a Democrat. So you can see why we have
a problem here. The lies have a consequence, and they are showing up in public opinion. But for the final word on this, this question of late night hosts and comedians being political, let's go I want to play this for you here. Let's go to Johnny Carson, once the king of late night comedy in America and the absolute pioneer of the form. Let's have a look at what he thought about the idea of him using his own comedic platform as a jumping off point to get into politics.
Tell me the last time that Jack Benny Red skeleton. Uh Benny comedian used his show to do serious issues. That's not what I'm there for. Can't they see that? But you're and I do they think that just because you have it tonight's show, that you must deal in
serious issues. That's a danger. It's a real danger. Once you start that, you start to get that self important feeling that what you say has great import and you know, strangely enough, you could use that show as a form, you could sway people, and I don't think you should as an entertainment.
All right. Thrilled to be joined now by former White House Chief of Staff and senior advisor at Bondi Partners, Mick mulvaney. Mick, we got to talk about this culture war that has erupted over Jimmy Kimmel. Let's play a little bit more of what he had to say about Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump and the reaction to the murder.
But on a human level, you can see how hard the President is taking this.
Don't just have a lot of your friend Charlie Kirk as sir, personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half third?
I think very good? And by the way, right there. You see all the trucks.
They just started construction of the new Baurough for the White House.
This is not how an adult grieves the murder of somebody called a friend. This is how a four year old morn's a goldfish.
Mick's so funny. I forgot to laugh as the saying goes. But you know, as I was just saying here, I'm a real free speech guy. But when the left makes these rules about censoriousness and cancel culture, it's hard not to hold them to it. Mick mulvady, your take on the Jimmy Kimmel affair.
Yeah, well, the left lacks a lot of credibility here, James, You're correct. I mean I was wondering where all of this concern was about free speech back when Obama's Internal Revenue Service was coming down hard on Christian conservative groups and other conservative political groups. So, look, I'm sympathetic to the arguments about free speech. I'd love to have a
discussion about free speech. But a lot of folks on the left gave up the moral high ground and then a long time ago because they were perfectly happy for it to happen to us.
Look, I don't think Jimmy Kimmel is funny.
Apparently not a lot of people do because his ratings are terrible, But that doesn't make any difference.
He obviously doesn't like the president.
The president said today that ninety seven percent of the stuff that's said about President on the show is negative. That doesn't make any difference. Here's what matters. The law in this country is that.
If you were going to use the public airwaves.
Now there's a different thing if you want to go out on street corner and talk or do whatever. But if you want to use the public airwaves, there are laws that apply to that, and one of them is you can't make false statements about crimes that would be injurious to the public. And I think that's what the FCC came down here and said, Look, Jimmy Kimmel was implying that this guy was a Republican.
That's false.
They know it's false, and it's harmful to people because they end up thinking that Republican party is somehow responsible for this. That's the issue here, whether or not it's negative, whether not his ratings are bad.
Yes it's negative, Yes his ratings are bad.
But if you violated the law, then This is not censorship in any way, shape or form.
Yeah. And I mean also though, even in those areas of American society that aren't regulated by commercial broadcast Codes the FCC, these sorts of regulatory bodies, like the Internet, for example, like comedians. I could give you a long list of comedians in the last ten years who were cashiered for all sorts of reasons, who were canceled, who were driven off of the stage because they said something that was a bit too edgy, you know, Shane Gillis,
Roseanne Barr, all sorts of people like that. And so this just seems like incredible hypocrisy that they don't want their own rules to apply to them.
They don't.
Again, they were fine when Roseanne Barr got canceled, Fine, when everybody I got canceled.
See I got fired from CBS for some of the same some of.
The same things we're talking about here, essentially just being a Republican and not always being anti Trump.
So yeah, that's why I say they lack credibility. But I think there's a difference. James.
Look a lot of Republicans that he said, Look, it was okay for Disney to fire the Disney the Walt Disney Corporation owns ABC, which owns the show, it's okay for him to fire Kimmel.
That's absolutely right.
It just is if ABC makes the corporate decision our ABC, not yours, that his what he says does not represent their brand. Well, they have the right to fire him, just like CBS had the right to fire me. I didn't like it, and I'm sure Jimmy Kimel doesn't like it. But it's not illegal. And I want to know where all the all the Democrats who are now claiming is a free speech violation for Disney to do this when I got fired for the same reason.
Well, exactly right, Mick. And I mean, you know, you talk about your ABC versus our ABC. I'll bet our ABC tries to give Jimmy kimmele a gig. But you know this whole idea too, that Donald Trump somehow is introducing this fascist, anti free speech kind of you know
environment so on. Well, I just found this clip from Kamala Harris, who could have been the next president, the current president of the United States, and not too long ago she was calling for censorship, even more censorship of her own have listened to.
This we will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber war, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.
And we all remember the way the Biden administration worked with social media companies to censor what people could say. I mean, the idea that somehow Trump is an outlier on this seems pretty laughable.
You know what I heard there?
If you distilled all down was what she said, is this, if you traffic and misinformation, we are.
Going to hold you accountable.
That's exactly what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel. So I don't know what Kamala Harris is so upset about. Look, the difference is this. We all know what the difference is. You might as well say it out loud. When she says if you traffick and hate, that means if you support Republican ideas.
That's what it means. It's code for being Republican.
So that's why I say, Look, I want to have a debate about free speech in the country, and if this allows us to do it, that's great.
Okay, I'm a huge civil libertarian. I need too, But I won't sit and listen.
To Democrats who think that it's okay to do it to me but not do it to them.
That you lose credibility in the debate when you have that.
And I'm looking for some Democrats who are defending Republicans when they were being canceled, and they're sort of hard to find.
Right now.
Before I let you go, I want to ask you too about this big trip to the UK. The President first Lady have been in the UK for a state visit, welcome by the royal family and lots of pomp and pageantry at Windsor Castle. Look personally, I think it's pretty amazing for a guy who was driving a garbage truck just eleven months ago to now be being received in Windsor Castle. But seriously, though, a big, big, big state banquet here. What do you make of this trip? Why
has Trump put so much attention? This is a second state visit over to the UK nearly as many months. What is all coming out of this between the US and the UK and Keir Starmer and Donald Trump.
I think here Starmer donald Trump get along fine, which it just goes to show you, by the way, that if Donald Trump doesn't get along with that Anthony Albanezi, it's not because of Albanese's politics, it's his personality. Trump doesn't care about your politics. I mean, he wants to do business with people that he likes, and he likes Kear Starmer. I think they've just announced here in the last couple of hours an initiative, a joint initiate between
the two countries that on artificial intelligence. I'll be looking for more of that in the next coming days what actually comes out of this meeting. But one of the reasons I thought it was so successful is just that it's very similar to the US. In Australia, there are cultural similarities, there's ties here that it's almost like family. And for some reason the UK has been able to sort of tap into that and the Albaneze government has not, to its own detriment, and that's a.
Shame, absolutely right McKay. Finally, just one more thing for you here. I've noticed this story about the thing that they say never happens, yet it seems to keep on happening. A man in South Texas has been put in a police custody accused of running an illegal ballot harvesting scheme.
Now all allegations at this stage, but it involved over sixty five voters, and it runs a bit counter the narrative that all of these so you know, mail in ballots and other sorts of ways to vote rather than just going to a polling booth, you know, are all perfectly safe. What do you reckon You've been around elections a fair bit.
Yeah. In fact, I harken back.
I think you and I may have talked about this a couple of months back when the Minnesota Democrats had their primary yes at a convention, and then the next day the guy that laws claimed there was a fraudulent you know, ballot interference and so forth.
So look when they know it exists. The bottom line is this is it.
Does happen in this country.
It's not an issue.
I don't think James of people voting three and four times, I really don't think that happens that often. But ballot harvesting is real and it is illegal in most places, including Texas. By the way, there are some states where it's not illegal. And in some states it wasn't illegal during COVID. It was a one off type of situation. But look, there are thousands of lawyers in this country
who make a living doing nothing but election law. Elections have consequences, and elections have complications, and they're never ever going to be perfect. We voted, I think you know, almost one hundred and fifty million people here in the last election. That the election is run mostly by volunteers. There's always going to be fraud and we're always going to be able to do better next time. And I hope stories like this convince both sides that we need to focus on that.
Hey man, Mick mulvaney, thank you so much for your time this week, and we'll see you next time. Now joining me is John Heinerecher. You know him well as well from the Center for the American Experience. Huge news week here, John, and I want to talk about something that hasn't gotten a huge amount of trouble here, but you've written about it on your power Line blog, which
I urge everyone to go and check out. Because the New York Times, or as Donald Trump might say, the failing New York Times, is in some hot water with the President announcing a fifteen billion dollars that's billion with a b lawsuit against them. Trump said that he is the great honor. He wrote of bringing a fifteen billion dollar defamation in the line of a lawsuit against The Times. Tell us about this and his accusations at the Times
is a virtual mouthpiece for the Democrats. I thought everybody knew this.
Well, James. That's true, and most people do know it. This is actually a very interesting case. The Times has smeared Trump thousands of times, but this case is very specifically focused. It is focused on a book that was written by two New York Times reporters, and he sued the Times. He sued Penguin Random House, which published that book, and two other people who wrote op eds in The Times that repeated some of the representations in that book, as well as the two Times reporters who wrote it.
The book is called Lucky Loser, and the claim in that book is that Donald Trump is an incompetent businessman who has never achieved anything in life through his own skill or heart work, and any success that he has ever achieved is entirely due to either inheriting money from his father or to dumb luck. They've read this entire book trying to prove that Trump is a complete incompetent.
So if you look at the complaint in this case, there are probably fifty or sixty or seventy specific statements in the book or in these op eds in the New York Times that Trump claims are false. And some of them are not statements of opinion which are not actionable, but clearly our statements of fact, like Trump had time ties to the mafia, or Trump committed tax fraud. I think they alleged that a couple of times, and so
you know, this could be a very explosive case. The conventional wisdom is that it's almost impossible for a public figure to recover in a defamation case, but that's not necessarily true. Trump brought this case in federal court in Florida. He may wind up with a judge who is reasonably sympathetic, a jury who is reasonably sympathetic. And the overall theme of that book that Trump is an incompetent businessman who has never achieved anything, who his own efforts, is clearly false.
And so I think this is a case that is very much worth following.
I think it's fascinating. That's why I wanted you to break it down for us, because I didn't have all of that nuance in details, and I think probably our viewers didn't either. So thank you for that because it also leads into this broader issue too, because there's a lot of complaints after the Jimmy Kimmel affair this week
that somehow Trump is cracking down on free speech. Now, I spoke a little while ago about you know, I think it's great to enforce the left's rules on them, but I was also a bit concerned about something that Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, spoke about earlier, and that was usually hate speech laws against the left. Have a look at this.
Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people? So we show them that some action is better than no action.
We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.
Now, John, I was happy for Jimmy Kibble to get the flick because of course that's the cancel culture rules just turning around on the left. But I was concerned about this, and I want your opinion as a lawyer why would Pam Bondi go out and she later walked it back, but why would you go ahead and frame this whole thing in the terms of hate speech, which would seem to be the worst case or the worst sort of lefty framing to use to do what they're trying to do.
James, this was from outer space. The liberals for decades have been trying to create a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, And of course, hate speech is whatever they say it is. You know, this is not any kind of a legal term or a term of art that has been uniformly rejected by the US Supreme Court. In twenty seventeen, there was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that again said no, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. And that's always been
a liberal theme, not a conservative theme. For Pam Bondy to say that, even though she then walked it back the next day after there was quite a bit of blowback, it's frankly almost inexplicable.
Yeah, I mean, how do you rate Pam Bondi's performance as Attorney General? Because a lot of people I'm talking to in the United States are saying that she may be the weakest link in this cabinet.
Well, I didn't think that going in, James. But she's had two significant missteps so far. That was one, and the other was when she really over promised on the Jeffrey Epstein case, acting like they had all this dynamite information and they're going to make it public. And then it was this kind of pop gun you know, that had like no significant follow up. Both of those instances put her in kind of a bad light. The jury is still out, the administration is young, but those were disappointing.
Hey, I wanted to ask you about Epstein. So I'm glad you mentioned that because FBI Director Cash Pttel was at a fiery House committee hearing this week grilled about the Epstein case from the Democrats. How a look at this.
Have you released all of the stuff that the FBI has seized from Epstein's house, the computers, the emails, the file cabinets, the documents, and what about the financial records? Have you released all of.
That everything the court has allowed us to which order you're talking about, Three separate.
Federal courts have come in and said.
We're talking about the evidence you've got, It's got nothing to do with what those courts have.
We're talking about how the law works. Do you want me to break the law in a federal judge's order?
No, I want you to.
Follow your own word, Director Patel.
You said up there it was under the direct control of the FBI director.
Now, John put aside the bizarre idea that now the Democrats want the Trump administration to ignore a court ruling, which is pretty funny and ironic. You've got a really interesting essay on your parall lined blog about the Epstein case and your thoughts about why actually a lot of the stuff people think might be there might not be there. Tell us about that.
Yeah, it's really interesting, James.
This was really based on a piece in the magazine First Things that raised some points that I was not familiar with. I wrote about him on my website. There were twelve young women involved in this scandal down in Florida. Epstein was down in Palm Beach and one of them came to the law enforcement. They investigated. Ultimately, there were
twelve young women who gave evidence against Jeffrey Epstein. But the interesting thing is that none of them mentioned any other men being involved in this situation other than Jeffrey Epstein. It was only him. And then, of course we had the prosecution of Gislaine Maxwell, who was his confederate, who recruited young women for him and so on, and she
was only prosecuted. She's now in prison, but in that prosecution she was accused of procuring young women for only young women for only one man, Jeffrey Epstein, no evidence
about anyone else. And it turns out that this whole theory about this pedophile ring and Jeffrey Epstein, all his influential friends who like underage girls, and maybe intelligence agencies being involved, and this whole thing is very likely a fantasy that came along quite a few years after the fact, and it turns out that there is very little, if any,
evidentiary support for it. And so the idea that Epstein had this black book, you know, with all these politicians and celebrities in it, you know, it just isn't true. Pattel was asking that same hearing I believe that about that so called black book, which people are eagerly waiting for. He said, well, no, we released that. It's it's called
the Decks. You know, when you look at the list of documents, But there's nothing in it, and so I think that this whole Epstein thing has taken on an aura of myth.
Indeed, well, John, that's a really interesting perspective on that. Thank you for sharing that with us, and check out more of John's stuff on the power Line blog. Now put your trade tables up. It's time for quick break. But first, if you know anything about air travel in the US, you know about Spirit Airlines, which has a reputation for being the home to all in brawls, both in the air and even at check in. But listen to this one off Spirit Airlines. Pilot's just got told
off for coming too close to Air Force one. Check out this exasperated air traffic controller.
Bear wing thirteen hundred turned twenty degrees right immediately question pay attention thirteen hundred traffics off. You're left wing by six or eight miles seven forty seven. I'm sure you think who it is the fightable three zero, maintain three three zero. I'll keep an eye off for me, White and Blue. Pay attention, get off the iPad, Get.
Off the iPad? What is going on up there? Was Spirit? Who knows anyway? Fashion your seatbelt because there's a lot more us important to come up with Andy No on
Antifa terrorism. Next. Welcing back to the program now in a moment, I'm going to bring in my next guest, Andy know, who I think is America's foremost expert on Antifa, the loosely organized, supposedly anti fascist outfit that came to prominence during the twenty twenty Summer of Love Rights and whose ideology has been tied to the Charlie Kirk shooter. Now Donald Trump is vowed to go after Antifa, calling it a terrorist organization. Who are they and where's.
The money coming from?
Is it foreign entity?
You're going to find out, and we're going to find out in great detail. And it surprised me that Biden wouldn't have done because it really became hot over the last three or four years. It surprised me that Biden wouldn't do it. But then as I got to know him.
First of all, he.
Didn't call the shots, he wasn't going the shots.
But as we got to see.
What was happening in Biden's group, Antifa plays perfectly for them, you know, absolutely perfectly. But it's a terrorist organization in my opinion, And we're.
Going to find out, all those questions are going to be answered.
Look, I think Donald Trump's absolutely right here, and I have a feeling my next guest will agree. Journalist, documentarian, author of On the Mast, the book all about Antifa, and senior editor at the Post Millennial, Andy no joins me. Now, Andy, welcome back to the program. Great to have you back on Sky News. Now, first of all, before we get to the Charlie Kirk killing, I want to just get everybody on the same page. But Antifa, tell us about
your experience with this group. I know you've had death threats, and it's Donald Trump on the right track here.
So since the statement that was released by President Trump yesterday, the gas lighting from the media has begun and they are saying that Antifa is a figment of the far right's imagination. Well, I can speak that there weren't phantoms who beat me severely in twenty nineteen, to the point where I was bleeding out of my ears and from my eyes and suffered a brain bleed. Those injuries were real.
Tell us Andy, more about Antifa, Who is behind it? How does it organize? Because one of the things that I hear people on the left says, oh, well, it's just an idea, and you can't fight a war against an idea because it's just an idea. But is there some more actual, coherent organize organization to it. I know there are cells out there, there's all sorts of different groups. Explain a bit more about the organization.
Well, first, their ideology and their methods and tactics. It's all meant to the public. They want people to believe that to be part of Antifa simply means to oppose fascism, which is why you see lies from journalists say things like, well, the soldiers who fought against a fascism during the Second World War, they were Antifa, and that is part of
the deception. Antifa in the contemporary form, the modern form is a far less violent, extremist, anarchist, communist movement, ideology network, all of the above, and their agenda is specifically for the abolishment of the liberal democratic order, and at the head of that is to target the US, which is why in particular it goes after really attacking the Constitution and freedoms like speech and even democracy itself. They attack
all these institutions with the hope of revolution. And so what's important to recognize is that in addition to the street militancy and being them being domestically in the US, they also function internationally. I'm sure many of the viewers and listeners may be familiar with the violence by Antifa in Melbourne, which happens, you know, and there's Antifa in Europe,
and these groups are connected through networks. And the next thing that needs to happen after this designation from President Trump is that the State Department needs to get involved and officially designate international Antifa as a terrorist entity and to sanction individuals who are involved in that because there is information, tactics flow, and training that is going in between the US and Europe.
Canada and Andy, I want to take this back to the Charlie Kirk assassination from last week, because you know, there are do seem to be connections between the ideology, as you suggested already, between the Kirk killing and Antifa ideology, but you've also revealed that one Antipha chapter has actually put out a report saying that the killing makes things more difficult for them. Tell us about this.
Yeah, So in the immediate hours, in first two days after the assassination, all of the antifah all around the world were celebrating, and they were celebrating not just that mister Kirk was assassinated, but that somebody was his views was killed, and therefore they felt that it was emblematic or he was representing the views of people maybe like
you and I. However, I don't. From reading that after action report out of an antiphah group in Oregon, they were surprised at the unity in the backlash in anger at what happened, and they did not expect, for example, that people who posted support for the assassination on social media or wherever were then fired from their positions. They didn't expect that previously a political institutions, businesses issued some
of them statements of support for mister Kirk's family. They really thought that this would be just another killing that would just be either ignored by the media or that people could continue celebrating it, celebrating it on the left
and nothing would happen. So they're quite concerned and they are discussing ways for how to sabotage right, sabotage the right right now because they really fear that the pendulum changing and that they've been able to thrive an environment for years where they can dehumanize the opposition, call the Nazis fascists and therefore worthier death. And they've had that tool empower with unfortunately support from rhetoric from Democrats, and they're afraid of losing that.
And finally, Andy, and I think you're absolutely right about that because I think from you know, the Obama administration at least on, you know, there was always this rhetoric dehumanized and pop on the right, and so who's surprised where this is all land but landed? But finally, I just want to ask you more about the FBI investigation into some of the potential links between Charlie Kirk's alleged killer and some other groups and some of these radical
queer groups and so on. I know the FBI is looking at Discord users who may have known about the killing, would they have had connections to Antifa? And what is this discord platform that I think maybe people you know who just sort of know X and Facebook aren't familiar with.
It's an app where you can communicate with people. There are a lot of gamers on it, and you can create private channels where you can invite people in. And it's not public. It's not like posting something on Facebook or ax where everybody can see it. This is people who join the group are invited and it's curated within the channel. So from the leaks to the press about the chats and at least one of the known discord channels the suspect was in that one was mostly a
political It is about Geeming. We don't know the full extent of which other channels he may be a part of. And my overall sense of the picture thus emerged in mister Robinson, is that he was a lone wolf type figure and actually that is this ideal candidate for anti FILTI radicalized.
Andy, We're gonna have to live with there. Thank you so much. You're a great fighter for the truth and you've really put yourself on the line on it on this, and you've got a great book out at the moment, a New York Times bestseller, as I said, called Unmasked, all about Antieva's radical plan to destroy democracy. Go out check that out and take a look at Andy's substack as well. Thank you so much for your time. Andy.
Now don't go anywhere, because we've got a new face on the program coming up next to talk about just how radicalized some college students are in the US. It's pretty terrifying. But meanwhile, let's go back to the UK and see how the Brits feel about Donald Trump's visit to the UK. Well, if he comes down here today, Trump is a legend.
And absolutely here to support him. He's wonderful. He's not a politician and that's why he's doing so well in America. He's a businessman and honestly, I wish he could do the same here that's happening in America because he's saving the people there.
Yeah, you want to see that on the BBC. I thought the British hated Trump, Maybe not so much now. You know, you're not going to believe what they're teaching the kids these days. After the break, welcome back to the program. Now joining us now, a new guest to the US support is Miami Republican Committee woman and political columnist Angie Wong. Angie, welcome to the US Report, and I want to talk about ideological indoctrine nation on college
campuses university campuses. Now, we've known this for a while, but the Charlie Kirk assassination has exposed just how bad it is getting in some places. Take a look at this student, and I believe Oberlin College saying we need to bring back political assassinations.
So the day after Charlie Kirk died, I was in class. My teacher said, I'll give you five minutes for hot takes about Charlie Kirk. I was the only person who raise their hand. I said, I've been saying we need to bring back political assassinations. I don't feel bad, and I don't think that everyone deserves the right to free speech. I think some people should be afraid to express their opinion in public.
Angie, I'm a little disturbed by this that you've got university students running around saying, hey, political assassinations if people are on the right, are okay? Do I need to be careful when I go hang out near a university campus in America these days?
Yeah, And note that most of these kind of woke talkings and teachings are happening at liberal arts colleges. It's not happening in trade schools, that's for sure.
Yeah.
No, it's almost like as if you go to college or university these days in the US, you get a license to talk like this. And you know there's been this kind of it's almost fashionable to be more woke than your colleagues. And I think that's what you're seeing here, is like who can be more woke? Who can you know, say the most outrageous things? And social media certainly propels this because social media rewards those who do extreme things and say extreme things, and the algorithms awards you both
likes and rage clicks. So that's, you know, another problem
we're seeing. No, this cannot be tolerated in colleges. I've gone to some of the most woke colleges in New York City and I saw this happening throughout the riots of twenty twenty four, and it's it's celebrated, unfortunately by the professors and some of the board members, and that whole culture is trying to you know, President Trump is trying to get rid of, certainly with pulling some of the federal fundings of Harvard and other institutions like that.
But Angie, what is it about social media too that is created a permission structure for people on the left to think it's perfectly okay to post these things on our side, whereas we say about people on the right. And this gets into the little Jimmy Kimble thing. Oh no, no, no, no, we'll cancel you. But our guys are okay. There's a real double standard here.
Yeah, And a lot of the times is because when you have a social media handle, you're masked, right, you don't know who is on the other side speaking to you. So they've been given double permission to speak the most hateful things. And you know, social media companies won't police this. And we do have this thing called the First Amendment here in which we enjoy.
Is the privilege.
But do you have the decency? I think that is where we're looking for the line of where the decency is. You know, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the social media lit up with cheers. It wasn't a universal outrage, and I just thought to myself, this is a really, really dark time in America.
Yeah. No, I had one of my screens on my desk just going with all the social media and it was a sewer, that particular screen that whole twenty four hours afterwards. But let's move on to other things here. Because we've had the President in the UK for this historic state visit. We played a little bit of that earlier but there's some important stuff that's come out of this as well, a landmark technology Prosperity deal supposedly meant to propel the US and UK special relationship for new
heights for the technological age. Here's Donald Trump speaking about this with Keir Starmer before.
The ties between our countries are priceless, and it's really an inheritance. It's a beautiful inheritance. Today we're making those ties closer than ever before. We've done some things that financially are great for both countries, and we work together and it keeps us together.
Now we know Trump's a massive anglophile. He loves the British people and the government of the King and all of that. But there seems to be something more developing here with this technological partnership. Tell us about this.
Yeah, I've never had to use the term special relationship more than in the last three days. And it's been wonderful watching President Trump conclude a supersized state visit. I mean, I think it was a successful visit for all sides. Kier Starmer, King Charles, everyone got the headlines they wanted. It was a great, great three days of celebration between our two nations, and it's also a display of how two nations can work together, especially with someone like Trump.
And I think that was a really nice way of symbolizing our strong special relationship with the AI. I mean, look, China just announced a few weeks ago that it is mandating AI teachings in all of their elementary to college level education. And then, of course, days after that, Milania Trump first Lady also said well, we're going to do something similar. We're going to start promoting AI here in the US, and we know that is going to be the future, and we need our kids to be educated
and have that language of AI. We're so far behind in this it is still very young. So I'm happy to see the thirty one billion pound investment from US.
Firms going into the UK.
I think that was a nice gift for Trump to bring with him along with Tim Cook and other tech titans to impress the royals. So I think this is a great step forward, and it also shows the world Okay, the US and UK we're gonna be working together in our special relationship to fight other world powers that may take over an AI.
Absolutely fascinating, Angie, thank you so much, and I just wish that our leaders in Australia had as much of a passion for big tech and cheap energy as some other leaders. Angie Walk, thank you so much for your time. Now don't go anywhere because Only in America is coming up next. But first, it wasn't just the King of England. Donald Trump was palaling around with little amazing concession the President got out of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Let me be really clear about how us our terror organization who can have no part in any future governance in Palestine. And what happened on the seventh was the worst attack since the Holocaust.
Atta boy, Kir, I know that was tough. Anyway, Only in America is next, and now it's time for a little segment we like to call Only in America. Well, for the past week, we've been mourning the death of Charlie Kirk, whose murder has rocked American and global politics in ways no one could have anticipated, and as conservative comedian Ryan Long points out in this skit, it's created a bit of a minefield for left wing performers trying to post about Kirk's death with enough qualifiers to make
sure no one thinks they agreed with him. Have a look at this.
As someone who disagrees with him. Obviously I disagree with him on everything, although we.
Didn't see eye to eye someone with a differing opinion almost everything.
Should I get specific with the things I disagree with them on.
So what I want to do is make my post that people shouldn't be killed for their opinions.
But figuring out the perfect amount of qualifiers to include has been near impossible.
Political violence on the all sides needs to stop.
Like, essentially, I want people to know that I'm good because I'm against murder, but I'm also good because I disagree.
With them guns are bad.
Ah, It's something that says I care, I have empathy.
But also if you disagree with them on anything, that's not a live business, you know, Like do we know anyone with empathy?
What did they put the way?
Disagree with them on ninety percent of thas?
You don't wait too long even.
I mean, I'm not touching Israel stuff with a ten foot poll. Now the rights figured out how to get people fire too, which is adding another layer of complication.
What are you post? What you actually?
What you grow?
God?
What do you The goal on social media is to say the least amount possible.
Well, also not not saying something when you're supposed to say something once you talk to me, when you understand social media.
It's a pickle, all right. And that's all the time we have tonight, so see you next week. Bye bye,