Impeachment Sham Goes to Hollywood + France Cancels America's Runaway Cancel Culture
Charlie brings you the brutally honest impeachment reaction you need to hear, including Attorney Bruce Castor's bizarre rambling opening followed by David Schoen's constitutional take downs, all while highlighting the biggest hypocrisies spewed by House impeachment managers on Day 2. Then Charlie dives into an ironic story out of France where it's reported that the secular European country is advocating against America's "export" of out-of-control cancel culture, except Charlie calls out the French for their revisionist history. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey, everybody.
Action Pact episode today: impeachment coverage and reaction.
What is going on in France?
I also take your questions that you have emailed me, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you'd like to support this podcast, please go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
We are working late nights and early mornings so that you guys can have your Charlie Kirk show podcast delivered to you every morning, our team of editors and researchers.
So, if you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
Are you a high school student or a college student and you want to get involved in fighting for freedom?
Metaphorically fighting, of course, go to turningpointusa, tpusa.com.
That's tpusa.com.
Click the get involved banner to get engaged for the future of our country.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
So, what happened in the impeachment trial?
Well, the Democrats gave their opening remarks.
And to always be honest with you guys, and to just call it actually as it is, the Democrats did far better than the Trump team.
And that's not to say their arguments are better, but their performance was much better.
The Democrats came better prepared.
They gave highly emotional arguments.
They showed moving footage.
It was very deceiving.
It was not rooted in facts, but they did much better than the Trump impeachment team.
The Trump impeachment team, specifically, I think one of Trump's lawyers by the name of Bruce Castor, gave one of the most bizarre speeches I've ever heard in the history of law.
And I don't really do much law history, quite honestly, but I've never seen a speech quite like it.
If you've ever seen my cousin Vinny, that's as close as we're going to get.
Just a total and complete choke job.
When I was watching this video, and I'll play it for you right now, he just had some very strange remarks and sentences.
It almost felt like a bad lip reading video, is what it felt like.
You guys, if you're familiar with bad lip reading, it is when you take someone that gave a speech and you impose other words over it.
He talked about how he got lost in the halls of Congress, about how the people of Nebraska are wonderful.
And here's just some free advice coming from a non-lawyer, someone that does not have a law degree.
Don't ever compliment the prosecution.
Could you imagine if Alan Dershowitz, when he was defending O.J. Simpson, came up and said, What a wonderful opening statement against my client who you're trying to accuse of murder.
This guy starts his remarks by complimenting the prosecution.
I would imagine that you could get in trouble for that as a lawyer by, I don't know, I've never heard of that.
I've never seen that before.
I'm sure there's instances where that's happened.
But he said, well, we had to really change our strategy because the House Democrats really blew us away.
Well, thanks, man.
Bruce Caster, nice enough guy, but choke city.
I saw a headline.
Representative so-and-so seeks to walk back comments about, I forget what it was, something that bothered her.
I don't want to steal the thunder from the other lawyers, but Nebraska, you're going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place.
If the individual state legislatures didn't adopt the Constitution, we would not have it.
The floodgates will open.
So I was going to say originally, it will release the whirlwind.
But I subsequently learned since I got here that that particular phrase has already been taken.
So I figured I better change it to floodgates.
We changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the House manager's presentation was well done.
We are generally a social people.
We enjoy being around one another.
Senators of the United States, they're not ordinary people.
And boy, this is a diverse group.
We still know what records are, right?
On the thing you put the needle down on and play it.
I worked in this building 40 years ago.
I got lost then, and I still do.
I represent the great state of fill-in-the-blank.
Not a good argument.
And so here's what the argument should have been.
And we've been making this argument here for days, for weeks.
It's very simple.
The first thing that Bruce Castor should have said is somebody is missing from this impeachment.
And he should have turned around and looked at Senator Patrick Leahy.
A partisan Democrat is residing as the judge of this impeachment.
Then he should have took out his Constitution.
But this should have been the opening argument.
In the United States Constitution, it says clearly and specifically, the Chief Justice shall preside over any impeachment proceedings.
And he should have pointed a lahey.
Nothing against you from the center of Vermont, but you're not the Chief Justice of the United States.
This impeachment is over.
It's that simple.
And then he should have just let the silence continue.
Constitution, Chief Justice, Democrat senator from Vermont.
All right, let's go back to Bruce Caster, who's just all over the place.
Look, I feel bad for the guy.
I just don't think he was ready for the bright lights.
I mean that.
I think that he got called up.
And because of the new cancel culture, I think a lot of lawyers said no to Trump.
And I'm sure this guy's a phenomenal lawyer, and I'm sure he does a great job representing clients.
But let me be very clear.
This, what's happening in the Senate, has nothing to do with how good of a lawyer you are.
It's how good of a showman you are.
Are you able to put on a show?
It's that simple.
Would you be able to perform in Hamilton?
Yes or no?
If you're not able to perform in Hamilton, you should not be an impeachment lawyer.
You can help with the briefs.
Now, mind you, most of law is reading and writing.
Very little when it comes to law is this.
And even less when it comes to law, especially, and this is what a litigator would do, is performing in front of 100 senators who all have political interests at heart and performing in front of tens of millions of people.
You don't compliment the prosecution.
You don't talk about how you got lost in Congress.
Again, I don't mean to, this is not an attack on President Trump.
It just so happens this guy, I think, set the cause back.
Republicans yesterday, Bill Cassidy, who inexplicably then voted in defense, no, in favor, I'm sorry, in favor of the constitutionality of this exercise, partially because I think that this was one of the most meandering arguments I've seen in quite some time.
And I've heard reports, and I believe they are true, that President Trump was livid at the speeches that were given.
Now, that's not to say that Trump's now going to be convicted because of it.
It's just, let's just look at this as the best of a seven-game series, right?
It's the best of a seven-game series, the NBA Finals or the World Series, and you lost the first day.
And of course, the Democrats who are funded by Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese and all of these people, they're going to have the best videos, the best arguments, the best one-liners.
They're the party of Hollywood.
Of course, they're going to be better at this than Republicans and conservatives.
But just a little word to the wise.
When you're representing a client, you never, ever say anything. that is contradictory to what your client has said.
For example, Bruce Castor then comes up and says, well, the voters voted Trump out of office.
You might believe that, but your client does not.
You are in the business of defending your clients, not in making your opinion well known of what you think happened in the election.
Okay, so it wasn't all a dumpster fire for Trump's defense.
And the arguments that were being made were not bad by Bruce Castor.
They were just presented terribly in almost this kind of folksy, friendly type way.
This is a show.
This is a Hollywood production.
You need to be Atticus Finch.
You need to be someone that does not waver an inch.
This is not about normal court procedures.
This is made for television and by television.
This is a Martin Scorsese film.
If you are not holding the line about the illegitimacy of this impeachment, then you are not actually doing your job as a lawyer.
Ted Cruz says the obvious, cut 63.
He went on Sean Hannity's program and said Trump will be acquitted, and the senators know that.
They just want a week of political feeder and a show trial.
Play tape.
This is going to be just venting the id of the Democrats.
And then it's going to end with failure.
It is going to end with the president being acquitted.
In order for the president to be convicted, it takes 67 votes in the U.S. Senate.
That's not going to happen.
It's not going to get 67 votes.
It's not going to get close to 67 votes.
Every one of the 100 senators knows that.
Every one of the House managers knows that.
But this is political theater because rather than address the real problems, the real challenges we have in this country, rather than focus on getting kids back in school and getting tens of millions of Americans back to work, the Democrats want a week of just political theater raging at Donald Trump.
And if I was a Democrat, which I'm not, and my ideas were unpopular and they weren't going to work, and I have been warning against the rise of white nationalism, I would be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing if I actually didn't care about the well-being of the country.
That's the if.
If I cared about the well-being of the country, I wouldn't be doing that.
But if I just cared about my political future and if I cared about holding on to committee position, then that's absolutely what I would be doing.
You know how many constructive things could be happening for our country right now?
We could be opening up our schools.
There could be an infrastructure bill for our country.
We could be opening up our economy.
Instead, we're doing performance art.
One thing I have learned about the left and the Democrats is they are experts in humiliation.
In fact, they go out of their way to find opportunities to humiliate the other side.
This is a Saul Alinsky tactic.
It's performance art in the sense of it's no different than what Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert do every single night.
It's completely scripted.
They know the outcome.
It's made for TV.
It's made for cameras.
It's not about persuasion, but it's about activation.
And it also establishes a narrative.
So now you have Jamie Raskin and you have the House impeachment managers that realize that they could not raise the billions of dollars to run the uninterrupted cable television advertisements to reinforce a narrative that helps them politically.
Half the country are actually domestic terrorists.
You just don't realize it.
That's really what their argument is here.
They know that it's not constitutionally sound.
They know that Trump will not be able to be barred from office based on what's happening here.
Instead, they're purchasing free television time for a political aim.
Instead of purchasing it, they're just giving these speeches under the auspice of constitutional impeachment with the Chief Justice not even being present.
As the China virus spreads across the globe in the spring of 2020, Noble Gold's investors flocked to precious metals as a financial safeguard.
Gold is up more than 30% since March of 2020.
Silver has surged more than 50% over the same time period, reflecting on the correlation among precious metals during times of financial volatility.
But providing financial protection is not only the role that precious metals play in this fight.
Gold and silver nanoparticles are essential part of virus research and prevention.
As the China virus mutates, science will have to adapt its prevention methods accordingly and precious metals will continue to stay in demand.
As for me, I will continue to trust the team at Noble Gold, great people, a leading authority in precious metals industry.
If you have the kinds of questions I do about your financial mix and how to best leverage precious metals as a hedge against market uncertainty, I encourage you to visit NobleGoldInvestments.com and call their team for a free gold guide.
Call Noble Gold today and tell them Charlie Kirk sent you for a special gift with all qualifying transfers.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com, tell them Charlie Kirk sent you.
Doug Nagus, he just made an inherent contradiction in his argument.
So I hope that the Trump defense team will come up and say Congressman Negus made a huge mistake.
So Congressman Negus came up and he said, well, President Trump was saying this for months.
Hold on a second.
If your argument is that what he said for months then resulted in violence on the sixths, why was there no violence in November or December?
If those words then incite violence, why didn't they have a track record of inciting violence before?
Why was the sixth different?
Maybe the sixth was different because there were paramilitary people that showed up that didn't even go to the rally with instigators there.
Maybe that's why.
The argument there that, well, his words were being said for months.
Now, the argument they're making is that it had a culmination effect.
I think that's a very, very weak argument.
Political speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The threshold for incitement, as Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr have both said, is incredibly high.
The threshold for incitement, Alan Dershowitz said, it would have taken Trump to actually be on the steps of the Capitol and be specific about the points of action that needed to be taken.
And then those actions had to be taken specifically.
Not someone two miles away that had a rally that was peaceful.
No one doubts, by the way, that what happened at the ellipse was peaceful.
No one.
And then people march two miles to the Capitol.
Not everyone, but some people do.
And even while the president was speaking, some of the police barricades were already being broken.
The timeline speaks for itself in that way.
Now, I know a lot of people are exhausted with this impeachment debate already.
It seems as if we just got through this with the Ukrainian phone call impeachment with Shmerik Shimarela.
And I understand that a lot of people are tired and they want this to go away.
But I hope you understand that this is actually not about impeachment.
What's happening right now is a debate over the next Patriot Act.
What's happening right now is a debate over whether or not we should create a 53rd domestic terrorist law on the books, whether or not we should give the Department of Homeland Security and our domestic agencies power to infiltrate, monitor, suppress political groups here domestically.
That's actually what's happening right now.
That's the debate that's happening on the House floor.
We know the result of this impeachment.
What the Democrats are really doing is they're trying to win public approval over for the next Patriot Act.
Glenn Greenwald has warned about this at length.
And the Democrats want this for a very specific reason.
The Democrats want to establish the next Patriot Act because then they'll be able to say we actually got something done.
The Democrats are not dumb.
The Democrats know the data on this piece of paper that I'm about to share with you.
This is from charliekirk.com.
I encourage you guys to check it out.
Go to charliekirk.com.
Republicans were just 32,000 votes shy of a House majority in 2020.
32,000 votes shy of Nancy Pelosi not being Speaker of the House.
Claudia Tenney, Republican from upstate New York, just won her race.
Republicans made historic gains in the House of Representatives.
Democrats also know that the midterm after a presidential, especially when that presidential was narrow, which it was, is awful for the incumbent party, especially with tough economic conditions and even more so with a president who is not exactly charismatic and with very little following.
Democrats know this.
Democrats know that Republicans are very likely to take back the House of Representatives in 2022.
And their strategy is playing out in this impeachment mess right now.
Their strategy is we must pass another Patriot Act and fearmonger in all the swing districts that, yes, Democrats might be awful.
We might represent ideas that are unpopular.
We might actually want to raise your taxes and expand government, but at least we are an Eric Rudolph.
We are at Timothy McVay.
We're not Ted Kaczynski.
We're not going to hurt you.
We're going to protect you.
And if there's anything we've learned over the last year is that safetyism sells, that a lot of people do want to be taken care of.
That freedom is hard.
Freedom is a value.
Freedom must be taught.
And that if the Democrats can now all of a sudden become the party that gives the appearance that we will protect you against the most evil people out there, because that's half the country, then Democrats think they could be successful in 2022 despite the almost guaranteed Republican avalanche that's about to come.
Now, what might interrupt that is universal mail and voting, social media tech censorship, or also a new Patriot Act that suppresses freedom of speech, that keeps conservatives and grassroots patriots in a state of fear where they say, I don't want to get engaged or involved.
That's what's actually happening right now.
This is not an impeachment.
It's not.
The Chief Justice is not here.
This is a policy debate over whether or not we should dramatically expand the surveillance state in our country, whether or not we should be able to spy on what they call dangerous Christian nationalists.
This is a debate whether or not we should be able to give people like John Brennan from the Central Intelligence Agency more funding, more ability, and more capacity than they had previously.
That's what's happening here.
Brad Schneider has introduced a bill to Congress that has said that he believes that domestic political groups should be more surveilled and infiltrated.
The problem is that they never define what radical actually means.
Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat.
Glenn Greenwald is a liberal Democrat.
Both of them are in full agreement that what happens from this point forward in regards to the security state will determine the future of American political discourse.
And what's so stunning is that typically this form of surveillance, this form of infiltration, this form of heavy-handed police state activity almost always was used traditionally against liberals and against socialists.
They don't care anymore.
They are so prideful, believing we're in charge.
We control the bureaucracies.
We control the civil service now.
We are now going to use domestic spying abilities, drone reconnaissance, facial recognition, infiltration strategies, audio interception practices against Christian nationalists, against libertarians.
Those are John Brennan's own words.
Liberty is for everybody, at least it's supposed to be.
You have the liberty to be a socialist in America.
You have the liberty to have really awful and bigoted ideas.
The Constitution is a framework that allows you protection against government tyranny.
The Founding Fathers knew that tyranny was inevitable if they didn't put up firewalls and protections and measures to prevent that tyranny from being used against its citizens.
The tyranny of suppressing freedom of speech, the tyranny of taking your firearms away, the tyranny of spying on you, the tyranny of quartering soldiers in your home, the tyranny of being locked into prison without a trial, the tyranny of not even knowing what you're charged with.
So instead, the Constitution comes from a perspective of what's called negative rights, where instead the Constitution does not tell you what your rights are.
It's one of the biggest lies that our kids are taught in school.
The Constitution does not tell you that you have a right to life.
It doesn't.
It recognizes that right was there before the document was written, given to you by God, but instead, the Constitution says you have a right not to have that right taken away from you.
That's what makes the U.S. Constitution different.
And you have a right to not be spied on.
You have a right not to be monitored, infiltrated for having a different political opinion.
The Democrats, in collusion with the intelligence agencies, are now putting on a show trial, and they know the way it's going to end.
But the real reason they're doing this is to try to win public opinion to increase the surveillance state.
Senator Rand Paul has warned against this for quite some time, and we are going to need to build a broad-based coalition to push back against this.
Just how Americans were okay with mask mandates, shutting down schools, and shutting down businesses.
When you are afraid, you're easier to control.
When you're afraid, you're more likely to give up your freedom and liberty.
And if they keep people afraid and they keep people in a state of fear, then why wouldn't we pass a series of laws that treats half the country like al-Qaeda?
Joe Nagoos, who is the Congressman from Colorado, played a montage of a lot of people who said, Well, Trump told me to come on the 6th.
Trump told me to come on the 6th.
So what?
You're trying to tell me that someone wanted you to attend a political rally?
You booked the ticket.
You decided to go.
You're responsible for your actions.
But even more than that, he told you to show up at the ellipse.
If all of a sudden the standard of guilt is a promotion of an event that then goes wrong, well, then Alexandria Kazi-Cortez should be going to prison sometime soon.
You know why?
AOC was tweeting out, take to the streets, let's go to the streets in New York back in June and July.
And then people were throwing Molotov cocktails at the police officers.
Is AOC now someone who should be held criminally liable for that?
Of course not.
There are different components of this, and I hope the Trump impeachment team talks about this.
There was a peaceful rally at the ellipse.
There was then a peaceful march.
And then there was a violent riot.
Those are three different components.
I've already said my piece that I do not think the president should have said he was going down to the Capitol.
He said it seven times.
I thought that was an error in judgment.
That is not impeachable.
And no, that is not criminal.
But what the impeachment managers are not doing, what the Trump team is now going to have to get into the details, whether they like it or not.
Because guess what?
They lost the constitutional argument yesterday because they were talking about how decent people are in Nebraska and whatever Castor was saying.
This kind of folksy, I get lost in the halls, you know, kind of strange routine.
Now you're going to get into the details.
Show the video of when the police line was first broken.
Show the president saying that he said patriotic and peaceful.
Show the fact that there were pipe bombs planted the night before.
Use their own evidence against them.
Use the own evidence against them where they are saying, Well, this seems to have been brewing even into December.
Time out.
If this was brewing all the way into December, according to House impeachment managers, then this was premeditated and not spontaneous.
If this was actually about impeachment, which it isn't, then they would be talking about the specifics of how incitement in the criminal code was violated.
High crimes and misdemeanors.
Do you notice that they're not citing any criminal code?
At least in my portion that I've watched.
Instead, it's this overarching thing: Trump called a rally, Trump said some things we don't like, then people came and rioted to the Capitol.
It's not the way incitement works at all.
But how will the House defense team answer to the point that there was over 150 people that were part of groups, three percenters, oath keepers, that were wearing military gear, gas masks on?
They were not there for the rally.
They were there for a different reason.
And indictments are showing that.
The Washington Post has said this is looking less and less like a spontaneous rally and more like a pre-planned attack.
They're also going to have to reconcile and explain John Sullivan, the BLM Incorporated activist that disguised himself as a Trump supporter.
By no means was that a majority of people there, but he did play a role.
The professional agitators.
This is a lot more nuanced and complicated than the narrative that the House impeachment managers are portraying.
The narrative they're portraying is as if Trump held a deployment.
That Trump had a training session with specific marching orders.
You cannot convict somebody based on political speech that could be interpreted any single anyway.
That's not the way our justice system works.
Maybe in the Soviet Union it works that way, but our system presumes innocence, and you have to have beyond a reasonable doubt before you convict somebody.
I hope the Trump impeachment managers step up.
This is a made-for-Hollywood production.
This is not a court of law.
I still get excited to get a package in the mail, don't you?
Well, after spending some time on the phone the other day speaking with Dr. Douglas Howard, the doctor who formulated Balance and Nature's blend of fruits and veggies, he sent me my first month's supply.
I've actually been taking Balance of Nature for quite some time, so listen carefully.
So now I'm taking responsibility for my own health.
With Balance of Nature, I get 10 servings each day from a proprietary blend of 31 different fruits and veggies, 10 servings each day.
When I'm eating my lunch, I have my Balance of Nature capsules, and they're pretty awesome.
For me, there's no other way I could get even close to getting this level of valuable and wholesome nutrition.
I just pop a few capsules and I'm good for the entire day.
Please join me in the quest for your best health.
I want to make it easy for you to experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself.
Order today, and as a new preferred customer, you'll receive an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order when you use discount code Charlie.
Call 800-2468-751 or go to balanceofnature.com and use the discount code Charlie.
I'm going after my best health.
What about you?
Balanceinnature.com.
Use the discount code Charlie.
Don't you love all this unity?
I'm a big unity fan.
Just Democrats uniting America every day trying to impeach a private citizen.
That was really nice as it was as it lasted.
There's a lot of stories I want to get into.
One of the Castro brothers, Joaquin Castro, is speaking.
He's actually doing a pretty good job for his cause, I have to say.
I mean, I disagree with everything he's saying, but just from a presentation standpoint, he's very factual, at least within the realms of the facts that fit his narrative.
And I think that I hope the Trump impeachment team steps up.
I do.
These guys have been coached and they're prepared, no doubt.
I think their case is weak, and I think the facts that they're choosing are incredibly misleading, incomplete, and put forth a narrative that is destructive for the country.
With that being said, I think they're actually the presentation they're giving, just from an objective analysis, has so far exceeded my expectations, let alone, you know, just my expectations were very low.
So I want to get to a couple stories here.
I want to talk about this one.
This is my favorite.
This is my new favorite story of the day.
And we'll just let Wachton Castro go on for whatever.
I couldn't believe this story.
So, yes, we are a subscriber to the New York Times only because I do the opposition research.
That's why you guys help us out here at charliekirk.com/slash support.
And so I've made it a point to kind of poke some fun and some tough love towards the French.
This is of no, I mean, no offense to any people that are watching this in France.
And if you're watching it, please email me, freedom at charliekirk.com.
I'm sure that there's some wonderful people in France.
And but France has been a focal point and a chief exporter of some of the most disastrous and destructive ideas to the American Republic over the last couple decades.
And so I read this article in the New York Times.
It says, in simmering race and gender struggle, France blames the U.S. ideas.
Like, what?
France blames United States ideas.
It says, woke leftism cited as a threat to nation.
That's what it says, literally, in the New York Times.
Woke leftism cited as threat to nation.
So this is really interesting because typically the ruling class of Paris and the ruling class of New York agree on everything.
There's no difference.
And so you read this article.
It says that Emmanuel Macron says that certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States are an existential threat to France.
So there's a couple different ways that we can take this.
The first way that we could take it is that our universities have become so rotten that even the French want nothing to do with them.
That's the first takeaway.
But the more accurate takeaway is where did these ideas come from in the first place?
Who has actually been the chief exporter of the ideas of postmodernism and gender and race struggle?
France is now going to have to live under the very ideas that they exported to our country.
Back in the 1960s, a philosopher by the name of Jacques Derrida came to Yale and introduced a series of pieces of literature, books, and lectures around the idea of postmodernism and deconstructionism.
Jacques Derrida argued that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that the way that we view indigenous tribes and everything is always painted from a colonialist pro-Western picture.
Now, some of it might be a fun thought experiment while you're a freshman in college, but it's all vapid.
It's nonsense.
It's garbage.
Jacques Derrida found a fellow French trickster to be able to spread their nonsense throughout the American economy.
Michelle Foucault.
They paired up nicely with the German Frankfurt School philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, who's a Marxist.
And it all just kind of got blended together into what is now known as the garbage heap that is higher education in our country.
But if you go even all the way back to the French Revolution, it's the French Revolution that argued for liberty, equality, not equality under the law, and fraternity.
The French Revolution, brought forward by people like Robespierre and the Jacobins, which led the way for Napoleon Bonaparte after the French Revolution.
The ideas that France has always been built on are not the ideas of in God be trust and e pluribus unum and liberty.
Their idea of liberty is different than our idea of liberty.
Instead, their ideas are the ones that got launched here, deteriorated our country, and now they're getting launched back to France and France is blaming us.
And what's so fascinating about this is that France says, well, we don't really focus on race and gender very much here.
We're very liberated.
So France has always preferred to focus on class, rich versus poor.
Whereas America, we've never really focused on race and gender until recently.
We tried the class thing in 2010.
It didn't work.
Why?
We're so wealthy and we have so much opportunity.
It's hard to convince a family who's earning $130,000 a year and has a couple kids that the country is a complete garbage heap.
They're like, yeah, there's some problems, but my kids got to get to school.
And I think the system generally works for me.
So then we reintroduce these postmodernist ideas, which is class struggle, black against white, woman against man, trans against everybody, rich versus poor, constantly dividing, thanks to Michelle Foucault and Jacques Derrida, which is just as France as Bordeaux, okay?
There's no way around it.
This was not manufactured within the United States.
But now France, in the international section of the New York Times, is complaining that America's ideas are now infecting France.
This would be like China complaining that they have the Chinese coronavirus.
Like, no, it started in your country, probably in a lab.
I don't care what the WHO says.
They're a bunch of liars bought and paid for by your governmental leaders.
And this is not an isolated problem.
You see, the pathogen of class-based, gender-based, and race-based struggle is taking over the entire free world.
Why?
It's because France and the United States are becoming more secular.
It's that simple.
Do religious people have problems at times?
Of course.
Absolutely.
But religion is the reason we have a society at all.
The ideas of the Bible are a reason, is the reason why the entire West exists.
You want to know France why all of a sudden your country is deteriorating under these ideas of critical race theory?
It's because you have one of the lowest church attendance rates in the entire world.
As soon as people stop going to church, they're going to start finding something to replace it.
They're going to need to replace that vertical relationship with something.
And so France, I just, I love this story on just so many different levels because it's just such an unbelievably ironic twist that now France, who has perfected the exporting of these ideas, is now blaming our country for them bringing them back in.
And it will be the downfall of Europe.
Europe's already in a downfall for a variety of different ways.
These ideas are a pathogen.
They are.
You're seeing what they're doing to our children.
One thing that when you study totalitarians and you study authoritarians, they always try to turn their parents, the kids against the parents.
Do you notice that?
That's, of course, because they don't follow the Bible.
Ten Commandments.
What's the one group of people?
Oh, the Chinese Communist Party spies speaking, by the way.
We'll get to him in a second.
It's unbelievable.
What's the one group of people that you are told to honor in the Bible?
Your parents.
And it's the only commandment where there's a promise within the commandment so that you may live long in the land and you may prosper.
Totalitarians have always been focused on breaking the child-parent relationship so government can take its place.
Well, this is not a trial.
The fact that the defense cannot raise an objection when something pathologically untrue is submitted as evidence goes to show this is not a trial.
This is a made-for-TV exercise.
And the Trump impeachment managers should treat it like the Trump defense team, I'm sorry, should treat it like that.
For example, Eric Swalwell, who had a relationship with Fang Fang, said, he came out and he said that Donald Trump said that dead people voted and nothing else more.
That's not true.
You can go and you can see he linked to an article.
He linked to somebody else's journalism.
Now, whose that was, I don't know.
But you can even tell based on the tweet that he was linking to something else.
In any court of law, someone would say objection, that's not true.
So now their argument is changing.
The House impeachment managers are now saying, well, it's less about what was said on January the 6th, but now it's an overarching multi-month incitement campaign around a lie.
You see what's really happening here, don't you?
They want to suppress and stop all conversation around voter integrity in the future.
Their argument is now, if you talk about the problems with mail and ballots like Jimmy Carter, if you talk about signature verification issues, if you talk about people that are on the voter rolls that shouldn't be, if you talk about granny farming like the New York Times did,
if you talk about how developmentally disabled people have their ballots stolen from them, like a whistleblower said in Wisconsin, which was never followed up on, if you talk about how in Nevada, the Nevada Native Project, they were giving cash for ballots in front of Joe Biden for president buses, if you talk about how there was a 1,774% increase in voter registration from 90-plus-year-olds in Pennsylvania, then you're actually inciting insurrection against the country.
That's their argument.
You see, the Democrats are trying to lay a foundation for two very specific things.
A Patriot Act, which I'll get to in a second.
I know some of our viewers are saying, what's the Patriot Act?
I just assume everyone knows what it is, but that's okay.
I will go through that, so I apologize for that.
But they're also trying to get HR1 passed.
They're trying to get mail-in voting passed that is federally funded.
So they're going a step further.
They're not just saying that mail-in voting is safe and secure.
No, no, no.
They're saying if you dare question it, you're ISIS.
That's their argument.
That if you question everyone getting a ballot, dead, alive, foreign, whatever, citizen, funded by the government, then you're actually contributing to the downfall of the country.
It's really interesting.
One of the arguments made by one of the former speakers in the impeachment trial just said, and I'm listening to it in between breaks.
I'll do the best job to analyze it so a lot of you guys don't have to listen to it.
Said in between the breaks, he said, Well, Donald Trump said that he would not win unless an election was interfered with.
That's what Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
To this day, Hillary Clinton had not acknowledged Trump was president.
She said it was because of Russia, it was because of Putin, the Mueller investigation.
You want to talk about a group of people that were inciting action against Trump supporters?
That was the Democrats.
Jamie Raskin himself was inciting violence against Trump supporters that happened at the Trump inauguration.
But for them, the Democrats want to end a certain discussion in this country.
They don't want you to ever question voter integrity ever again.
That's the other part of what's happening right here.
If you look between the lines and you listen carefully, they are trying to say, listen, if you question our voter registration practices, the way we do signature verification, if you question the way we do mail-in voting, then you're actually participating in a terrorist attack against the country.
And it's not just that's not true, it's the opposite of the truth.
It is a gaslighting projection tactic that is being used by the Democrats.
Because they actually know the more people question this mail-in ballot nonsense, the more discovery there's going to be about issues surrounding it.
And we know that.
We logically can prove it.
But they are benefiting from that system.
And this is them trying to deter any cross-examination against HR1 before it becomes law.
In our fast-paced world, it's tough to make reading a priority.
At least it used to be.
At thinker.org, they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great books in bite-sized form.
Read or listen to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes, from old classics like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People to recent bestsellers like Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life.
I love listening to Thinker.
I learn something new every single day, which is a challenge that we have posed to you.
How do you learn something new every single day?
Well, if you want to challenge your preconceptions, expand your horizons, and become a better thinker, go to thinker.org.
That's T-H-I-N-K-R.org.
Start a free trial today.
Again, that's thinker.org/slash Charlie.
I do want to get to this cut here.
It's more of a cultural point as the impeachment is continuing.
It's just so unbelievably misleading.
If this is a Soviet show trial, if there was a fair judge, would have thrown it out immediately.
Can we go to the Laura Ingram cut, please?
So, one of the things as I talked about, one of the tactics of the left, and if there's any parents watching here, understand the left wants to divide you from your children.
It's a tactic.
They've done this in every totalitarian country, from Mao Zedong's China to Mussolini's Italy to Stalin's Soviet Union.
It is a tactic to turn Children against their parents, that we don't need the parents.
I can find authority from the state or from some other cultural influence.
This is, of course, directly against the teachings of the Bible.
Play tape here of Laura Ingram.
This woke 18-year-old spotted her own mother in a viral video taken outside the January 6th riot.
The mom was the one punched in the face.
Her daughter then called her out in a tweet.
And then the daughter did an interview with TMZ.
I would have had no idea she was there if that video of her getting punched in the face wasn't viral on Twitter.
Apparently, Family Snitchdom pays.
She's raised $74,000 for college on a GoFundMe page since tweeting about mommy.
Turn the children against their parents.
Now, of course, parents hold the values.
Parents hold the tradition of the generation that comes prior.
That's why one of the Ten Commandments is to honor your mother and father.
You don't have to love your mother and father, but to honor them.
And then there's a promise of what will happen if you do that.
Well, the inverse is also true.
If you do not honor your parents, then you will not be able to live long and prosper in the land.
The totalitarians want to break that child-parent bond because the parents have the best interest of the child at heart.
The parents are going to teach self-discipline, they're going to teach self-control.
Parents are going to teach their children to be honest and to be clear, not having the children go on national television.
And I'm not sure the circumstances around this mother, but apparently she got punched in the face.
I don't think she stormed the Capitol.
I'm not sure what the circumstances are around that video in particular.
But we've seen this before.
Do you remember back in March or April?
There was a woman, there was a young lady in Louisiana who did a TikTok.
I think she was 16 or 17 years old.
And it got millions of views where she said, My parents are so racist.
They told me BLM Incorporated is a bad thing.
I have to leave my parents.
Look what's happening with Claudia Conway, who films her parents and is able to get away with that.
And she is now framed as a hero by the activist press.
Good for you.
Fight back against your parents.
Don't honor them.
And no, this woman did not go in.
She got punched and escorted away, though.
And her daughter then goes on television smugly and arrogantly, being like, Yeah, my mom is basically a bad person.
This is how civilizations disintegrate.
And for parents out there, listen very carefully.
There is a cultural and educational push to turn you and your kids against each other, more your kids against you.
It's happening through a variety of different ways.
And for kids out there, students that are listening, don't fall into it.
For your parents' sake and your own, you always must honor your parents.
But they're doing this as a way to try and create an almost virtue-signaling moral high ground.
There's another story here that connects to this, and I kind of want to frame it.
So there's the story of this woman in San Francisco who she's now in charge of the San Francisco Renaming Committee to rename all of these schools in San Francisco.
And her job is to go tell everyone about how racist Abraham Lincoln is and George Washington is.
She's 30 years old.
I don't know if she's a mother or not.
I don't know if she has kids in the school system.
I don't know.
What I do know, though, is that the left believes that anyone that came before them was a bigot and an awful person.
This goes to show the tragedy of secular America.
Dennis Prager talks brilliantly about this.
The tragedy of secular America is that you never judge people based on the time they were actually in.
There's a beautiful verse, Genesis 6:9.
And you might be an atheist listening to this, but you will not be able to deny the wisdom.
Remember, as Aristotle said, wisdom is the knowledge of all things eternal.
This is wisdom because it comes from the Bible, not some college professor who studied in France.
The wisdom is that it says clearly that Noah was a righteous man according to the, in comparison to the people of his generation.
Let's get the exact verse here.
This is the quote.
These are the family records of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among his contemporaries.
Noah walked with God.
Why didn't it just say this?
These are the family records of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man.
Maybe because if you compared Noah to Elijah, Noah wouldn't have been so righteous.
What that tells us is you must always compare historical people in the context and the time they were in.
According to 2021 laws, did George Washington have some problems?
Of course.
Who was he in the time that he was in?
Who is the man that was writing in the draft of the Declaration, the first draft, that slavery was an evil sin?
Thomas Jefferson.
Who was the man that signed a moratorium of new slaves coming into the United States 20 years after the ratification of the Constitution, written primarily by James Madison?
Thomas Jefferson.
Who was the man that argued for slavery abolition in the 1790s in the Virginia House of Commons?
Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves.
But he was a giant amongst his peers.
And to use the quote from the Bible, he was a righteous man, blameless amongst his contemporaries.
Thomas Jefferson was surrounded by slave apologists.
He was moving the ball forward to the abolition of slavery.
We are now renaming schools in San Francisco because they say Abraham Lincoln did not do enough for black lives.
You mean like waging a bitter civil war, emancipating the slaves, and saying that we must now live up to our ideals of all men being created equal?
You see, only the left, because they don't believe in biblical wisdom, they believe in this secular, relativistic, prideful, self-centered, narcissistic, petulant worldview that everyone who came before me except Vladimir Lenin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx were a bunch of trash.
Everyone who came before me did nothing but make mistakes.
Do you understand how self-centered you must be to believe something like that?
You probably go to university to believe something like that.
Where in the 1980s or even the 1970s, we used to teach children, you're the problem, America is wonderful.
Now we teach children, America's the problem, you are wonderful.
So now we have these 30-year-olds tearing down schools all across the country.
30-year-olds, who's in charge of the state of the renaming committee.
The examples she was using are not even factual.
I wanted to get into this story deeper, which is from the Daily Mail.
And it says, woke San Francisco school board president, 30 years old, defends plan to rename schools which honor racist leaders despite banning decisions on incorrect Wikipedia articles.
That's right.
So the name of our schools and our history is now based solely on Wikipedia and not even correct Wikipedia sources, incorrect Wikipedia sources.
She argued that we need to rename a school by James Russell Lowell, who's a poet, saying that he did not want black people to vote.
However, this claim is pathologically false.
And scholarly articles assert that Lowell, quote, unequivocally advocated giving the ballot to the recently freed slave.
She also wanted to rename Apollo Revere School, saying that, citing an article from the History Channel website.
However, members alleged that Revere's military activities were tied to the conquest of the Penobiscot Indians, which is not true.
Or James Lick, who resided in San Francisco, was also deemed racist after members failed to critically read an article about the famous 19th century businessman.
The committee stated that Lick had funded a sculpture showing an American Indian lying at the feet of white men.
However, in reality, Lick died 18 years before the sculpture was created and it was only partially funded by his estate after he died.
No wisdom in our country anymore.
And this is what you get.
You get 30-year-olds, Gabriella Lopez, who's the school board president, who, instead of reopening schools, instead of holding teachers accountable, instead of representing the people of San Francisco, her name is to go on, her job is to go on a renaming blitz throughout San Francisco.
And she's doubling down.
They are now renaming Abraham Lincoln George Washington School.
I hope that they name something after her.
And then one day they decide that she's an awful person and they no longer want it named after her.
They're renaming the school from Teddy Roosevelt's name.
And why don't we just get it over with?
Why don't we impeach George Washington now that we're in the process of impeaching people that are no longer president?
The guy who's in charge of this is a quote-unquote historian.
I think that's probably a very loose description, Jeremiah Jeffers, Jeffries, the chairman in charge of renaming the schools after it was revealed that he refused to consult with them during the decision-making process.
Abraham Lincoln High School is being renamed, and they are taking the statue down of Abraham Lincoln because they say he didn't adequately represent black lives.
History is a guide.
It's a reference point.
It's a mirror.
It's a roadmap.
It's a compass.
You remove history.
You can do whatever you want to the future.
It's what Robespierre did in France, where he literally got rid of the traditional calendar, the Gregorian calendar, and put in a 10-day-a-week calendar.
Mao Zedong did the exact same through his red guard in the little red book.
Benito Mussolini did the same.
Joseph Stalin did the same because history can inspire.
History can instruct.
History gives people the capacity to know things of which that are eternal.
Totalitarians want nothing to do with that.
And for Gabriella Lopez, who's now running the schools in San Francisco as the school board president, believes that she is such a better person than Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, not having the sort of wisdom to maybe compare them in the times of which they were in.
Did Abraham Lincoln make mistakes?
Yeah, I guess when it comes to habeas corpus, was he a hero amongst the people around him?
Of course.
In fact, he might be one of America's greatest presidents, if not America's greatest presidents.
Joe Biden said, I've spent my whole career fighting and will continue to fight like hell.
He tweeted that out on May 2nd, 2019.
Incitement, you be the judge.
I do want to take some of your questions here.
Funny question from Luke here, who is homeschooled.
He says, Are you going to circle back to the Patriot Act questions?
Yes, I will.
Very funny.
Well said.
So, yeah, we got a lot of questions.
What is the Patriot Act?
Okay, the Patriot Act was passed right after 9-11.
It was an act of Congress that created new capacity and ability for agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, which was also created right after 9-11, to spy and surveil American citizens.
It was the most aggressive overreach.
It created the National Security Agency.
Everything that Edward Snowden revealed was basically him revealing the Patriot Act.
That's the best way I can put it.
The Patriot Act was a massive and significant overreach of government power.
And I think almost everyone recognizes it except maybe Lindsey Graham and a couple other people who think that the Patriot Act was a good idea and they're not as concerned about civil liberties as those of us that understand the Constitution actually are.
So that's what the Patriot Act is.
Thank you for the question, Luke.
I appreciate it.
This is a good point.
No one is talking about impeachment.
I barely see anyone on social media mentioning the impeachment or watching it.
The public doesn't care.
They know it's a joke.
Most people posted about Kavanaugh in the first impeachment, and they were actually at work then.
You're right.
We're covering it because it's more about the impeachment.
This is an attempt to destroy a conversation around voter integrity and also an attempt to try and lay the groundwork for the next surveillance state.
In fact, Richard Blumenthal just said that.
Richard Blumenthal was just interviewed.
Da Nang Dick.
That's what we call him, right?
Did he actually ever serve in Vietnam?
One of the biggest lies, I think, ever told in American political history.
Is that fair to say?
And he's still allowed to serve.
Comes out and he says, we'll get the clip for tomorrow.
We don't have to get it now.
But he said that this is not really about impeachment.
I'm paraphrasing here.
He said it's really about stopping domestic terrorism.
He's making our point.
Our point is that the Democrats want to lay the groundwork for a new surveillance state while also suppressing any conversation in the future around voter integrity.
Basically, they're trying to banish the Trump populist movement.
This is them trying to kill any future political movement that is rooted in the ideas of stricter immigration, fair trade deals, challenging corporate interests, and ending the endless wars.
That drives them nuts.
Okay, let's get to some more questions here.
Freedom at charliekirk.com.
Luke says, Thanks for answering my question.
You bet.
Okay.
Here's a question.
Hi, Charlie.
I'm 14 years old and a freshman in high school.
You should get involved with Turning Point USA.
I'm sending you to our Turning Point team.
One question: why isn't Jenna Ellis or Rudy's lawyers there?
I do not know, but I do know that in impeachment, it's a different type of law.
It takes litigators more than just lawyers, which are people that are more equipped to be able to argue in front of a court.
But I'll be quite honest, they should have just had, they should have had Laura Ingram do this argument or someone that is in the business of language, basically in the business of language.
A linguist is the word I'm looking for.
Someone that is good at crafting arguments, someone that has sophisticated addiction, not the guy that was all over the place, meandering, complimenting the prosecution.
Not exactly, you know, what I would be thrilled about.
People who can put on a show and create a compelling narrative.
You know who would have been great to have?
Newt Gingrich.
I don't even know if Newt Gingrich is a lawyer, but who cares?
Is Eric Swallow a lawyer?
I guess.
I guess he was a district attorney or something under the bizarre definition of what's happening now.
Oh, and by the way, breaking news.
Andrew Cuomo has now announced that New York arenas and venues can reopen February 23rd.
Now that Joe Biden is president, we get our country back.
Look, I'm just thrilled the country's reopening.
I don't know how much more our country can survive this lockdown nonsense.
I mean that.
Okay, let's get to some more questions here.
Hi, Charlie.
Did the pink hat lady get arrested?
Yes, she did.
She has been arrested and identified, and I think we're going to find out a lot about her and what her activities were.
What she was saying and what we were deconstructing here on the program is she was saying things no one else was saying.
We could take the building.
I've been there before.
I know the schematic layout.
There's something there.
Keep an eye on pink hat lady.
There's something not right there, and I hope she gets fully held accountable.
Hey, Charlie, we'll never be safe again until the vote is safe.
We'll never win again until the vote is safe.
Please advocate for blockchain votes only.
Thank you.
Well, we did a Bitcoin episode yesterday.
Is that Bitcoin episode up on the podcast feed?
Everyone, check out that Bitcoin episode.
If you didn't check it out, I explained in the best way I could with my limited knowledge of it, which is my limited knowledge is more than, I would say, more people that comment on it, what blockchain and what Bitcoin actually is.
Mind you, I understand it can be a very, very complicated topic, to say the least.
Let's go here.
Hey, Charlie, thanks for all you do.
I purchased a MAGA doctrine from my father, brother, and myself.
Awesome.
Thank you.
My question is around the indoctrination in our schools.
The vote that will happen in Illinois, if passed, will it impact private and religious schools?
And is this impacting K through 12?
I've talked to some of the admissions office.
They have no idea what I'm talking about and saying that if it's true, that's something that would happen for high school students.
I'm not okay with this in any grade.
Just have to figure out if I have to move out of the state best, Peter.
Well, first of all, the fact that your administration does not know what's happening in the Illinois State Board of Education means they got to get their act into gear.
Secondly, Peter, I don't know if it'll impact private schools.
I don't.
We're looking into that.
And the piece of legislation that is still being, the piece of legislation that is still being debated in Illinois, you guys have got to get into action right now.
You got to get into an action step.
It's just absolutely disgusting.
Okay.
Hi, Charlie.
Love the show.
Seriously, the only source of real fact, honest-based news.
My sister and I listen every day while working from home.
Awesome, Leslie.
Thank you so much.
God bless you.
Hi, Charlie.
I'm 14 years old and I live in Illinois.
I go to a Christian school, but I'm still the only conservative in my grade.
How long till woke teaching gets into Christian schools or is it already here?
Depends what Christian school.
Thank you.
I love these 14 and 15 year olds that email us.
They are our future.
So I'll tell you this, Keaton.
You just emailed me.
You should get involved with Turning Point USA.
I'm going to forward you to our Turning Point team, and you should get engaged and get involved with what we're doing.
Look, a lot of Christian schools have already fallen from grace, unfortunately.
And a lot of Christian schools have already become massively woke indoctrination centers.
So that is unfortunately nothing new.
Okay, let's get to another question here.
Why now that Biden is president, is everything all of a sudden opening?
Wasn't there supposed to be another lockdown or quarantine by now?
Well, because they actually don't believe in the lockdowns, and maybe it was a tactic to destroy, or It was a plan to destroy Donald Trump and with it our economy in the short term so that they could be able to implement what other policy measures they did.
Nail-in voting, massive trillion-dollar stimulus bills, keeping the schools closed, handouts to teacher unions, the deterioration of wealth, the rich people getting richer and the poor people getting poor.
It's a good question, though.
Okay, we'll get to a couple more here.
This is a question about the renaming of schools in San Francisco.
I don't get it.
Wasn't Lincoln a Republican?
Yes.
Didn't he abolish slavery?
Essentially.
I know you have a right to be whichever party you want to be, but to denounce Lincoln and his actions and be a black Democrat politician isn't the smartest point.
I know.
I'm a descendant of John Brown.
This is nuts the way some of their thinking.
Well, you're exactly right.
Welcome to the thought process of the left.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your questions, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to support us, please consider doing that.
It's charliekirk.com/slash support.
And I encourage you to get involved with TurningPointUSA at tpusa.com.