The Great Supreme Court Betrayal + an Airtight Argument Against Abortion
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey everybody, an extra long episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
My goodness, do we cover a lot of topics in this episode?
We talk about the Supreme Court.
We talk about judicial review.
We talk about the case for being pro-life.
When does life begin?
We talk about the Republican Civil War.
We talk about Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chrissy Teigen, Richard Jewell, and so much more.
Who else could cover that kind of a gauntlet of issues than what we are doing here on the Charlie Kirk Show, made possible by all of you that support us at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
I want to thank some of our supporters.
Douglas from Washington, thank you.
Tony from South Carolina, thank you.
Amelia from Washington, who says you are a light in the darkness.
Well, thank you for supporting us at charliekirk.com slash support.
I want to thank all of you that are getting behind us and making what we are doing possible.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And if you are a student, get involved with Turning Point USA, the nation's largest, strongest organization when it comes to fighting for free enterprise, America, and core values on high school and college campuses across the country.
Go to tpusa.com, tpusa.com, turning point USA, where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war.
If you're looking for hope, get involved at turningpointusa, tpusa.com.
Very, very interesting episode.
Lots of topics.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Look, a lot of people are emailing me about Mike Lindell.
And some people have even asked me, how do I help Mike Lindell?
Charlie, how do I get behind him?
I don't know if you just knew this, but he just got sued.
He's under attack by a lot of different people.
And I could tell you, now is the time to help Mike Lindell if you want to help him and help his crusade to fight for our country.
You could do that by buying a MyPillow.
They won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as many times as you want and maintain their shape.
You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
Regular for $69.98, and that's a $40 savings.
All MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So if you want to get behind Mike Lindell, I know a lot of you have been moved and have been convicted to support him.
You're saying, you know what?
I want to support Mike Lindell and Charlie Kirk.
Well, you could do that together.
Only here on the Charlie Kirk show can you support Mike Lindell and get a product in return, a pillow, by the way.
It's not just, you know, oh, support Mike Lindell.
You get a beautiful pillow.
So go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square and use the promo code Kirk.
You'll always get a deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, and MyPillow Towel Sets.
Or call 800-875-0425 and use the promo code Kirk.
If you want to help out Mike Lindell, I know a lot of people do, go to mypillow.com.
Use the Radio Listener Square promo code Kirk.
Hey, everybody.
Charlie Kirk Show, Charlie Kirk here.
Email us your questions as always, freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
We are crisscrossing the country ending our week in the beautiful, amazing, free, open state of Florida.
And we will be there at CPAC.
I will be talking about big tech.
I encourage all of you that are there to say hello.
And of course, email us your questions in real-time freedom at charliekirk.com.
There's a lot that I want to get into today.
And I want to lead with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Remember, we've talked in great detail that the states created the federal government.
The federal government did not create the states.
It's a very important distinction.
It's one of the reasons why Florida is wide open and California is locked down.
It's one of the main reasons why Florida is prospering and Illinois is suffering.
The laboratories of democracy, the competition between states, is incredibly important.
The Founding Fathers were very hesitant to create a federal government to start.
Thomas Jefferson, best known for being an architect, the founder of the University of Virginia, being the author of the Declaration of Independence, which interestingly, in the first draft of the Declaration, actually condemns slavery and King George bringing slavery to the United States.
He was someone who pushed back against a centralized federal government and really wanted states' rights.
The first swing at the United States of America was a failure.
It was the Articles of a Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation did not go far enough to strengthen a centralized authority to have unified currency, be able to collect taxes, have a national military, and some form of representation in between these states.
And so the second pass was mainly written by James Madison, who was the fourth president of the United States, a brilliant man, the father of the United States Constitution.
And they expanded on the thinking of the Declaration that rights are given to us by God, that states are going to create this system.
The federal system is not going to all of a sudden recreate the states, that the states have sovereignty and they give their agreement voluntarily to a national federal government.
The idea of a federal government is not necessarily uniquely American.
The Romans tried it in smaller, more localized way.
The Greeks tried it.
But a Republican system of government, not the Republican Party, but a republic system of government, was something that had not been tried in the way of a constitutional framework that was written down, not just orally transmitted, which the Romans mostly did, and was then able to recognize God-given rights.
The United States Constitution is the greatest political document ever written in the history of the world.
It has gone, it's been amended, but basically unchanged from its founding ideals from its ratification.
Now, the United States Constitution is very clear about where rights come from.
Rights come from our creator.
They do not come from government.
And as part of that system, the founding fathers, specifically James Madison, inspired by a French judge by the name of Montesquieu, wanted separation of powers, checks and balances.
James Madison, alongside the ratifiers and the people that got behind the U.S. Constitution, understood that if the Constitution was not able to prevent the corruption of power, then it will just fall apart almost immediately.
So the Founding Fathers came together, and James Madison was the one that really put this together through his understanding of the classics and John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and he said, okay, how are we going to settle differences?
It's a really big question.
Now, elections are critical, and that's why the Founding Fathers wanted senators to be elected by their state legislatures, not just through popular election.
I believe the 17th Amendment got rid of that.
This is also why the founding fathers won an electoral college, not just a popular vote.
But the creation of a third yet equal branch of government was a transformational breakthrough.
The idea that the law, that which is written down, that is public, that we all share, that we can agree upon, that is by definition cooperative, the law, has its own branch of government.
This was mostly and mainly inspired by the Bible.
William Blackstone, in particular, a Christian man who is British, founding fathers, understood that the law needs its own branch because the legislature can make the law, the executive can implement the law, but who's going to interpret the law?
Who is going to give clarity to what the law is supposed to say and do?
That's why we have a Supreme Court.
And understand that in the beginning of the country, there was disagreement of how much power the Supreme Court actually could have.
Was it just Article III as an asterisk or was it an equal branch of government?
And the first court case that really determined this was Marbury versus Madison, which established judicial review.
This idea that the Supreme Court of the United States can interpret text from Congress, and there's a Latin phrase for this, that which is said is final.
There is no more debate.
It is over.
But it's basically, it's written in, I think, on the building of the Supreme Court.
And they take that very, very seriously.
So the Supreme Court, over the decades and over the couple centuries of our country, has always grown in respect.
It has grown in, let's say, popular opinion.
That's not the best way to word it, but it's grown in respect, I guess is the best way to say it, of the American people as what the Supreme Court says goes.
We have lower courts, which by the way, just so you all know, the idea of circuit courts, appellate courts, none of those are actually in the Constitution.
Only the Supreme Court is in the Constitution.
And the number of justices is not even in the Supreme Court.
So we created these other systems, federal government, a federal court, circuit court.
We created appellate courts, district courts.
All of that is a created system, which is fine.
The Constitution allows for that, but it's not necessarily in the Constitution.
And so the Supreme Court exists for a very specific reason to interpret the laws, to interpret the activity of the citizens in the country of whether or not what they are doing is constitutional.
And so we look to the Supreme Court to settle our differences.
A judge is supposed to be impartial.
Justice is supposed to be blind.
This is what makes a conservative, a constitutional view of justice different than a liberal view of justice.
A liberal or a Bernie Sanders or AOC view of justice would be revolutionary justice, economic justice, social justice.
We believe that justice must be impartial.
This is a biblical concept.
We've touched on this before.
But what happens when the Supreme Court decides not to do their job?
What happens when the Supreme Court defers their responsibility?
What happens when the Supreme Court does not step up and act as an equal branch of the federal government to add clarity to the confusion that the population is feeling, especially legally?
What then happens?
Well, we're living through what happens, and in the last couple days, we have seen some very disappointing developments from the United States Supreme Court.
We have seen some very troubling conclusions that the Supreme Court has reached.
To not even have a decision that is improper, but to not even hear a case at all.
And I would make the argument that the justices of the Supreme Court are pushing back on their constitutional mandate to interpret the law.
Look, big tech and the left, they are partners.
They have an alliance.
We all know that.
So why are we choosing to give all of these big tech companies our personal data?
Now is the time to take a stand.
Protect your personal data from big tech with the VPN that I trust for my online protection, ExpressVPN.
You see, every device, whether you're on a phone, laptop, or TV, has a unique string of numbers called an IP address.
When you search for stuff, watch videos, or even click on a link, big tech companies can use that IP to track all of your activity and tie it back to you.
When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers.
So these companies can never see my IP address at all.
My internet activity becomes anonymized, and my network data is encrypted.
And the best part is you don't need to be tech savvy at all to use ExpressVPN.
Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
Protect your internet activity with the VPN I use every day.
Visit expressvpn.com slash kirk to get three extra months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com.
Visit expressvpn.com slash charlie.
That's express.com slash charlie to get three extra months free.
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
Marbury versus Madison established judicial review.
75 million people have been patiently waiting for clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court on what exactly happened in the 2020 election.
A recent poll shows that 17% of Trump voters believe that Joe Biden was legitimately elected.
17%.
There's a lot of confusion going around the discussion of the 2020 election.
And let me be very clear.
Some of the theories that are floating out there, I know are not true.
Some of the other theories I find to be very, very compelling, especially the theories around signature verification, ballots being sent out to people that did not request them, constitutional measures that were not followed.
And so the U.S. Supreme Court, for those of us that have concern about election integrity, which you should, was the last line of decision that could add clarity to the confusion.
And so breaking yesterday and the day before that, the U.S. Supreme Court made a series of choices.
I don't want to call them decisions because that's a little bit confusing because a decision is usually when the Supreme Court hears a case and they write an opinion.
So I'll just say they made a choice not to hear a case.
So I want to be very clear in the way I communicate this to you.
But the Supreme Court said that they would not hear the 2020 election case that questioned some of the Pennsylvania ballots.
I'm reading from USA Today, quote, the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 election.
The people that, the justices that wanted to hear the case, were Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas.
And the correct legal term is they didn't grant Sarah Tiori.
As close as I can, I don't speak Latin.
The justices that said they didn't want to hear the case were Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Breyer, Soda Mayor, Kagan, and Roberts.
Not shocked by Roberts.
But Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh are very surprising to me.
So it takes four justices to agree to take the case.
That's the way it works.
Four in order to take the case.
So this case was centered around 10,000 ballots in Pennsylvania that very well might have been improperly counted against a certain deadline extension.
Now this is one of dozens of legal challenges surrounding the 2020 election.
Now remember, the Constitution explicitly grants the power of elections to the state legislators.
Clarence Thomas, the great Clarence Thomas, said in his dissent, quote, the Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the manner of federal elections.
Quote, yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various states took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.
As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes.
Clarence Thomas is exactly right.
Clarence Thomas will go down as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in American history.
He gets no credit from the left and gets no credit from the activist media.
Now, it's really important to remember, Pennsylvania sent out millions of absentee ballots.
Millions.
It says explicitly in the Pennsylvania Constitution the way that absentee ballots and mail-in ballots must be sent and how elections must be conducted.
This was done without the approval, without the consent, without the agreement of the Pennsylvania legislature.
The state legislators have absolute power when it comes to these elections.
So therefore, non-legislative actors, as Clarence Thomas stated, decided to make all these choices and all these decisions.
Well, then who's supposed to say whether or not that election was constitutional or not?
The U.S. Supreme Court.
Look, big tech and the left, they are partners.
They have an alliance.
We all know that.
So why are we choosing to give all of these big tech companies our personal data?
Now is the time to take a stand.
Protect your personal data from big tech with the VPN that I trust for my online protection, Express VPN.
You see, every device, whether you're on a phone, laptop, or TV, has a unique string of numbers called an IP address.
When you search for stuff, watch videos, or even click on a link, big tech companies can use that IP to track all of your activity and tie it back to you.
When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers, so these companies can never see my IP address at all.
My internet activity becomes anonymized, and my network data is encrypted.
And the best part is you don't need to be tech savvy at all to use ExpressVPN.
Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
Protect your internet activity with the VPN I use every day.
Visit expressvpn.com slash kirk to get three extra months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com.
Visit expressvpn.com slash charlie.
That's express.com slash Charlie to get three extra months free, expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
Let's get deeper into this story here.
So the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear the election case around the Pennsylvania ballot issue.
Now, traditionally, vote by mail was limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent.
And this is according to Sam DeMarco, the one Republican on the Allegheny County Board of Elections.
He argued, quote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognizes the legislature has the authority and responsibility for writing election law.
But they use the excuse of the Chinese coronavirus to grant these.
It's no mystery that there's a lot of pent-up frustration in the country around the election, around how it was conducted.
Now, some people would say that that's not fair.
Some people would say that the election was perfect and it was flawless.
A basic objective data analysis of how this election was conducted, specifically with the mail-in-ballot issue in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona.
No one can say that and be a serious, rational, fair analyst.
But instead of addressing these problems head-on, instead of being unafraid of the backlash, the United States Supreme Court has decided to dodge, avoid, and run away from the problem and act as if it does not exist.
This is a massive disservice to our country.
And Clarence Thomas agrees.
Clarence Thomas, who again will go down as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in American history, said that this is a disservice to our fellow citizens.
Millions of people across the country are patiently waiting for clarity on what happened in the 2020 election.
So when you have confusion, it will then lead to division.
When people are clouded in their perspective of what's happening when it comes to elections, they're far less likely to trust elections in the future and therefore trust the leaders that are the beneficiaries of those elections, and even more so the decisions that those leaders make.
When critical decisions are made in the shadows, the people are robbed.
And it's even worse when the leaders and the media tell us that we have a wonderfully transparent system, that there's nothing to see here.
It is gaslighting.
And we've gone through what gaslighting is many times, but very quickly, gaslighting is a psychological manipulation tactic that is used to convince people something is happening when it really isn't.
It's very, very effective.
And it's a term gaslighting that came from a play that basically was that somebody was living in an apartment.
It was a woman with an abusive husband or boyfriend.
He kept on turning down the lights every night, every so slightly.
And she would say, is it getting darker in here?
And he said, no, you're losing your mind.
That is a term called gaslighting, convincing someone that they're mad.
And so because of this, there have been thousands of theories that have now been launched and concocted in the last couple of years, last couple of months, I should say, around the 2020 election.
The issue that many people have is that they do not feel as if their voice was adequately heard or that their viewpoint represented in the 2020 election.
So how do you properly deal with this?
Do you dismiss it like the Supreme Court did?
No, you confront it head-on with facts.
That's what the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to do.
That's what the Supreme Court has always done.
The Supreme Court did this with Marbray versus Madison.
The Supreme Court did this with Brown versus the Board of Education.
The Supreme Court did this time and time again in its history to give clarity to the citizens around the most important issues of our time, the interpretation of the laws.
And so when there is a narrative that is not true, we must always confront it with facts, always.
A great example of this was dramatized in a couple different television programs and also a movie, The Richard Jewell Story in Atlanta, Georgia.
Richard Jewell was wrongly accused of the Centennial Park bombing in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.
He was character assassinated by federal agents alongside the activist media, accusing him of something he did not do.
He died a couple years later.
And actually, my friend Sean Handy, who was one of the few radio show hosts at the time, who was a local Atlanta host, that said, we're rushing to judgment here, guys.
Let's slow down.
He ended up being correct.
Everyone else, every other news institution from the Atlanta Journal Constitution to the Washington Post, New York Times is ready to sign, seal, and deliver an indictment to Richard Jewell and put him away for life for something he did not do.
The only reason Richard Jewell's name was cleared is because he decided to confront this head on.
In a famous interview with Mike Wallace, Chris Wallace's father on 60 Minutes, Richard Jewell said, here are the facts.
I did not do this.
That is the way that we use speech, dialogue, to add clarity to confusion.
Now, what happens when we decide to do the opposite?
We're living through that right now.
People start to lose their mind.
Start to lose trust in how we do elections.
Elections are pressure release valves.
Elections are all that prevents us from losing decent and civil society.
What happened on January the 6th at the Capitol was inexcusable.
We've said it many times.
And in fact, the New York Times just had a very interesting and instructive piece that made our argument that we've been making for quite some time that what happened on January the 6th was done by an ever-increasingly small group of people with motives that were outside of the 2020 election.
January 6th was a tragedy.
What happened there is inexcusable.
That's right.
However, when the people that did not come to Washington, D.C. with that intention and got caught up in it and still committed a crime and have been arrested, what was their primary motivator to do that?
Was it to really overthrow the government?
We don't know.
A lot of that will still be decided.
But the point is this.
The point is that massive frustration with the system is not healthy for anybody, regardless of your political affiliation.
And if you are of the belief that all concerns around the legitimacy of the 2020 election must be dismissed immediately without hearing the validity of these concerns, then you're basically dismissing half the country.
And that's what the Supreme Court did.
That is exactly what the Supreme Court decided to do.
Cato the Younger, not to be confused with Cato the Elder, was a Roman statesman, philosopher, heavily influenced our founding fathers, James Madison in particular, was known for his ethical standards to not be able to be corrupted by giving bribes.
He was a fierce critic against the first Roman emperor, Julius Caesar.
And he had a great quote that I want to share with you that I think pinpoints what the Supreme Court did or didn't do, which is still the same thing as acting.
Not acting is the same thing as acting perfectly.
In doing nothing, men learn to do evil.
It's perfectly said.
By not acting, by staying on the sidelines, by staying silent on a controversial, critical issue on how we elect our leaders, they are learning to do something incorrect or immoral.
This is fundamental to our republic, how we elect our leaders.
And we know that Pennsylvania acted unconstitutionally.
When we know this, through the federal system that we have, states creating the federal government, and the states that have been disenfranchised, like the Dakotas, like Wyoming, Missouri, Kansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, look to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says, sorry, not our problem.
How do you expect them to react?
What do you expect the states to then say and do?
Do you think they're going to grow in ever glamorous appreciation of the federal government?
Do you think this is going to make future elections more trusted?
And Democrats are basically saying, we don't care.
Democrats are basically saying, we don't care if you trust elections.
We're planning to be in power permanently.
We're never going to lose again.
We're going to interfere with elections and control institutions from tech to social media to the way we do ballots.
And eventually we're going to punish you because you dared to speak out.
That's effectively the Democrat position.
And I hate to be so brutal or so callous, but Democrats are totally uninterested in having meaningful dialogue around how we do elections fairly and securely in this country.
Why?
Because they benefit from it.
That's why.
So what did Republicans do when Democrats said our elections were interfered with?
Did they dismiss them?
No, Republicans cared so much about the integrity of elections.
Republicans have cared so much about the entire country, Democrats, socialists, moderates, independents, trusting the system.
That word trust is so important.
So you don't trust something, then you're not going to engage with it, and you're not going to trust the output of whatever that something is, in particular the laws, the regulations, the measures.
Republicans cared about it.
So what am I talking about?
In 2016, there was a deceptive, false, and baseless narrative that was launched by Hillary Clinton and her campaign surrogates.
The narrative was, of course, that Donald Trump was a Russian agent purchased by the Kremlin.
He was a lapdog of Vladimir Putin, and that Russia significantly, substantially interfered with the 2016 election that resulted in an outcome of Hillary Clinton losing and Donald Trump winning.
Now, this was not anything they had evidence for.
This is not something that they were able to prove.
They had a dossier that was funded by the Clinton campaign.
And by the way, have you noticed that no one's gone to jail over this whole thing?
As we unfortunately cynically predicted, just no one gets held accountable for the most important treacherous crimes.
Different podcasts, different radio show for a different time.
And so the Democrats launched this narrative.
They lost the election.
And all throughout December, all throughout January, all throughout February of 16 and 17, they started to build this narrative in Senate subcommittee hearings, in House committee hearings.
You might remember they got Lieutenant General Michael Flynn when Peter Strzok went into the White House and illegally entrapped him without representation of legal counsel.
And all of this continued until Donald Trump fired James Comey.
Donald Trump then told a media outlet he did it because of Russia.
What he was talking about was not the best answer, but his answer was correct.
Meaning, Donald Trump was saying, I did it because of the FISA abuses regarding the Russia investigation.
I think it was Lester Holt he said it too.
Anyway, that was the metaphorical straw that broke the camel's back.
And then Republicans with Democrats wrongly approved in Congress special counselor Bob Mueller.
So Bob Mueller then had unilateral authority to go after Donald Trump and his allies and their affiliates through a special counsel investigation.
Why did that start and why did Republicans end up agreeing?
Because Republicans never actually believed the Russia interference narrative, but Republicans had a fear.
They had a fear that if they did not approve Bob Mueller and get to the bottom of this, which we hear so often, it's one of my least favorite phrases I have to hear from politicians.
We got to get to the bottom of this.
We have to get to, it just is so irritating.
It's right up there, a circle back, and at the end of the day, I can't stand at the end of the day.
It is so overused.
Anyway, that's a side note and a hat tip to someone I know that's listened to this program.
That's an old friend.
He taught me very on.
He said, never say it.
And I've really done my best not to say it, except when I'm criticizing it.
Republicans at the end of the day, I'm kidding.
Republicans.
Yeah, and let's have a conversation.
I can't stand it.
That is terrible.
Let's have a conversation at the end of the day, circle back, get to the bottom of it.
Drives me nuts.
Anyway, Republicans agreed that if this was not sorted out, that it would be bad for the country.
So Republicans put the country above their party when in reality they shouldn't have done it because they wanted people to trust the election system.
Democrats have now made the opposite decision.
They've decided to put politics above their country, forgetting that just four years ago, Republicans did the opposite and granted them a Mueller investigation to sort out their concerns, which actually ended up in a complete and total exoneration of that narrative, but they still advance it to this day.
The point is this: Democrats have grown increasingly uninterested in caring about what happened in the 2020 election.
And the disappointing thing and the takeaway from this entire buildup is that the third branch of government, Article III, the Supreme Court, has decided they do not want to take a stand.
No courage.
Offer no clarity.
Lindsey Graham, the weathervane, has come out and he said that the best path to victory for Republicans in 2022 is to get behind Trump.
Let's play cut 32.
Weather Vane, Lindsey Graham.
And stay tuned.
I think you're going to see over the next couple of months Donald Trump lead the Republican Party on policy and give us the energy we need to take back the House and the Senate.
The Democrats are doing their part.
If we could get behind President Trump and follow his lead, we will win in 2022.
If we argue with ourselves, we're going to lose, and there's no reason to lose.
I think Lindsey Graham is making a very good point.
I think he understands the political landscape that we're in, that if the Republican Party decides to run against Trump or not even acknowledge any of Trump's supporters, they will get clobbered.
If they embrace Donald Trump and his policies and his movement, they could expand beyond their wildest expectations.
And former President Trump will be speaking at CPAC this weekend, and he will be making the argument based on all publicly available reports that he is the presumptive nominee in 2024.
He's not wrong.
That all roads to being a leader in the Republican Party and the conservative movement go through Mar-a-Lago.
That Mar-a-Lago is going to be the political center of gravity for years to come.
And so Lindsey Graham is making a very interesting point because the question is, does Lindsey Graham actually want that to be the case or is he seeing it as the only way to stay in political power?
And my advice to President Trump should take this opportunity to permanently make the Republican Party in his image because it is currently not totally in his image.
The people are with him.
The technocrats are not with him.
And so if Lindsey Graham and these people want his support, he should have a very simple list of demands of policies the Republican Party will embrace, fight for, pass, of people that are going to get some primaries because of certain opinions that they pushed forward, impeachment votes that they supported.
You should say, look, Lindsey, I agree with you on some things.
Why is it that Liz Cheney is still the head of the Republican Leadership Conference after she voted to impeach me?
The issue that I think many Republicans are going to face is how do you actually deal with voters who have been enlightened?
Lindsey Graham knows that the people of South Carolina are not with the traditional Republican establishment, that without President Trump and his base, Republicans are going to end a very, very difficult position.
Because what President Trump did is he expanded the Republican Party to embrace new perspectives on immigration, trade, challenging entrenched corporate interests.
Most people that came out and voted for Donald Trump think very lowly of most Republican politicians.
And so I'm of the opinion that if we are serious about winning elections in the future, first of all, we need to get election integrity taken very seriously in our country, which we currently don't take it seriously.
And governors like Brian Kemp and Doug Ducey need to step up and do their job and audit election results, demand signature verification, and not just tap dance around the issue.
Say one thing and not do anything substantive.
Republicans can win a 40-seat majority in 2022.
I floated the idea on a previous podcast and broadcast that Donald Trump should run for Congress in the state of Florida.
Because basically, if Trump nationalizes the midterm elections, if President Trump gets heavily involved in these races, he will bring out the tens of millions of people and Republicans will sweep Congress again in 2022.
Democrats have no counter to that.
None.
They will try their vote-by-mail nonsense, but the party that wins a presidential election is set up for a very difficult midterm election.
Now, they might try their best to try and use the vote-by-mail schemes to keep themselves permanently in political power.
They might try to use social media even further to restrict viral reach of content, to restrict conservative voices.
They're going to do all of that.
But Democrats, I think, are growing increasingly nervous because they do not have the margins in the U.S. Senate to get their transformational agenda items done that they wish.
It does not look like Cinema or Joe Manchin are going to break the filibuster.
And these are the couple months that are the most important, just so we're clear.
This right now, March, April, May, June, July, are the most critical in the congressional calendar.
They just are.
In the first year after an election, that's where they feel they have the mandate.
Then starting in August, when real challengers start to pop up, when real money starts to flow in these districts, when real threats start to emerge in these states, all of a sudden people like Mark Kelly and Raphael Warnock might say, I'm not so into the state addition thing.
And my goodness, do we need a good candidate to go up against Raphael Warnock and Mark Kelly in Arizona and in Georgia and make sure we actually have fair and free elections?
But let's say we do all of that.
If we are just going to abandon the 30 million new voters that Donald Trump brought into the fold, then we will get clobbered in the midterm elections.
And credit to Lindsey Graham, who is highlighting this.
We call him a weather vane for a reason because he's just all over the place, whichever the way the wind goes, he's just condemning Donald Trump.
He wants, I don't think you want him impeached, but he said something really wild a couple weeks ago, and then he just completely shifted in the other direction.
Like, didn't I just see you on CNN saying the exact opposite?
Anyway, he's saying the right thing right now.
And we're seeing independents and moderates become increasingly upset with the Democrat Party.
It's all on the Democrats.
They control every vector of power in Washington, D.C.
And as we are now knocking on the door of the month of March, We're getting closer and closer to real candidates being slated in the midterm election What will the Republican Party do in response to this?
So some people say that it's time to end all quarrels within the Republican Party.
I don't agree with that.
A great philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who wrote The Leviathan, argued that, he didn't argue, is that human nature is nasty, brutish, and short to each other.
Say that three times quickly, nasty, brutish, and short.
It's not easy.
He was talking about the English Civil War written in the mid-night 1630s or whatever.
He was a social contract theorist.
He argued for a big government, big state to be able to compensate for how awful human nature is.
I actually agree with his assessment of human nature.
The point being that there is a Republican Civil War about to occur.
Should we embrace it?
Should we hope it doesn't happen?
I'm of the opinion, and I will explain this throughout this broadcast in this hour, that the Republican Civil War can actually be a good thing.
I think that we should embrace the current moment that we're in as Republicans.
This is a great opportunity to find out what the party and what the movement should stand for.
Now, I'm a registered independent.
Obviously, I vote for Republicans, not for Democrats.
But the reason I don't register as a Republican is I have far too many points of disagreement with many things that Republicans tend to do, such as sell out our country to China, to name one.
But I think that this is a moment that we have to embrace the Republican Civil War, and I want it to start quickly and end quickly.
I don't want this to be prolonged, but I want us to really have a conversation of whether we are a party of Liz Cheney.
I want us to have a conversation of whether or not we are a party of Mitt Romney, which hilariously, we're going to play a clip from Mitt Romney where he didn't do actually something terrible for the country.
It's amazing.
The point is that Republicans are under this belief right now that we must unify at all costs.
If it was a year from now and it was 2022, I'd probably believe that.
If it was March or April or May, right before a midterm, I'd say, okay, yeah, that's fine.
But we're at a moment right now where we need to figure out what kind of party are we going to be.
Now, I made the argument with Shannon Bream that primaries are like cough syrup.
No one likes taking them, but they're actually really good for you.
Primaries can get some of the bad hangar on politicians removed.
Let's play that tape.
That's right.
And a lot of people are asking when's the Republican Civil War going to start?
It's already underway.
And I want it to begin quickly and I want it to end quickly.
It needs to happen.
Political primaries after losing the White House are nasty.
They're brutish and short, to quote a great philosopher who said something similar many years ago and when he was actually looking at a civil war.
And we need to make sure that the best ideas win.
If the Beltway class, run by Liz Cheney and Senate Republican leaders, think they can win, then so be it.
Present your ideas.
President Trump has already proved that his ideas of restricting immigration and fair trade deals, those are very, very popular.
Political primaries like cough syrup.
No one likes taking it, but it's actually really good for you.
And I want the Republican Party to be unified next year.
This year needs to be a year when we do some soul searching.
Are we going to be a Chamber of Commerce party or a people-centered party, the party that President Trump left behind and still wants to continue to lead?
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Oh, wait, I did say it.
I was listening to it.
I was listening.
I said, I agree.
I was like, oh, wait, yeah, okay.
So anyway, the point is that Republicans, we need to go through the necessary process of finding out, are we going to be Beltway-centric?
Are we going to be people and American-centric?
And there's a lot of history of Republican primaries.
Sometimes Republican primaries go really well.
Sometimes they go terribly.
You might remember Todd Aiken, Murdoch, and Roy Moore.
All of those seats, thankfully, have been won back by Republicans.
Todd Aiken, back in 2012, was running in the Missouri Senate seat.
Claire McCaskill ended up winning when he famously came out and said that something about accidental rape, if my memory serves me correctly.
You might remember Murdoch running in Indiana, who used to say the exact same thing.
He said something very similar, such as that it could be a good thing for the woman, something awful or horrendous.
Both those seats were lost to Donnelly and Claire McCaskill.
You might remember Roy Moore, who won a primary in Alabama.
So primaries can be dangerous.
I understand that, but that's also how we got Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
That's also how we got Josh Hawley.
It's also how we got Jim Jordan.
So primaries can go either way.
You can have really, really good candidates that win surprisingly in primaries, or sometimes you can get terrible candidates.
But the point is not about the specific candidate.
The point is about the ideas of which the party will represent or fail to represent.
And that's exactly the argument we need to have right now.
And I've just, I have not seen as much of any sort of philosophical, logical, or reasonable case for why we should go back to the Republican Party before Trump.
I've seen a couple corporate-funded think tank papers from some people.
Like, oh, Trump was the worst thing ever.
Now we need to go make sure our companies go back to Wuhan or something.
That basically was the essence of whatever paper was written.
Or, you know, what we need as Republicans is to advocate for men going into women's locker rooms or another guy that's, I don't know, something like that.
The point is that it's now time for the Beltway class to put forth their best challenge because the incumbent, the dominant, and the popular view of the Republican Party is one that is people-centered, focused on the excellence and the revival of America.
With the ever-increasing number of makes and models, the Fiat Kia and models such as the Pacific X-T5, it is now impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront.
Why endure often pointless or just, quite honestly, irrelevant and intimidating questioning from people that want to fix your car?
Why wait while the counterman orders the parts on his computer?
Well, here's the cool thing.
I am now offering you a way to get all the parts you need.
Why would you choose to spend 30, 50, or 100% more on the exact same auto part at a chain store than on a new car dealership?
Chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.
Rockauto.com prices are the same for everybody and are reliably low.
Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.
Rockauto.com is for everybody.
That's right, everyone.
It does not require a membership or account login.
Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine and control modules, brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet.
Whether it's your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in just a few clicks.
So go to rockauto.com, write Charlie Kirk in there.
How did you hear about a section?
So if you guys have any parts to your car and you want to support our podcast that you might need parts to your car, you might need to go to rockauto.com, use the promo code CharlieKirk to how did you hear about us, and let them know that we sent you.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need, rockauto.com.
I can't believe a reporter started to do his job.
This is very interesting.
I'm going to make a prediction that the Biden administration is going to pause undoing everything that came before them and now just simply take credit for all of it.
It's exactly what this reporter says.
And it's actually a very brilliant point.
This is some State Department spokesperson who is trying to ramble off all of the successes that the Biden administration is supposed to celebrate in the last 30 days, when in reality, he was talking about things that President Trump and Mike Pompeo did.
Play cut 31.
So we'll continue to work closely with Germany.
We'll continue to work closely with our other allies and partners in Europe to uphold Europe's own stated energy security goals.
You guys have only been in month for only been in office for a month.
Right?
Are you telling me that in the last four weeks, these 18 companies all of a sudden decide to say, oh my God, we better not do anything with you.
I am speaking for the unit.
I'm not that.
You guys are taking credit for stuff that the previous administration did.
I am not.
I am speaking for the Department of State.
And so this guy, whomever he is, this spokesperson, is so used to the media taking everything that he says without ever challenging it, that this old school reporter from the AP, you could just tell by the way he wears his glasses, and he's just an old school reporter.
He's not an ideologue.
He says, come on.
I mean, I hated Trump too.
Basically, that's kind of the tone of what he's saying.
I hated Trump too.
I agree.
He was terrible.
But you just can't say that everything you, his administration to top the bottom was bad.
Stop taking credit for things that you guys didn't do.
And they did the same on vaccines.
And it's really funny.
I mean, where's Joe Biden's unity message?
I'm still waiting for the country to become wonderfully unified in the John Lennon song of there's no more war, there's only peace, everyone's happy running through the streets.
And I think that's how that song went.
You don't think so.
And yet, Joe Biden, his version of unifying the country is calling half the country just unconscionably evil and then not getting any credit where credit is legitimately due to the prior administration.
And so another great example is Cut 35.
Peter Doocy asks a legitimate question at a Gen Saki where he just asks, he says, so why are you opening up cages for children at the border?
It's literally, the Biden administration is now opening up cages for children at the border.
Now, I'm going to take the position that ICE and DHS know what they're doing.
And this idea of cages for children at the border is probably over-exaggerated.
With that being said, the Biden administration ran against the Trump administration allegedly doing that.
Play tape.
And to that point, why is the Biden administration reopening a temporary facility for migrant children in Texas?
Well, first, the policy of this administration, as you well know, but just for others, is not to expel unaccompanied children who arrive at the border.
And the process, how it works, is that customs and border control continue to transfer unaccompanied children to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement.
That can take a couple of days.
I just want to give this context so people need to understand the process.
So she's basically saying we're going to continue to do what the Trump administration did, which is not deport unaccompanied minors and keep them in a holding facility, a detention facility, which is precisely the fake scandal that Donald Trump and his administration were met with.
In fact, if you guys go to our YouTube channel or our Instagram channel, we have a variety of videos where I actually walked the streets of Arlington Heights, Illinois.
It was super sunny.
It was really, really, really hot.
And there's all these people that said, no children in cages, all these things.
Hundreds of people.
Some of our most viral content, I just went out and asked them questions.
I don't know if I'd be able to do that today, not just because of the virus, but I don't know how peaceful they'd be.
They just didn't recognize whatever.
And it was tens of millions of views we got on this content.
And they were basically reiterating and repeating: you know, children are in cages, most evil thing ever.
Well, now children are in cages under the Biden administration.
And all of the pro-illegal activists, such as AOC and all these people, are completely and totally silent.
Starting to see some emerging issues amongst the Biden administration.
And make no mistake, conservatives and independents that voted for Trump, they're a little bit depressed and despondent.
But I think we're at our low point.
I think that we're actually building up.
I think that people are more optimistic than they were a month ago.
And I think people are even more optimistic than they were two weeks ago.
I think that we are growing in energy and we are growing in numbers.
I see it happening every day.
You know what?
I'm going to just be factual.
Mitt Romney actually asked a good question.
It's true.
Mitt Romney asked a good question out of this guy at a Javier Becerra.
And it was actually a really good question.
He could have been more clear in his follow-up.
But the answer that this guy gave was like bad lip reading.
It doesn't even make any sense.
He just goes all over the place.
This is Mitt Romney, actually, probably with the best moment of his Senate career, play tape.
You voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.
Why?
So, Senator, here, I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue.
We may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues.
Everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you're going to live a healthy life.
And I will tell you that I hope to be able to work with you and others to reach that common ground on so many different issues.
I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial birth abortion, it sounds like we're not going to reach common ground there.
So I guess that's a Mitt Romney equivalent of mic drop or whatever.
It's the first viral moment he's ever been involved in.
I mean, his idea of kind of slamming it to him is, I know we'll reach common ground and lots of things, but that doesn't sound like one of them.
Okay, anyway, enough on Mitt.
The point is that this guy, Javier Becerra, is a threat to the American Republic.
Is that fair to say?
That is not, he's really, really bad.
He can't answer.
So, the question that was asked of him, which is a fair question by Mitt, he says, you voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.
Why?
And Becera's answer didn't explain why.
He said, I understand people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue.
We may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find common ground.
That is completely irrelevant to the question.
It's completely irrelevant whether or not people have deeply held beliefs.
You, Javier Becerra, he's HHS, right?
Health and Human Services, that might actually run health and human services.
Why is it that you believe that when a baby is fully formed after 20 weeks, you think it's okay to terminate that life?
It's a very simple question.
The question that I wish any senator would ask one of these people when it comes to abortion is such a simple question.
When does life begin?
If you can't answer that question, then you have not properly thought out the abortion issue.
Democrats cannot answer that question.
And this Javier guy is currently the California Attorney General, pandering to the pro-abortion industry that slaughters infants in the womb every single year.
Millions, one million abortions every single year.
And Democrats try to tell us that they care about people that can't protect themselves and they care for the little guy.
But here's a deeper question about the abortion issue.
Why are Democrats so afraid to articulate when they believe life begins?
It's the most important question around abortion.
If anyone's listening to this program right now on radio or the live stream and abortion comes up with your friends, just keep asking them these three or four questions.
When does life begin?
Do you think it should be okay to take a human life?
They'll probably say no.
All right, well, then when does human life begin?
Those two questions immediately put the abortion discussion in a moral framework that will inevitably come to the conclusion of one of the protection of the unborn child.
I'm going to say something that I really hope I have to be very, very careful the way I talk about this.
I feel terribly about the loss of life for Christy Teigen and John Legend.
I really do.
I feel terribly about it.
But Christy Teigen is a pro-abortion activist.
According to all available reports, her child was lost when she was pregnant.
It's very sad.
It's very sad.
But why is that a human life, Christy Teigen?
Why is that human life worthy of protection?
And a mother in a different position is not.
Christy Teigen has been posting about it on social media and she deserves our sympathy and our thoughts and our prayers.
I thought that's just a fetus.
I thought that's a clump of cells.
According to the U.S. government, that's an unrecognized life.
I think Christy Teigen actually knows that's a life, but I think she's been misled by her liberal husband, John Legend, and Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion activists that is not worthy of protection.
And we see this over and over again.
We see this when Beyonce was pregnant.
We saw this when Kim Kardashian was pregnant.
We saw this when, you know, who the one is right now that's really interesting?
Is the woman with the long name, Emily Rata Jakowski, Rada Jakowski?
I read an article that was on yahoo.com where she said, I can't wait to meet my baby.
And she was holding her stomach.
Well, I thought it's a fetus.
Someone should ask Emily if we had an honest press in our country, because it'd be one thing if Emily was indifferent when it came to the issue.
But Emily is outspokenly pro-abortion.
Emily is an abortion advocate.
So is Chrissy Teigen.
Christy Teigen advocates, Chrissy Teigen, for more abortions in our country.
Chrissy Teigen wants more women to have abortions.
She led a celebrity push for Planned Parenthood.
Chrissy Teigen wanted resources and money and attention to go to the abortion factory known as Planned Parenthood.
If Chrissy Teigen never commented on this issue, I would not single her out on this.
And again, I feel sympathy for the loss of her life.
But why is Chrissy Teigen given a pass to go raise money for Planned Parenthood, say that any woman should be able to terminate their pregnancy, all the while saying that it was a baby that lost its life, not a fetus?
The reason is that there is no logic at all whatsoever behind the left's abortion argument.
The guy's a mixed bag, but overall, I've grown in admiration of him in the last couple of months and specifically years.
Elon Musk, not a big fan of all the subsidies he gets from California for electrical cars, but recently he really has been funny, courageous, clear, and someone that quite honestly can help rebalance the tech environment in our country.
And so the Washington Post tries to contact Elon Musk for comment.
And in response to the emails to Tesla, Elon Musk commented to the Washington Post, quote, give my regards to your puppet master.
This is perfect.
So Elon Musk, who now is the world's richest man, is in a duel with Jeff Bezos.
And I love every single minute of it.
Okay, so we were going back to, do we have the cut here of Donald Trump asking who built the cages?
Let's play that cut.
And it makes us a laughing stock and violates every notion of who we are as a nation.
Let me ask you a first question.
Kristen, they did it.
We changed the policy.
Your response was policy.
They did it.
We changed notes.
They built the cages.
Who built the cages?
Let's talk about what they're talking about.
Let's talk about what we're talking about.
What happened?
Parents were ripped.
Their kids were ripped from their arms and separated.
And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents, and those kids are alone.
Nowhere to go.
Nowhere to go.
It's criminal.
It's criminal.
Well, Joe Biden is now doing the exact same thing he said was criminal.
It's criminal.
Joe Biden said it three or four times, obviously a talking point that was given to him beforehand.
But Joe Biden's doing the exact same thing.
And what he was accusing Donald Trump of, they were not even doing.
And so the accusation itself is deeply flawed in every single possible component.
I want to get to some sound here.
Let's go here to cut, let's see.
I guess we could do some Anthony Fauci.
Let's go to cut 30.
If I'm fully vaccinated and my daughter comes in the house and she's fully vaccinated, do we really have to have as stringent the public health measures than you would if it was a stranger who was not vaccinated and you were not vaccinated?
Common sense tells you that, in fact, you don't have to be as stringent in your public health measures.
But what we want, we want to get firm recommendations from the CDC.
He's all over the place.
He has contradicted himself at every single turn.
You want to talk about someone who's a weather vein.
I mean, it's Dr. Anthony Fauci.
We dove into this in great detail.
Encourage all of you, again, to go to our podcast.
We did a whole segment on the difference between trust the science and trust science or trust the scientists.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is a sophist.
He engages in sophistry.
He just makes things up.
No one ever asks him very detailed questions.
Instead, he gets treated as if he's almost a Hollywood actor, as if he's so smart and he has so much wisdom that whatever he says is absolute gospel.
We refuse to do that.
We've asked questions of Dr. Anthony Fauci since he paraded on the scene about a year ago.
By the way, we're just about 15 days to slow the spread.
We're just coming up on that.
One year.
The longest, yeah, it's going to be a whole decade of slowing the spread, which, of course, is part of a greater agenda of the great reset, abolishing private property, destroying the American church, addicting people to government programs, normalizing obedience to the scientific international intelligentsia.
All those things, which we've talked about in great detail, made possible by the lockdowns and the instruments of power being pushed by people like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden, Jen Saki, and the type.
But Dr. Fauci is a perfect example of someone who has failed up his entire career.
He's never been an expert on anything.
He has been a miserable, proven failure in every single aspect of his career.
I want to encourage all of you right now to take out your phone and type in the Charlie Kirk show.
You might have an iPhone.
You might have an Android podcast.
Check out the podcast app on Apple.
And if you have Spotify, we have it there as well.
It is the way that we are able to get thousands and hundreds of thousands of people listening every single day.
And we have some exclusive content.
We have the great Alex Marlowe coming from Breitbart.com.
So please go check that out.
You can email us your questions, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.