Charlie tackles Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the SCOTUS case that could very well signal the end of Roe v. Wade. Are there five votes to reverse one of the court's most heinous decisions in its history? But what is the actual policy or law hanging in the balance? A case that ultimately comes down to states' rights, Charlie welcomes attorney and publisher of Human Events, Will Chamberlain to dissect exactly why Dobbs might be the end of the line for Roe. And wait till you hear Justice Sotomayor's diabolical line of questioning... Finally, Charlie breaks down one of the most insane takes made by a formerly "sane" member of the media you may ever hear. 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
Roe Versus Wade Challenged00:15:00
Hey everybody, is Roe versus Wade dead?
That is the question.
We are joined by Will Chamberlain and we go into that.
And also, what would make a seemingly reasonable person lose his mind?
We talk about Jim Kramer, one of the most outrageous takes that might have been said recently about lockdowns and forced vaccinations.
Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Make sure you listen to the Kyle Rittenhouse interview.
It's doing very, very well.
So make sure you check it out.
If you want to get involved with Turning PointUSA, go to tpusa.com and join us at AmericaFest.
It's tpusa.com/slash amf.
We have the biggest speakers in the entire movement coming to AmericaFest.
I want to make sure all of you know you are invited and get your tickets today running very, very low on tickets, tpusa.com/slash A-M-F-E-S-T.
That's tpusa.com slash amfest.
Check it out today.
Our speakers are first rate.
We have Tucker Carlson coming, Jack Pasobic coming, Candace Owens coming, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and many others.
tpusa.com slash amf Greg Gutfeld, we have Candace Owens, we have Jim Jordan, Pete Hegset, Donald Trump Jr., Madison Cawthorne, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Rand Paul, Kat Kamick, Lauren Bobert, Louie Gomert, Burgess Owens, and so many more.
Tpusa.com slash a m f e s?
T.
I want to thank those of you that support our show at Charliekirk.com slash support.
I want to thank Christopher's for supporting us from California.
That's Charliekirk.com slash support.
Kathleen from Alabama, thank you, James from Pennsylvania, thank you Julian from Texas, thank you, Brianna for supporting us from California.
Thank you Linda from Tennessee for supporting us, Sarah from Indiana, Tara from Michigan and Mike from Delaware.
Charliekirk.com slash support is Roe Versus Wade Dead.
Sure hope so, and a lot more.
Buckle up.
Here we go, Charlie.
What you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know.
We are lucky to have Charlie Kirk Charlie Kirk's running the White House.
Folks, I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job.
Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created turning point.
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.
Hey everybody, this episode is brought to you by my friends at Expressvpn.
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
Secure your device, anonymize your online activity, protect your action online.
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
Help our show out by also helping yourself, protect yourself.
Expressvpn.com.
Slash Charlie.
I want to get to some breaking news and we had a.
We have a couple things I want to cover with you that I was kind of prepping last night as I was kind of reading what was happening and kind of seeing what was unfolding.
But something I didn't expect to cover in great detail was the Supreme Court.
We did know that the abortion Was taken up by the United States Supreme Court, the third branch of government, Article 3.
Nine justices on the Supreme Court have been that way for 150 years.
The current regime wants to change it.
And they want, so essentially the issue is this: Mississippi has passed a law that outlaws abortion at 15 weeks.
The Mississippi Solicitor General has decided to take that law and defend it through court.
The pro-abortionists, the people that are on the side that it's not a human life, it's just something else.
Compassels, the Center for Reproductive Rights, they were arguing out in front of the Supreme Court.
Now, I'll be very honest.
My expectations were low.
I'm a very pro-life individual.
I speak out about the scourge of abortion.
We've done that on many different occasions here on this program and on our podcast.
In fact, I encourage you to check out the Seth Gruber conversation from this last weekend.
Connor, what great timing that we posted, Seth Gruber when we did.
We are holding on to that.
Seth's a dear friend.
He is one of the most articulate pro-life activists.
I encourage you to check out that podcast, The Best Case Against Abortion You Will Hear.
And I did not expect to have much action.
I expected the justices actually, Alito and Thomas, I expected to probably draw a line.
I didn't expect some of the middle justices like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett to start to signal that they were somewhat sympathetic with the Mississippi abortion law.
Now, we have a lot of sound that I want to get to here.
We have a lot of different kind of cuts that I want to get.
And the name of the case, because you're going to be hearing this time and time again, is Dobbs versus Jackson's Women's Health Organization.
Okay, Dobbs v. Jackson.
And it's looking like for just kind of a bystander that Roe versus Wade might be on the ropes.
There's no better person to help us unpack that than a lawyer, someone who loves the Constitution, a friend of mine, Will Chamberlain from humanevents.com, who is saying he might think Roe, he thinks Roe versus Wade might be over and done.
We are joined right now by my friend Will Chamberlain.
Will, how are you doing?
Doing great.
Always going to be with you, Charlie.
Yeah, you're terrific, Will.
Thank you for joining.
Am I reading that right, Will?
Do you think Roe versus Wade is on the ropes?
Yeah, I mean, I was listening to the oral arguments, and to me, I think it's probably going to end up being overturned.
Basically, right now, I mean, obviously, we have six Republican appointed judges, but really, I guess, five maybe more consistent conservatives.
You wouldn't really count Roberts among that group.
But in listening to the oral argument, it became abundantly clear that maybe people who we hadn't seen fully weighed on on Roe were kind of leading that way.
Kavanaugh was asking questions about shouldn't we be returning to a scrupulous neutrality on the question of abortion as a court?
Like, I think maybe the single strongest argument from a legal perspective that the kind of the pro-life faction has is this is not something that's in the Constitution at all.
There's no constitutional, anything in the text about abortion.
And, you know, from, and Scalia was extremely persuasive on the fact that this is one of the many questions that our Constitution left up to the Democratic and the elected portions of our government to decide.
And so, you know, Kavanaugh seemed very sympathetic to that view.
Barrett seemed sympathetic to that view.
Justice Roberts seemed to be trying to find some sort of middle ground.
I hesitate to say splitting anything because I realize that it's a little bit terrible.
Did say it on Twitter, but I won't say it here.
But the point being that Roberts was trying to find a very bizarre middle ground and basically a way to find a way to affirm Roe and Casey, the other big case, without, but while changing maybe the viability standard instead of saying, oh, you can, you know, abortions have to be legal up into 24 weeks.
Maybe he was hoping that there was some earlier line.
And it was pretty clear that both the pro-choice advocates are saying, no, that's not feasible, oddly enough.
And then maybe not.
But then also Barrett and especially Gorsuch, they were like, is there really any other line here that is principled worth of the viability?
And no one really thought that was possible except Roberts.
So I could see Roberts trying to find a way to split some hairs here.
But ultimately, I think there are five votes to overturn Roe versus Wade.
Let's talk about the significance of that.
Roe versus Wade is not law.
It was never voted on by a congressional committee.
It was never voted on by a representatives.
It did not go through the types of debate that, for example, the Civil Rights Act went through just to give a popular piece of legislation.
Instead, this was a single court decision that was done either by the Warren Court or the Burger Court.
I always get them confused.
They were, I think it was Warren, right?
Maybe it might have been.
I think it was Berger in the 70s.
It was Burger.
It was Burger.
I get them confused.
Seven to two decision.
And then it became superseding federal precedent that abortion was legal.
Now, Kavanaugh was giving us a little bit of a kind of foreshadowing.
Basically, he's saying, look, why don't we just allow states to do whatever we want them to do?
So overturning Roe versus Wade wouldn't say that it would outlaw abortion.
It would say that states don't have to make abortion legal.
Is that correct, Will?
Yeah, that's right.
That states are allowed to prohibit abortion.
It would not itself prohibit abortion, right?
It's merely, I mean, the original Roe v. Wade was overturning a state law that had prohibited abortion, right?
So that's the question.
And again, I mean, that gets to kind of a central question of our federalist system, which is, and also our democratic system.
One, that, you know, courts generally don't insert themselves on those policy issues, that outside of a narrow set of defined rights that are not subject to democratic debate, things like free speech, you know, then other things in that are left up to legislatures and to the states.
And that's ultimately what the end result of this would be, right?
That debate would return to the states.
Now, that also could lead to some, it would make abortion, it wouldn't reduce the political saliency of abortion.
That would be a very, very politically salient issue in the world where Roe versus Wade was overturned because suddenly, you know, we go from the world where legislators are sort of impotent and can't do anything to the world where it is on legislators to determine whether abortion is legal in their state.
And more accountable to the people.
In Mississippi, it's a popular position to try and put limitations and try to outlaw abortion.
In New York, obviously it isn't.
Now, my goal would be to obviously have the federal court eventually step in and say, no, abortion is unconstitutional.
But this is a pretty good step in the right.
This is a pretty substantial step in the right direction.
One minute, Will.
Talk about how, and I want to pick this up in the next segment, how much we've moved on this issue in the last 20 years.
20 years ago, if you would have said that a debate like this was happening, people would have said you were nuts.
Yeah, I mean, one, you have the court really moving to the right decidedly, thanks to President Trump and his confirmations.
I also think unlike many other major social issues where I think there's been major advances from the left, they haven't really made major advances.
If anything, they've lost ground on this issue.
And that would be different from something like gay marriage, for instance, which went from being completely illegal and unpopular to the law of the land.
So I think that's that is really a mark where the social conservative movement has had a great deal of success ultimately.
And I think we're about to see the culmination of it.
As I said, I think Roe's about to be overturned in this decision.
The real estate market is extremely hot right now.
People are taking advantage of low interest rates and economic uncertainty by investing in real assets.
Whether you are a first-time buyer or just looking to make a change, the key is to get the property you want is being pre-qualified and having cash in hand.
That's why you guys, all of us, myself included, I had to stop doing this.
I had to stop using the big banks.
I used a big bank for a loan previously.
It was a disaster.
It took forever.
Not to mention, I go look at their score on secondvote.com.
Like, wow, my loan helped fund abortions.
BLM Incorporated, burning down of Wendy's, the destruction of our society.
I'm done with it.
Then I met Andrew and Todd, Andrew Dell Ray and Todd of Aiken, who become great friends of mine, AndrewandTodd.com.
They are with Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
My producer, Andrew, he's working with them right now, and he tells me they are part counselors, part financial planners, and they're really helping them.
And I'm about to use them for something.
I've been so impressed by them.
But they are bankers, not brokers.
That means that they can help you start to finish.
But quite honestly, let's divest and take all of our money out of these woke banks.
So maybe you're buying a new home.
Maybe you're refinancing.
Whatever process you're going through, just fill out a couple of simple questions online at andrewandodd.com.
They can assess your situation right over the phone.
Go to Andrewandodd.com or call 888888 1172.
That's AAA 888 1172.
Even if you have a friend who's buying a home, I'm sure every single person knows someone that's buying a home.
Just put your arm around them and say, hey, go to Andrewandodd.com.
Charlie Kirk speaks favorably of them.
Here's what I can guarantee you with AndrewandTodd.com.
Zero of the proceeds will go to fund abortion.
Zero will go to fund BLM.
Zero will go to fund the woke industrial complex instead.
Andrew and Todd, they support shows like ours.
They want to help patriots, Christians, and people that love their country and love the Lord take out loans and do it correctly.
So go to AndrewandTodd.com, call 888-888-1172.
That's 888-888-1172.
AndrewandTodd.com.
Support the good guys and stop supporting companies and banks that hate you.
The banks have waged war on our values.
Time to say Sayonara via Candillos.
Alvita Sane.
I'll be going to andrewandodd.com.
Will just explain to our audience what that would mean.
So let's say Roe versus Wade gets challenged.
What kind of an opinion do you think we can expect then from this court?
Roberts is probably going to side with the collectivists and the anti-constitutionalists, but Thomas Alito, for sure.
Amy Coney Barrett asked about abortion, adoption, which she just has a tendency to do a lot.
She just had, that's a very important issue for her.
I hope she rules correctly.
Kavanaugh Gorsuch was really strong.
That kind of coalition of five, what can we expect out of that if that ends up being a majority opinion?
I mean, if it ends up being a majority opinion, then I think it'll be pretty straightforward.
They'll find that the Mississippi law is legal, constitutional, and they'll say Roe, you know, and they'll do it by, and they'll do it by saying Roe versus Wade was wrong and is no longer good law.
The end consequence of that is likely to be just, you know, essentially neutrality from the Supreme Court rather than, you know, oh, we have the undue burden standard or any of these other standards that apply to abortion laws.
It's, it goes back to it just like, this is not an issue that the Supreme Court touches.
And so then that leads, it gives the opportunity for states to pass their own laws prohibiting abortion.
And so that doesn't outlaw abortion.
It doesn't even comment on abortion.
It's almost a federal neutrality when it comes to that.
Where Roe versus Wade was actually the opposite.
Roe versus Wade said no, everywhere in every corner.
It's the same sort of almost overarching, hyper-aggressive judicial opinions that we saw that were precursor to the civil rights movement.
Like we are going to implement a certain worldview regardless if you want it or not.
Federal Neutrality on Abortion00:03:46
Right, right.
And I think that's, I mean, that's the way it always really should have been.
I mean, that was Scalia's critique of Roe, his principal critique of Roe from the time he got on the court.
And it's one of those things where, you know, sometimes it takes a long time for a view to really take hold and become kind of the mainstream and the dominant view jurisprudentially, because, you know, before that, liberals had had a massive majority on the court.
But now I think if you were just listening to that oral argument, there are five justices who don't think highly of Roe at all.
And I think the only attempt to try and persuade them out of it is to make an argument about precedent saying that the court shouldn't overturn its precedent.
But even then, you have stuff like Kavanaugh pointing out all the different precedents that the Supreme Court has overturned over the years.
Dred Scott, I mean, give me a break.
I mean, it's that one, that one should have been overturned.
I'm glad it was.
Will, you're in the legal world.
What is the lesson from this?
Because the smart people told us many years ago, don't even try against Roe versus Wade, no chance whatsoever.
Donald Trump wins in 16, gives us Gorsuch, gives us Kavanaugh, gives us Amy Coney Barrett.
What's the takeaway here, especially as we try to look more broadly for a constitutional reset as we try to now accomplish other things that might have seemed impossible many years prior?
I think it shows that winning matters, that elections have consequences.
You know, there were a lot of people in 2016 who said not to vote for Donald Trump for various reasons, and they tried to ground it in some sort of conservative principle.
Well, what you're seeing, if this actually happens, is the single biggest conservative legal victory in a generation directly resulting from the confirmation of judges that we would not.
That's such an important point.
Right.
And so I, you know, there are occasionally, we even saw a little bit of in 2020 where people were like, oh, it would be good to lose the Senate seats or something because for reasons, because election fraud, like, no, I think if anything would ever settle the, it's really good to have power because if you have power, you can appoint judges who like will look at the Constitution the way you do.
And I mean, it has so many different downstream effects.
So I think, you know, winning matters, elections matter.
And don't let, you know, ignore people who tell you otherwise.
Yeah.
And also being willing to do something with that political power too.
Mississippi was willing to put this law into the arena and also hopefully, again, we're assuming the Supreme Court's going to rule the way that we want it to, but the arguments were pretty compelling, weren't they, Will?
I mean, it doesn't seem as if there's a lot of gray area there.
Yeah, no, I think they're in really good shape.
I didn't hear, I guess what you're looking for is maybe a screw-up by the conservative advocate or a troubling line of questioning from a conservative judge.
And you didn't see really any of that.
The closest you would have seen was Roberts trying to find some weird middle ground.
And as he does, again, I have just horrible jokes in my head that I shouldn't say.
But anyway, the idea being, yeah, we have the judges in the court now that look at the Constitution the way it should be looked at and aren't just kind of almost defending this really ultimately indefensible precedent.
Yeah, where it was extra constitutional, where the court came in and basically made law and overturned 30 individual state laws that outlawed abortion.
And it went directly against the will of the people.
And then you have a whole generation that was raised thinking Roe versus Wade is law.
Boy, I mean, if you think that the Democrats are unhinged with Floyd Apalooza and with all these other different things we live through, just wait until Roe versus Wade gets overturned.
You're going to see a whole new chapter in American politics.
Will, thanks so much for joining us, humanevents.com.
Do you want to be a hero for the holidays?
Reason Over Automatic Programming00:03:35
How about getting your loved ones a new iPhone?
That's right.
Peer Talk has iPhone 12 starting at $479 through the end of the year.
And yes, they have 13s too.
If you switch to PeerTalk, you get great nationwide 5G coverage.
Yes, the same coverage as the big guys, but the average family saves over $800 a year.
Now, that's just smart.
There is no need to overpay for Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile.
Plus, with PeerTalk's 30-day risk-free guarantee, you have nothing to lose.
Unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data is just $30 a month.
And like I said, the iPhone 12 is just $479 this month.
Go to peertalk.com to find out exactly the plan and phone that's right for you.
Use their savings calculator to see how much your family will save.
Just go to peartalk.com and enter promo code Kirk to save an additional 50% off your first month and save on a new phone.
That's PeerTalk.com, promo code Kirk.
Disclaimer, some restrictions apply.
See website for details.
So I'm a big fan of reason.
Aristotle used to say that we are the speaking beings and speech and reason is the same thing.
That if you are a speaking being, you are using your reason to make sense of the natural world.
That human beings are the only creatures that can differentiate right from wrong, that can be self-aware, and that can blush.
Animals can feel pleasure and pain, but our ability to reason is what makes us unique.
In Isaiah 1 in the Old Testament, it says, Let us reason together as it is a gift from the Lord.
Our ability to slow down and to make sense of situations is something that we should give thanks for.
That we don't just have to follow automatic programming.
We're not a bunch of Pavlovian dogs instantaneously running towards the sound of a bell.
Well, I guess half the country is that way, but we'll get to that in a second.
That whatever CNN says we must follow, no.
Instead, we must use deductive reasoning.
Is what I'm being told making sense?
Now, as frustrating as it has been to live through the last year and a half, where we have the double standards, the deceit, the treachery, the behavior from the ruling class and the elites, from Fauci and Francis Collins, Pfizer, AstraZeneca,
Moderna, Johnson Johnson, the changing of the rules, the gaslighting, the memory holing, the suppression of any sort of conversation on ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, monoclonal antibodies, regeneron, vitamin D, or aspirin.
All of those things have been incredibly frustrating, but I do want to say that there has been a promising trend of more and more people waking up against the simulation in front of them.
These are some of the more reasonable people.
Alex Berenson comes to mind.
Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Scott Atlas, and we've had both Scott Atlas and Dr. Malone on our podcast in the last week.
And I asked them a series of questions.
Now, I'm not a medical doctor, nor do I play one on television.
My questions are rooted in reason, though.
Now, we call this common sense.
Jim Kramer's Silly Takes00:11:02
Some would call it a gut instinct.
Now, you can get wisdom, which is the knowledge of things that do not change, from two places.
You can get it from ancient and transcendent texts, or you can get it from life experience.
For those of you that have wisdom through life experience, you probably have learned more through pain than from pleasure and from prosperity.
Therefore, that is why people who have been through a lot try to insist upon young people learning from the ancient texts or learning from those that came before.
So a 14-year-old doesn't have to go through the same sort of period of pain and suffering and still can glean the lessons of those that came before.
Someone who I was always a very big fan of growing up was Jim Kramer.
Jim Kramer always struck me as a hyper-rational person who cared about maximizing profits and telling you what stocks were doing well.
I always had a fascination with the stock market growing up.
I didn't quite understand it.
But Jim Kramer had an ability to make it exciting.
He was always flamboyant, above and beyond.
I would never say he was irrational.
He was wrong, plenty.
We'll talk about that.
But Jim Kramer always had a little bit of a flair.
Hold this, buy that, acquire more shares.
One of the more interesting kind of stock picking shows out there.
He's a high-energy guy.
Now, Jim Kramer, I would put five years ago in the category of someone who has a commitment to reason.
Someone who wants to be free from passion, even though he does have passion, what he articulates to his audience, I don't necessarily think would be something that I would say, that's just insane.
Well, Jim Kramer yesterday went on television and participated in the very same sort of narrative that just makes you watch this.
You say, what on earth causes a man who was once someone who would be at the top of what we would consider to be a hyper-rational person, someone that would be able to say, A is A, someone that would be more than willing to have a conversation around the costs and the benefits or the price of such measures.
What would cause someone like Jim Kramer to go on national television on his own show and basically say, I have lost my mind?
Now, Jim Kramer yesterday went on about a minute rant all about vaccinations.
And all I have to say is, thank goodness, Jim Kramer is not in charge of anything.
Thank goodness Jim Kramer does not run the United States military.
And you'll find out why in just a second.
Thank goodness Jim Kramer is not the Sultan of Brunei.
Thank goodness Jim Kramer is just an increasingly frenetic and dare I say deranged person.
I do not use those words lightly.
When you hear what he has said on television, it'll take your breath away.
And then I want you to think for a second, this is not some sort of performance artist.
Yeah, Jim, he does all these sort of crazy things.
He'll push buttons.
He'll scream.
But his analysis is usually rooted in things that can be proven.
Profits, shares, IPOs, all these different things that are incorporated in the public sharing of the market.
This is Jim Kramer yesterday.
I'll let the clip speak for itself and then we'll dissect it.
Play cut 49.
Lord knows what happened if you didn't partake.
But back then, anyone who refused to get vaccinated would get ratted out immediately because we knew that person could hurt other people.
The Common Wheel was a Commonwealth.
Now we're engaged in a similar struggle with COVID.
And Eisenhower would be aghast.
We have immunocompromised people who are incubators for every variant to come walking around lawfully unvaccinated.
That's psychotic.
We have companies that have tried hard to get people vaccinated and now backing down.
We have governors who want to be president by grandstanding on a foolish state's right issue, the right to get sick and get other people sick.
So it's time to admit that we have to go to war against COVID.
Require vaccination universally.
Have the military run it.
If you don't want to get vaccinated, you better be ready to prove your conscientious objector status in court.
And even then, you need to help in the war effort by staying home until we finally beat this thing.
Yeah, just require it for everybody.
Have the military run it.
What could go wrong?
This is someone who used to be rational.
What would cause someone like Jim Kramer to descend into the madness?
The answer is multifold.
Number one, I don't think Jim Kramer actually knows what's going on when it comes to the Fauci virus or supplemental treatments.
I don't think Jim Kramer has actually been properly exposed to the things we've been covering on this show.
The success of Ivermectin in Uttar Pradesh, India, the downfall of mass vaccination campaigns in Israel, Gibraltar, Singapore.
The fact that only a small portion of the population is actually at significant risk of dying from the Fauci virus.
I don't think Jim Kramer even has thought about natural immunity.
I think Jim Kramer is operating under a very sloppy operating system that was given to him by his corporate masters because everything he cares about is maximizing corporate profits.
But he's not alone because I'm sure some of you listening right now have friends and family, people in your circle that were once rational, but the idea of a killer invisible pathogen, in fact, Omicrone, forget it.
Now, I am going to have to do this.
Jim Kramer, should we trust you back when you were saying this back in March of 2008?
I'm asking for a friend.
PlayCut 48.
Hey, great job.
All right, am I?
Okay, Peter writes, should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?
No, no, no.
Bear Stearns is fine.
Do not take your money.
If there's one takeaway other than plus 400 somewhere, Bear Stearns is not in trouble.
I mean, if anything, they're more likely to be taken over.
Don't move your money from there.
That's just being silly.
Don't be silly.
Man, money's back after the break.
Now, for all of you 14-year-olds out there that say, what the heck is Bear Stearns?
Bear Stearns went bankrupt and I think ended up being diluted at $2 a share, previously being traded at $185 a share.
People lost their life savings as part of the financial collapse.
No, no, no.
Why would you sell Bear Stearns?
So you look, Jim Kramer, you've been wrong before.
I'm sorry.
I had to do it, even though I am kind of, I was a fan of his before this.
But this is a really interesting point where you have this situation, the virus and our reaction to it, has pivoted, metamorphosized,
transformed once people that were the embodiment of rational thinking into nothing more than committed ideologues and passionate spokespeople for a very specific dogmatic agenda.
Alexander Solshenitsyn, when he wrote the Gulag Archipelago, he said, you could blame all of the suffering of the Soviet Union thanks to ideology.
He said, the commitment to an ideological agenda and the forsaking of reason for the belief that you think something is right despite what the evidence warrants.
That was one of the main reasons tens of millions of people, tens of millions of Kulaks in particular, were murdered, starved to their death in the Soviet Union.
Jim Kramer has gone from a thinker to an ideologue.
Jim Kramer has gone from someone who once cared about arguments that make sense to say, hey, just bring in the military.
I mean, come on, what's the big deal?
And then if you want to be an objector, you're going to have to go in front of a judge and defend yourself against it.
He says, making some sort of silly states' rights argument.
This also proves one other thing.
This proves one other thing, which is, no, you're lame.
Okay?
I am not going to be giving long-form commentary on figure skating.
It's not going to happen.
Or I'm not going to be giving play-by-play for the United States Lumberjack competition, which is a real thing.
I think they had the Lumberjack competition out in Darby, Montana.
It's like the chainsaw lumberjack thing.
I know very little about it.
Jim Kramer, you know nothing about states' rights.
Dare I say morality either?
You are nothing more than a very dangerous technocratic corporate spokesperson that has had way too much coffee in the morning and topped it off with way too much coffee after that.
Stay in your lane.
I've been telling you guys about Relief Factor for quite some time.
And truth is, I know millions of people are, in fact, 100 million people are in some kind of pain.
Look, producer Andrew, he couldn't walk.
He was a hobbled individual.
He was bedridden in his chair, complaining all the time.
And then all of a sudden, we got this call from Relief Factor.
They said, hey, we want to partner with your show.
We're going to send you some Relief Factor.
Producer Andrew got it.
He took it, got a little bit better, took some more, got a little bit better.
Next thing you know, he's doing the False Berry flop like you wouldn't believe.
In fact, he might be training for an Iron Man.
It's pretty incredible.
Now, he says it's thanks to Relief Factor.
I ask him all the time, Relief Factor?
He says relieffactor.com, 100% drug-free supplement.
You can get it for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day.
So go to relieffactor.com, and I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start to see if we can get you out of pain.
And then after that, it's less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day to stay out of pain.
So go to relieffactor.com.
That is relieffactor.com.
I'm telling you, a lot of people are in pain.
It's 100% drug-free.
Don't go to opioids.
Don't go to these other things.
Check it out at relieffactor.com.
Fetus Pain and Consciousness00:05:38
All right, I'm not going to do the whole kind of in-depth take here, but one of the most important trials happening in America, it's not the Ghelane Maxwell trial.
No, no, it's the Jussie Smollett trial.
Jussie Smollett proves my thesis that we have a supply and demand problem with racism in America.
America is so incredibly un-racist that you have to fake your own hate crimes and hire Nigerians to help you pull it off.
Here's just a little piece of advice, Jussie, as you're on trial right now.
If you're going to fake a hate crime, don't hire Nigerians to help you do it.
Also, don't give them a check.
What'd you put in the line?
Mugging supplies?
We will go back in the Jesse Smollett saga at some point, but he's on trial right now in Chicago.
It's a really important story in the sense that it shows how incredibly unracist we are.
Okay, let's close out by displaying some of the actual tape from the Supreme Court justices and oral arguments.
I think that it'll be really important.
Let's start with Justice Alito asking the director for the Center for Reproductive Health about viability.
Play cut 51.
Viability is a principled line, Your Honor, because in ordering the interesting...
I'm trying to see whether it is a principled line.
You agree with me at least on that point, that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed.
Yes, Your Honor, but the court balanced the interest and in ordering the interest.
On the other side, the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability?
In some people's view, it doesn't, Your Honor.
But what the court said is that those philosophical differences couldn't be resolved in a way.
That's what I'm getting at.
What is the philosophical argument, the secular philosophical argument for saying this is the appropriate line?
They can't answer that question.
That's Justice Alito and the head of the Center for Reproductive Health.
Now, this is the best argument they got.
Sodomayor says that a fetus is not a person just because it can feel pain.
She says evidence of fetal pain is not proof of life, says fully grown and developed Sodomayor.
Play cut 50, where she says a fetus is just responding to painful stimuli, is the equivalent of a clinically brain-dead person having a reflex response to painful stimuli.
Hey, guess what, Sotomayor?
Clinically brain-dead people have constitutional rights too.
You can't go around and just start terminating clinically dead people, brain-dead people.
You actually have to go through a lot of different processes to do that.
In fact, in some states, it's not legal.
So did Justice Sotomayor just acknowledge that a fetus has the same sort of constitutional rights as someone who is clinically brain dead?
Play cut 50.
The literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and elderly brain-driven responding to stimuli.
There's about 40% of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil.
There are spontaneous acts by dead-brained people.
So I don't think that a response by a fetus necessarily proves that there's the sensation of pain or that there's consciousness.
So I go back to my question of what has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line, that a fetus cannot survive.
And I think that's what both courts below said.
You understand how incredibly dangerous and flawed her argument is.
So let's talk about viability.
According to her, every single person in a nursing home should be killed.
According to her, if you're in a nursing home and all the help left the nursing home and anyone in the nursing home couldn't feed themselves, pull the plug.
According to her, the thousands of people that are right now in emergency room life support from car accidents, gunshots, domestic disputes, they should have the plug pulled, even if they have a couple weeks where they need help.
Viability, according to Sotomayor, is the necessary prerequisite to the value and the integrity of human life.
According to Sodomayor, patients right now suffering from COVID that have been intubated and are in ventilators, they are not humans anymore.
No, you see, as soon as you lose viability, as soon as you are not a robust, strong person, you got to pull the plug.
According to her, viability.
What about people that take life-saving medication every single day?
People on dialysis machines.
You understand how easy and how simple her debate is to deconstruct?
I'll tell you what science has changed, Sotomayor.
It's called an ultrasound machine.
We now know that new deoxyribonucleic acid is formed at the moment of conception.
We did not know that when your friends ruled on Roe versus Wade previously.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And if you want to support our show, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.