The Secret Plot to Use Roe Rage to Upend the Constitution with Josh Hammer
With all the speculation of who could be responsible for the shocking leak of the Dobbs decision which has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade, Producer Andrew investigates potential sources, as well as if he believes they will be successful in shifting the Justices' preliminary draft decision. In light of Justice Clarence Thomas announcing they will not be "bullied" and raging pro-choice protests happening across the country which have forced at least one Justice into hiding, Josh Hammer, opinion editor of Newsweek joins the program to discuss the radical pro-Abortion crowd's aims and goals before reviewing the tenuous legal footing Roe stood upon, and why the court is finally and rightly poised to reverse course. Finally, Andrew exposes why the left is losing steam in this most recent hysteria mission despite going back to an old, tried-and-true playbook that's worked for them so many times in the past.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
Justices Go Into Hiding00:03:16
Hey everybody, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Charlie is off and needs some time away to recharge his batteries.
In the meantime, I am here behind the microphone and we have news to cover.
We talk about what's going on with the protest, quote unquote, surrounding the Supreme Court justices, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, gone into hiding.
What's going on here?
Is it legal?
Who's behind it?
Folks, we expose the far-left radical communists that are actually behind this newest protest movement.
Why it's actually a front for a much more sinister movement that seeks to paralyze and deconstruct the American way of life, the Constitution.
We have Josh Hammer, the opinion editor from Newsweek, chiming in about Roe v. Wade, why it's not constitutional, why it was awful, jurisprudence, and so much more.
And then, guess what?
We link it all back to the 2020 election because why not?
There's a lot talking.
There's a lot going on in the country about that right now, which we will get to later.
But we link it back to how the same tricks and the same playbook that the left is using right now in Roe, they used in 2020.
We link it all together so much more.
This is the Charlie Kirk Show.
Buckle up.
Don't go anywhere.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandodd.com.
Hey, everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
It's Monday, and this is producer Andrew Colvett filling in for the one and only Charlie Kirk, who is rightly away on his anniversary trip.
He has been married for a year, folks, to the wonderful Erica.
They are taking some well-deserved time off.
Charlie works harder than basically any man I've ever met.
I would say basically, but probably, yes, most certainly is true.
So we're glad that he's taking some well-deserved time off.
In the meantime, we have news to cover, and I'm honored, as always, to be behind the microphone, filling in for Charlie Kirk.
All right, well, listen.
There's a lot of news, as I've already said.
Mainly, the lead story over the weekend was the protests going on around the homes of the Supreme Court justices.
We have reports of doxing their homes.
We have reports of their addresses.
We have reports that Justice Alito and his family have been moved to an undisclosed location as pro-abortion activists in Virginia, Maryland assembled outside of the homes of these justices, including Brett Kavanaugh's home, where they chanted, we will not go back and picketed with signs.
Leakers and Speculation00:02:42
Earlier this week, Alito even canceled an appearance at the fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Conference because of these far-left activists.
Now, we have been speculating on this show to what extent would the left rise up in their frustration at the leaked Dobbs decision, which demonstrated that in a 5-4 majority, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were both going to be overturned.
Alito was the drafter in that leaked decision.
Now, A lot of people are speculating who leaked it.
A lot of people are speculating who's going to be caught if that leaker is going to be brought to justice.
Senator Ted Cruz has been speculating that it would come out of Kagan's clerkships.
Now, something interesting to note here with the clerkships, each justice only has four clerks.
So you've got nine justices, you've got four clerks each.
That is a very small potential pool of candidates and leakers.
Now, Senator Cruz says that it was likely Kagan, though he has no evidence.
But based on a hunch, he believes that it was probably Kagan's because she is the most hardened partisan on the bench.
Now, our friend Will Chamberlain, who came on the show last Friday and gave his breakdown of who he thought it was.
But regardless of who the leaker is, it has set off widespread protests, activists, and the like around the houses of these justices, which is despicable.
Now, Hot Air is even, which is actually part of the Salem network, has basically outlined, ALA Pundit has cited 18 U.S. Code 1507 yesterday, which forbids protest activities at or near the residence of a federal judge with the express purpose of attempting to influence a ruling.
Now, it's an open question as to whether this law would withstand scrutiny, especially if those people that are trying to intimidate the justices are standing on public property, such as a sidewalk or a street, and they don't get violent.
But still, the question is, how far will they go?
The Radical Left Behind Protests00:08:28
And we've been speculating a lot on this show about the timing of this leak.
Was it wise?
Was it prudent?
Was it effective?
Now, I'm of the opinion that ultimately this will backfire.
The reason I believe this will backfire is because we have been going through a season, and by a season, I really mean about six years, of nonstop, constant political protesting, where we are outraged at every single possible thing that you can imagine.
Whether it be the killing of George Floyd, whether it be Trump in general, Orange Man Bad, whether it be Afghanistan, whether it be whatever.
It doesn't matter if it's on the left or the right.
It doesn't matter if the left is aggrieved or the right is aggrieved.
We have been living through a season of perpetual, nonstop, hysterical crises after crises, often drummed up by an activist media.
Now, the point I'm making is that if you are going to leak something, let's say two months before the actual decision comes out, which is every indication that we have from the court that it's still a few months from being a final decision, and oftentimes draft decisions get passed around and ultimately they get changed.
Vote trading is something that the court is known for.
So we don't actually know if this is going to happen.
We don't know if Roe will be overturned.
However, a new piece of information has come out from Breitbart News, Justice Clarence Thomas.
He says the Supreme Court can't be bullied on Roe v. Wade.
He says, quote, we can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you the outcomes you want.
Clarence Thomas told a gathering on Thursday on Roe v. Wade.
The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.
Thomas was speaking to the Judicial Conference 11th Circuit, which Justice Thomas is a native of Georgia, so he oversees Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
They divvy up the country like this at the Supreme Court.
Now, militant leftists have been pressuring conservative justices to switch their votes to retain Roe, in which the Supreme Court in 1973 invented a right to abortion that was found in the text structure or 180-year history of the Constitution.
Now, we are of the opinion on this show, the Charlie Kirk Show, that it was an appalling decision to begin with.
Let me say that again.
It was just bad law.
It was an appalling decision.
So, when New York Times columnists like Brett Stevens say that this was a it's too radical to be conservative to overturn Roe, we laugh at them because we understand that the right to an abortion was nowhere found in the Constitution.
What is radical is to do nothing.
What is radical is to allow a 49-year-old aberration, a 49-year-old vile ruling from the Supreme Court that broke with all constitutional precedent to stand.
Now, in the meantime, we have Madison, Wisconsin anti-abortion headquarters getting hit by Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti.
We have the doxing of Supreme Court justices and their homes.
We have Alito going into hiding with his family.
Meanwhile, the White House was silent, saying that, oh, it's everybody's right to protest.
Well, finally, thank goodness, well, it's a week late, doesn't even matter at this point, under this pressure, under this horrendous display of what we would call protests, activists, these catch-all words that hide truly destructive and despicable behavior from the far left.
Saki tweets this morning, strongly, POTUS strongly believes in the constitutional right to protest, but that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism.
Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.
Ah, thank you.
Thank you, Jen Saki.
A week late.
Folks, I am going, in the next segment, I'm going to get in to the group behind most of these disgusting, quote-unquote, protests.
And I'm going to show you their true roots.
It's going to be something that we all have a vested interest in fighting, pushing back on, and I want you to be educated so you can push back.
Now, I hinted at this, but this is explosive stuff, folks.
When you look at the disintegration of the American way of life, are the strands that bind us all together, when you look at what's truly behind these radical moments in our history, you must ask yourself who is actually behind this.
And in this case, you will be shocked and appalled to realize who it is.
From the Federalists, this is from Kyle Scheidler.
The radical revolutionary Communist Party is behind Rise Up for Abortion, the group organizing Mother's Day protests across the country.
A number of churches, so this is, again, Samuel Alito was moved to an undisclosed location.
And in some cases, demonstrations were outside and around a number of New York City churches, including New York St. Patrick's Cathedral, where a picture of pro-life Catholics blocking the entrance to the church from screaming protesters went viral.
So these have been going around everywhere.
In a number of pictures and videos from Mother's Day protests, abortion protesters were wearing green bandanas and shirts and holding part of a green for abortion campaign.
Now, we're going to have the tweet up here.
Yeah, you'll see Hillary Clinton.
If you're in New York this afternoon, join grassroots organizers in support of abortion rights at Foley Square.
And she tweets out a rally sign channel, Your Rage, into action Tuesday, May 3rd, 5 p.m., Foley Square, New York City.
Now, this may seem like run-of-the-mill left-wing protests.
However, the truth behind this group is more sinister.
While the left's ability, this is from the article, to rapidly throw together color-coordinated protest groups is well known, think of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.
In this case, there is more to rise up for abortion than meets the eye.
And examinations of the group's website suggest the group is little more than a front for the Radical Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist organization founded by 60s radical Bob Avakian, a former leader of the anti-war Students for Democratic Society.
So the group references leading RCP member and Avakian devotee, Sansara Taylor, and directs donors via PayPal to World Can't Wait Inc., another organization co-founded by Taylor.
Refuse Fascism, another Taylor-led RCP front group.
The Rise Up for Abortion page even includes a link to Revolution Nothing Less, an RCP YouTube show.
So who is this Avakian guy after all?
The party's constitution says they openly seek, quote, a revolution that overthrows this system and the capitalist imperialist class that embodies and runs it, a revolution that will immediately establish a new power.
Avakian has called the overthrow of U.S. imperialism and the establishment of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the greatest contribution to the world revolution that can be made.
So what's interesting about this is you've got Hillary Clinton tweeting her support of a radical communist revolutionary group led by a guy named Avakian.
Communist Revolutionaries Seize Crisis00:16:01
Now, this gentleman, I use that word pretty lightly here.
He's written quite a bit about the Chinese Maoist revolution that he sees.
And he specifically writes about seizing crises, moments of crises, to overturn the United States Constitution.
This is a quote from him in a 91-page constitution that he wrote in 2010.
He lives in France now, and they called him like the precious leader.
This is what he says, his own words.
In order to bring this new socialist state into being, it would be necessary to thoroughly defeat, dismantle, and abolish the capitalist imperialist state of the USA.
This in turn would only become possible with the development of a profound and acute crises in society.
Listen, a profound and acute crises.
Think about all the crises we've lived through.
And the emergence of a revolutionary people in the millions and millions who have the leadership of a revolutionary communist vanguard and are conscious of the need for revolutionary change and determined to fight for it.
Folks, what you're seeing is a coordinated, radical, left-wing protest, again in air quotes, group trying to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.
And it starts with our institutions and the Supreme Court.
Look, everybody, I know you love freedom and you want to defend it.
And I know you love the Constitution.
It's a beautiful document, and so do I.
And it's the same with Hillsdale College, the best liberal arts college in America.
Hillsdale's mission is pursuing truth and defending liberty.
It gives its undergraduate and graduate students the best education and is working to make this education available to all, from offering free online courses to helping support K through 12 schools.
But today I want to tell you about Hillsdale's amazing free monthly digest of liberty.
It's called Imprimus.
Over 6 million households and businesses receive Emprimus for free each month.
And you can join them by subscribing right now at charlie4hillsdale.com.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
There's no strings attached while you're there.
Take an online course.
Take their Aristotle course.
Take their Winston Churchill course.
Take their Western Theology course.
Generous donors who love freedom make it possible for Hillsdale to send you Imprimus for free.
Emprimus is one of my favorite publications.
And Imprimus means in the first place.
It's short, smart, useful, and fun.
Start receiving your own free copy of this great digestive liberty and take an online course while you're at it.
Enroll.
Their great American story course is incredible.
Visit charlie4hillsdale.com.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
Check it out right now, charlieforhillsdale.com.
I have the privilege now of welcoming the next guest to the show, Josh Hammer, the opinion editor for Newsweek.
Josh, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Andrew, good to see you, my friends.
Always a pleasure.
Likewise, likewise.
You are, in my opinion, one of the most prescient legal minds on the conservative side.
I think you're very fair.
I think you try and play it very fair.
But you, you know, you're, you, you write extensively about the Constitution.
You are very well versed on the Supreme Court.
Obviously, you're the opinion editor at Newsweek, so you have a very powerful platform.
You know, from your, I mean, a legal mind such as yours, looking at what's been going on over the past week and really accelerated over the last couple of days, over the weekend, try and paint a picture for the audience listening just how unprecedented this is and just how truly radical it is in your estimation.
Yeah, no, Andrew, there's so much to impact here, obviously.
Before we get into the Constitution and the Dobbs case and all of that, just from a pro-life perspective, as someone who personally, you know, I co-founded Law Students for Life, the pro-life student group back when I was in law school at the University of Chicago, I have marched in sub-zero temperatures in Chicago back when I was in law school there on, you know, for life.
It is really, really, really terrible that the culmination of now a half century of pro-life efforts to speak on behalf of unborn children for the, you know, the sacredness of all innocent human life has now been sullied by this unprecedented and really just disgusting Alinsky-ited all-cost tactics that we are now seeing.
And, you know, it's easy to call things unprecedented, but in this particular case, Andrew, there literally is zero precedent for what we are seeing right now.
This kind of thing simply does not happen.
The Supreme Court literally can only get by when the justices, the clerks know that their emails are not going to be leaked.
Because if the entire notion of a government of laws and not of men, to kind of borrow the famous quote from John Adams back in the 1780s, if that phrase means anything at all, it means that the judicial branch and the Supreme Court in particular cannot possibly be swayed or cowed by public mobocracy.
And, you know, I think back to Abraham Lincoln.
You know, I'm born in Abraham Lincoln's birthday.
That's one of my favorite guys.
That's my hero of all heroes in American history.
In his 1838 Lyceum address, he had this wonderful quote.
He was decrying the excesses of mob rule.
And he said that there is no grievance for which the proper redress should be mob law.
There is no grievance whatsoever.
So I see what's happening now in the picketers outside Chief Justice Roberts' house, Kavanaugh, Alito.
I mean, Justice Alito apparently has been moved to an undisclosed location.
I mean, my God, I mean, like, every time you think that they can't possibly go lower after what they did to Bob Bork in 87, Clarence Thomas in 91, Brett Kaivana just four years ago, they just find a new way to go lower, Andrew.
But we're really in uncharted waters at this point.
Yeah, I want to play a clip for you here from Senator Klobuchar.
That I think, you know, when we talk about the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade and obviously Casey, sort of sort of, in my opinion, obviously, I think you would agree that it's unconstitutional.
I think Alito's opinion was skewered the original Roe decision.
But let's play Senator Klobuchar here, and I want to get your take on what she says, because actually what she's saying from a sitting U.S. Senator is something.
I mean, this is not Maisie Hirono here talking here, I mean, which we just assume is she's going to say the most outlandish, you know, far-left, out-to-sea kind of type of things.
This is Senator Klobuchar, who many think is sort of moderate or left of center, but not far left.
Listen to cut six.
Why should a woman in Texas have different rights and a different future and a different ability to make decisions about her body and her reproductive choices than a woman in Minnesota?
How can that be in this country that we'd have a patchwork of laws?
Your response.
So Senator Klobuchar and I actually went to the same law school.
And, you know, I would like to think that when she was in common law back in her law school days, she knew better about the actual constitutional law underpinning of Roe versus Wade and its murderous successor, of course, Glen Perrin versus Casey in 1992.
Now, look, I mean, John Hart Eli, okay, there are so many liberals who have criticized Roe versus Wade's fallacious reasoning over the years, but John Hart Eli, who was a longtime constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, he was the dean of Stanford Law School as well.
He was personally a liberal progressive.
He supported abortion rights.
But he famously said in 1982 that Roe versus Wade was not constitutional law and barely even gave a semblance of purporting to be constitutional law.
It was literally no less a feminist, leftist, progressive icon than the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, who said that Roe versus Wade overstepped that the court should not have acted there when it did.
They should have stayed cool, let it play out democratically in the states.
So, you know, what I hear from Senator Klobuchar there is, you know, it's constitutional illiteracy.
It's also moral illiteracy, of course.
We can't forget what we're talking about here.
We're talking about the wanton murder of now 63 million unborn children since Roe versus Wade came down in 1973.
63 million.
I mean, it's really just difficult to kind of wrap your mind around that kind of number.
But, you know, there's something about she said there, Andrew, that I think there's a modicum.
There's a small, small sliver of correctness.
And where I think she's correct is that it ultimately is unsustainable for in the long term, my personal perspective, in the long term, for this to actually be a state issue.
I do think back kind of, frankly, to Abraham Lincoln debating Stephen Douglas in 1858 in the debates.
And, you know, at the time, Stephen Douglas was also saying popular sovereignty, let the people decide.
Abraham Lincoln ultimately appealed to natural justice, to transcendental order, and really just morality and faith above all else.
It said that no, we cannot ultimately stand as a house divided.
And I think in the long run, pro-lifers have to have the goal, obviously, of an abortion-free America.
Now, Klobuchar, I think, obviously wants a totally abortioned America, but I think that I can respect her insofar as I think she understands that this ultimately, ultimately, the state-by-state solution is untenable.
But from a pro-life perspective, obviously, is a deeply important first step towards that goal.
Well, I mean, listen, people don't understand, as you said, it's constitutional illiteracy.
Now, I'm no lawyer.
You obviously went to the same law school as Senator Klobuchar, which now, no offense, Josh.
I'm a little, your law school is a little suspect here.
But I mean, the 10th Amendment, obviously, there's a lot to unpack in the 10th Amendment.
Maybe just for layman's terms here, people listening, you know, they might have heard so many times over and over and over again that Roe v. Wade was bad and that Roe v. Wade, you know, but they don't understand why.
They don't understand constitutionally why.
As simply as you can, break it down for our audience why you believe that the that Roe and then Casey are both unconstitutional.
Sure, absolutely.
So it goes back ultimately to the three Reconstruction post-Civil War amendments.
So the 13th Amendment banned slavery.
You know, that's in 1865 when Lincoln was still alive before he was assassinated.
Three years later, the 14th Amendment comes in 1868.
The 14th Amendment is one of, you know, that is one of the most transformational amendments that the Constitution has ever had.
And in particular, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, there are five sections, has various kind of sweeping clauses.
There's the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the privileges or immunities clause, the citizenship clause.
And in particular, along the years, really kind of starting in the early 20th century, building up until the Warren Court in the middle of the 20th century, a lot of justice started to glom onto the words of the due process clause to kind of develop this doctrine of so-called substantive due process, where even though the clause expressly kind of codifies only process, that there are certain substantive values, certain liberty interests that are enshrined in that wording of that clause.
So in 1965, in the case called Griswold versus Connecticut, this is when the court comes up with the so-called right to privacy, which is not actually, as a legal matter, is not actually there in the Bill of Rights.
Is this when they start talking about penumbras and this types of thing?
Yeah, exactly.
So you are, I'm going to catch you.
You're doing a little bit of lawyer legalese here.
But what you're basically saying is they start looking into certain clauses in the 14th Amendment, right, that came after the Civil War, and they start reading in and basically, you know, looking at the spirit of the language of the 14th Amendment and start extrapolating things that weren't expressly articulated.
Exactly.
Is that what you're saying?
Exactly.
Okay, continue.
I'm sorry.
I got you.
No, no, you're totally right.
So in the Griswold case, 1965, they purport to find the so-called right to privacy literally from the penumbras from the emanations of the Bill of Rights, which is legalese for saying we're making this crap up.
That is literally legalese for saying this is nowhere in there, but we think this is a good constitutional right to fabricate because we are smart people who know better than the people out there and fly over country.
And then eight years after Griswold, the court extends this right to privacy that they made up eight years prior to the purported right to terminate your unborn child.
It's an absolutely ludicrous ruling.
I mean, even kind of accepting so-called substantive due process, what I said, on its own terms, which we should not.
It is a wrong doctrine.
Even conceding that doctrine, it still does not apply because it is the taking of an unborn human life.
As Alito shows time and time again, in his very good opinion, it is totally unmoored from America's customs and traditions.
Obviously, going back to English common law 500 years ago, this was a crime in early America.
It was a crime in every state imaginable.
So this is.
Well, yeah, I want to stop you there.
So, because what's happening with this, Josh, is now they're saying loving, they're talking about the radical left is now saying that it's not going to stop here, folks.
They're going to take away the right to interracial marriage.
They're going to take away, I mean, they're going to bring back sodomy laws, like all of this.
What's your take on that?
Are they completely out of line here?
Yeah, I mean, they're basically completely out of line.
I mean, look, the way that the Supreme Court operates is they have what's called a discretionary docket, where they get to pick and choose their cases.
So, you know, if some nutjob in some random state decides to challenge the constitutionality of Loving versus Virginia, for instance, which banned interracial marriage, they would just never grant the case because there is no constituency whatsoever other than Klansmen who is trying to overturn Loving versus Virginia.
That's just not a thing that anyone talks about here.
But also, you know, when we talk about star decisis, which is legalese just for precedent and how much to value precedence, there are other factors of interest here, too.
So a very common thing that lawyers talk about when it gets to starry decisis are so-called reliance interests.
Who is concretely relying on a previous decision?
Now, in Roe versus Wade, there are really no firm reliance interests because to simply have had a prior abortion does not count.
There's no one who to this day is relying on that ruling.
But in a marriage-type case, whether it's Loving versus Virginia or the same-sex marriage decision, to be clear, I firmly oppose the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision.
But when you get to this act of issuing marriage licenses, people have really kind of changed their lives in kind of a meaningful way.
They have issued licenses.
People have changed their wills.
They're basic kind of legal codifications of the day to life.
So the reliance interest factor kicks in there.
Now, I would prefer certainly to see Obergefell, the same-sex marriage case overturned.
It was wrongly decided.
I truly do believe that.
But that is a much more difficult proposition.
And to be honest with you, I'm not optimistic enough to expect that anytime soon.
So this is really just kind of false scaremongering.
Okay, so you reject the slippery slope argument here.
But ultimately, what we're all saying is that this was not constitutional.
We have a states-based system for a reason where the states gave the federal government their authority, and we're just advocating that it goes back as the Constitution outlines.
The fight for the unborn is raging in our country, and an unprecedented leak from the Supreme Court indicates that Roe v. Wade is on the brink of being overturned.
During this critical time, a new movie is about to be released.
The award-winning film, The Matter of Life, cuts through the rhetoric and hatred and exposes the real issues surrounding the plight of the unborn.
The matter of life will be in theaters nationwide for two nights only, May 16th and May 17th.
If you care about protecting the unborn, this is a movie you will not want to miss.
Go to fathomevents.com right now to reserve your tickets for a theater near you for May 16th or May 17th and have your own life transformed as you watch The Matter of Life.
That's fairvents.com, fathomevents.com.
This is a battle taking place in America.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you need to see this film, F-A-T-H-O-M-Events.com, fathomevents.com.
Biden's Enigmatic Role in Civil Rights00:14:55
I want to play this clip from you because one of the most, I would say, enigmatic people on the left today is none other than regime chair Joe Biden.
Let's just play this clip because Joe Biden says he's a devout Catholic.
He's gone on record in the past saying that he doesn't like Roe, thinks abortions should be rare.
We need to be limiting them.
He's singing sort of a different tune now.
Play Cut 17.
I said, I believe I have the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child of God.
I exist.
I delegate it by joining this union here.
And let's go ahead and play one other clip from Joe Biden.
Let's go ahead and play cut nine.
That the existence of a human license being is a question.
Is it at the moment of conception?
Is it six months?
Is it six weeks?
So the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.
All right.
So, Josh, make sense of our dear president here.
He's all over the place, and I apologize.
It was a meandering clip, but that's really what we're dealing with here.
What are Joe Biden's options?
Should Roe be overturned?
What can he do?
Executive fiat here.
Yeah, no, Andrew, it's a meandering clip because we're dealing, obviously, with a doddering, senile man who really should be in a retirement home and not leading the free world.
It's really sad, honestly, when you see people speak this incoherently.
By the way, that first clip we just heard, Joe Biden, of all people really should know better because Joe Biden, along with Ted Kennedy, was involved in helping to sink the Bob Bork nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 on exactly those grounds, but the other way around, actually.
They would fear Monger that Bob Bork believed in natural rights of the unborn child.
So 35 years later, he's totally forgot what he actually said in the other direction towards a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court.
It's unbelievable stuff.
As far as what he can do unilaterally, really not a whole lot.
So the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration under the Biden administration has already kind of liberalized rules pertaining to the mailing of abortion pills of abort of phasians via telemedicine.
That is going to be one of the next fights that's going to take shape.
I have some friends actually in the state of Missouri who I've been kind of in touch with on and off.
Missouri is kind of actively crafting a pro-life bill to try and minimize the extent to which Missourians can possibly kind of get abortion pills.
But that's been that.
Are we talking about Plan B pills specifically?
I think we're talking here about abortion pills that will go well after just the morning after, actually.
I mean, up to like four to six weeks, potentially, something along those lines.
So, so, yeah, I mean, that is, that is going to be a new fight.
But right now, that's kind of getting promulgated by the FDA bureaucracy.
So, that's a current fight.
But a lot of it's going to have to be legislative.
I mean, you know, they're going to try and pass this Roe versus Wade statutory codification.
That's what Schumer and Pelosi are talking about.
But it's not going to happen, obviously, because they've got to nuke the filibuster and it's just not going to happen.
Yeah.
So, you know, I think this is been a really comprehensive hour.
And Josh, thank you so much for all your contributions to this discussion, giving us the breakdown, why it's not constitutional in the first place, what would happen if it does get overturned.
You know, what we're seeing here is a coordinated attack by far left.
And when I say far left, I'm not just using that as a casual pejorative.
These are actual revolutionary communists that want to overthrow the United States and our system of laws, our Constitution, and they want to use crises, moments of crises, in order to do that.
And guess what?
Our former presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, is endorsing this movement.
And so are the top officials in the Democrat Party, right?
So if you could sum this up in 30 seconds, Josh, what happens next?
What do we need to be on the lookout for?
Where is this going?
Andrew, if I can sum it out, look, within the first 24 to 48 hours of the week, I personally was on the lookout to see if a single Democratic elected official would even condemn the leak, an unprecedented attempt to undermine the court.
To my knowledge, that has not happened yet.
Now, the next level, of course, is actively effectively encouraging what is happening outside the homes of these justices in direct violation, I would mention, of 18 U.S. Code's Section 1507, which literally makes it a federal crime to do exactly what these people are doing-to picket outside houses and intimidate justices to kind of carry out justice according to the likes of which they would not otherwise get at.
But what's going on here is they've this is DEF CON one, okay?
This is what people have to understand, Andrew.
We have not gone to DEF CON one, they have brought it here.
We need to step up in kind.
Yeah, that's right.
How many years have I been telling you about Relief Factor?
Producer Andrew's right here doing an Iron Man thanks to Relief Factor.
And truth is, I know there are millions of people.
In fact, some say over 100 million people struggling with some kind of pain, maybe from exercise or just getting older.
That can do it, getting older, which is why I'm so impressed with the people at relieffactor.com.
They are on a mission.
You rarely see this kind of focus and commitment.
They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and want to literally double their total number of happy customers in the next year.
And I believe they'll do it.
So here's the deal: if you're struggling with back pain, neck pain, shoulder, hip, or knee pain, even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start, still discounted, only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relief factor.com.
Check it out right now, relieffactor.com.
You should order the three-week quick start to discount only $19.95 to see if it will work for you.
I think it possibly could.
Give your body what it needs to heal itself.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relief factor.com.
Check it out right now.
Now, something that I've been personally railing against, and some of you have heard me rail against it on this show when I've filled in for Charlie, others, this will be new, is the left's casual use of the word civil rights group.
This I find particularly infuriating for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is a catch-all term for potential violence, thuggery, abuse, for unlawful misconduct.
But yet, when they couch it in terms like civil rights group, this evokes a proud tradition on the progressive side of the aisle.
And certainly, even some conservatives celebrate certain progressive wins throughout our history, right?
I mean, nobody wants an America where we have segregation again.
And if you do want that, you're listening to the wrong show.
But I want to harken back to something that came out in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
So I want to harken back to this Molly Ball article, the oft-mentioned Molly Ball article from Time magazine: the secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
Okay, saved in Molly Ball's estimation, I think something much more sinister to the folks listening to this broadcast right now.
Now, the interesting part of in the protests against the justices Alito going to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, they are advertising additional protests all week, a week of action they're calling for.
But these are far left, anti-constitution, constitutional revolutionary radicals.
And they go way far back.
And by the way, one of the interesting pieces of this is that even while Hillary Clinton is pushing this garbage, some on the far left are going against it.
So the DC anti-fascist action, so basically DCM Tifa, is saying today rise up for abortion, aka rebanded refuse fascism, aka offshoot of Bob Avakian's cult.
The Revcoms held a pro-choice rally at the Supreme Court of the United States.
It will probably be at more.
Read the thread link below that gives a great overview of why you should avoid them.
And it calls him a cult.
Because the leader of Aiken has been living in France, they call him the precious exiled leader or something along those lines.
Now, I don't know that this group is anything special.
I know that they have a history of getting involved in the Ferguson riots.
They have a history of getting involved in the George Floyd riots.
What they do is they grab onto a crisis, they exploit it to maximal political gains.
Now, what this group would do is hide behind the moniker of civil rights, civil rights group, civil rights activists, which on the left is a blank check for doing whatever the hell you want to do.
Now, how is all this connected?
Molly Ball wrote this in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
She says, A weird thing happened right after the November 3rd election.
Nothing.
Say that again.
A weird thing happened right after the November 3rd election.
Nothing.
She goes on.
The nation was braced for chaos.
Let's pause just right there.
Why do you think the nation was braced for chaos?
Well, it was braced for chaos because left-wing agitators have conditioned us to be braced for chaos.
Liberal groups had vowed to take to the streets, planning hundreds of protests across the country.
Right-wing militias were guarding for battle.
In a poll before Election Day, 75% of Americans voiced concern about violence.
A little bit later in the piece, there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.
Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.
It says the pact was formalized in a terse, little notice joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO published on Election Day.
So let me paint the scene here again for you folks.
This is how the left couches their violence.
This is how they get away with it.
They harken back to MLK and the legacy of civil rights marching for racial equality, which even conservatives believe is a beautiful and good thing mostly.
Now, there was an assault on some of the constitutional underpinnings in that time that we can go into more detail and more depth on at a later time.
And perhaps we will again, but we've done it multiple times in the show.
But nevertheless, this is the history that they're leveraging.
But what we see now is that these civil rights groups are going to be protesting the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, which, yes, by the way, they have every right to protest.
They don't have a right to dox to intimidate our Supreme Court justices.
They don't have a right to throw Molotov cocktails at pro-life centers, anti-abortion centers in Madison, Wisconsin.
They don't have a right to burn cop cars and smash businesses.
But if you go back to this AFL-CIO statement in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this is why you see so many conservatives railing against the Chamber of Commerce Republicans, this controlled opposition of the political right.
They joined hands in a deal with the devil with the AFL-CIO, big union labor, to ensure that their groups, their activist groups, were under their thumb and controlled by them.
They put out the bat signal after November 3rd, 2020, and they told their minions not to take to the streets.
They're civil rights groups, not to take to the streets.
It was a handshake between business and labor, and one component of a vast cross-section campaign to protect the election.
Their work touched on every aspect of the election.
They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding.
They fended off voter suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers, and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.
They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation, Ministry of Truth, and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.
So, when you see protesters, again, air quotes outside of the homes of justices, Supreme Court justices, when you see them throwing Molotov cocktails, when you see them taking the streets in violence, remember that this is their playbook.
Their playbook is to seize on a crisis to enact a radical transformation of this country, this beautiful country, this gift that we've been given.
And we must not see it as the grassroots, as normal Americans.
This is nothing more than a far-left power grab, and it's coordinated to destroy this country.
Okay, so we have been talking about this concerted effort on the left.
Now, I want to finish one point here.
Go back to Molly Ball's article from Time magazine.
One point here: said the potential for a November meltdown was obvious in his apartment in the DC suburbs.
Pothorser, who's considered one of the architects of this left-wing cabal to quote-unquote save the election, slash, you know, get the result they wanted.
Pothorser began working from his laptop at his kitchen table, holding back-to-back Zoom meetings for hours a day with his network of contacts across the progressive universe: the labor movement, the institutional left, like Planned Parenthood and Greenpeace, resistance groups like Indivisible and Move On, progressive data geeks and strategists, representatives of donors and foundations, state-level grassroots organizers, racial justice activists, and others.
What she just describes there is the conglomeration of left-wing radical groups that basically link together to not protest.
That was their stroke of genius in 2020.
Everybody thought that they were going to take to the streets and sow violence and chaos, like we'd seen with the Floyd of Palooza in 2020.
And we were bracing for it, and it didn't materialize.
That was their stroke of genius.
Astroturfed Protesters Fail to Materialize00:02:45
Now, we have been speculating on the show what exactly is going to materialize from the Roe decision being leaked.
And by the way, folks, this is the next segment.
We're going to be joined by Dr. Keith Rose.
We're going to be going over Pfizer docs.
We're going to be going over Bill Gates news.
And then in the third hour, we're going to be talking about 2,000 mules and some other things.
But I just want to finish this whole Roe conversation by talking about what does it all mean?
So we have to at least allow for the possibility that the Roe itself being in danger, that there could be a strong reaction from progressives and those who are supportive of legal abortion.
So, you know, in other words, do we need to be on the lookout for some kind of evidence that this election in 2022, the midterms, the complexity is going to fundamentally change.
Up to this point, we've been assured that we are going to win and win big.
The conservatives are on the precipice of a significant historic election where we will take back power in the House and that we have a very good chance of doing so in the Senate as well.
But consider this.
I'm reading for the Washington Examiner.
The May 2nd leak of Justice Alito's draft decision over Trinity Row, there has been exactly one poll taken on the congressional generic ballot question.
The one that asked voters which party's candidate they intend to support this November.
CNN had actually polled this question in the three days immediately before the leak and found Republicans with a one-point advantage.
Okay, so Republicans had a one-point advantage, which by the way, maybe doesn't seem like much, but historically, Republicans having a one-point advantage in the generic poll is breathtaking.
But look at this.
But when CNN polled again after the leak between May 3rd and May 5th, Republicans suddenly had a seven-point advantage in a generic poll.
This is the largest GOP advantage in history of CNN's generic ballot poll.
Again, seven-point advantage, the largest in the history of CNN's generic ballot poll.
So what does this tell us?
Now, maybe nothing.
Maybe it doesn't tell us anything.
Maybe it doesn't really suggest that it's fully made its way through the electorate at this point.
But what's also interesting is these protesters.
It seems astroturfed.
It feels inauthentic.
It feels like far leftists that are using the same old bag of tricks to make it look like the country's about to burn.
And it isn't.
And the voters aren't responding yet, folks.
Support Us Against Advertiser Boycotts00:00:37
Thanks for listening, everybody.
I hope that was informative for you all.
I know it was informative for me researching.
Guys, if you like what we do here on the show, help support us from the censorship of the left.
Help support us from advertiser boycotts.
Help support us as we try and build our audience, build the team, build the staff to reach more and more young people, more and more Americans with truth, with the content we break on this show.
Go to charliekirk.com forward slash support.
CharlieKirk.com forward slash support means the world to us.
Thanks so much.
We'll talk to you soon.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.