All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Aug. 5, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
34:34
Exposing an FBI Bombshell with Congressman Jim Jordan
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Why NATO Is A Bad Idea 00:10:39
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Jim Jordan joins us for some bombshell FBI news.
And I unpack what is NATO and why is it a bad idea to add more member countries to NATO?
Email me your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Take out your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show and subscribe in the upper right-hand corner.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA today at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Start a high school chapter, start a college chapter at tpusa.com.
And email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody, here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com.
The wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
What is NATO?
NATO is the North Atlantic treaty organization.
NATO was formed post-World War II, and it was formed with the idea of trying to hedge against the Soviet Union.
Now, there are some good reasons for that.
The Soviet Union was an evil empire in more ways than one.
Albeit, I don't think we're quite honest with some of our relationship with the Soviet Union.
We did partner with the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis.
After that, there was this mad dash of who will control Europe.
And NATO was formed.
NATO has 30 member countries.
These countries are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, which I never quite understood, United Kingdom, and the United States.
These are 30 independent member countries.
And there is what is called Article 6, Article 5 or Article 6 of NATO, which is the mutual defense clause of NATO, which is an attack on one, is an attack on all.
Now, when I talk to senators, not Senator Hawley, but several of them on and off camera, one of their arguments of why we must get involved in Ukraine is that we must prevent Vladimir Putin from being able to border a NATO country.
Of course, unfortunately, they have not really understood geography because there is a portion of Russian-controlled territory that already borders Poland called Kalingrad Oblast.
So that entire talking point means nothing.
And yet, today, or yesterday, I think it happened just momentarily, recently I should say, the United States Senate has approved of a vote 95 to 1, we just spoke to Hawley about this, expanding NATO, adding Sweden and Finland to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
So NATO, in many ways, is a failed project.
Its purpose is no longer necessary.
NATO might have been helpful against the Soviet Union.
Russia is no longer the Soviet Union.
Is Vladimir Putin a thug?
Of course he is.
War criminal?
Sure.
Bad guy?
Absolutely.
Helpful against China?
You bet.
If we're honest with our relationship with Russia over the last 100 years, you cannot win a world war if you do not have help from the Russians.
If we're serious about hedging against the Chinese Communist Party threat in the 21st century, if we're serious about crushing the Belt and Road Initiative, we need Russia to be at best neutral or maybe on our side.
We've done the opposite.
What we have done is we have empowered the Chinese Communist Party to grow closer to Russia as we continue in this silly, nonsensical proxy war of which we've already sent $56 billion to Ukraine.
You know something that really bothers me that I can't get a good answer to?
Why is it that we are able to send money and arms every week or so to Ukraine without congressional authorization?
It seems as if we could just keep on releasing this money to Ukraine.
And I have asked lawmaker after lawmaker: what does success in Ukraine look like?
I do not want kind of an abstraction as an answer.
Well, we have to defeat Putin.
No, no, what does the latitude and longitude of victory look like?
Now, the true victims are, of course, the Ukrainian people.
Now, may I say in a rather sick and twisted and ironic way that if actually you wanted what was best for the Ukrainian people, you would try to actually end the war, not continue the war.
That more suffering continues to happen the more arms that we send there.
And we have no accounting whatsoever of where those weapons are going.
So the United States Senate, of a vote of 95 to 1, Senator Hawley being the only objector, have now decided to expand NATO.
This is done with zero understanding.
I'm sure some senators understand this, but zero understanding of how Russia views NATO and the expansion of NATO.
So if you actually wanted to weaken Vladimir Putin, you would be doing the opposite of what we're doing.
You know that the ruble is more, is a stronger currency than it has been in the last couple of years since the invasion.
The petrodollar is stronger than ever before.
Putin's popularity is higher than ever before.
And they have more resolve domestically in Russia than ever before.
We have strengthened Vladimir Putin by doing everything we've done in Ukraine.
And we were early warnings against this.
But you see, we were promised false promises.
We were promised, I should say, false actions by the American leadership class that if we get involved in Ukraine, we can easily deter Vladimir Putin.
Even though the eastern part of Ukraine, they want to be under Russian control.
They speak Russian, they're ethnically Russian, and they do not want to be tied to the Zelensky government.
So with $56 billion sent and spent on this, more than the combined GDP of North Dakota, what do we have to show for that?
How is that in the best interest of a nation that is suffering from drug addiction, a suicide epidemic, a porous southern border, double-digit inflation, cost of living crisis, wokeism in our military, and CRT in our schools?
How has that $56 billion benefited the homeland?
It hasn't.
In fact, it's benefited Vladimir Putin.
The way that now NATO expansion will be twisted for the Russian people is: see, look at the West invading us by adding more countries like Sweden and Finland.
Guess what?
You will now have more Russian support for conflicts like this.
This strengthens the hand of Vladimir Putin.
It makes you wonder, maybe that's exactly what the war industry in Washington, D.C. wants.
These proxy wars can be very profitable and very lucrative.
Not once do I hear from our politicians: hey, can we get to a place of peace or broker a settlement here?
Why is it that the lobby in Washington, D.C. isn't talking about peace talks, but nonstop, we're talking about the continuation of a very confusing, murky, non-defined conflict 5,000 miles away.
And so the United States Senate has decided to expand NATO.
This does not benefit the best interests of America.
Just so you understand, if now an errant missile goes from a military base outside of St. Petersburg and now lands in the country of Finland, you and your son or your daughter or your grandson, your granddaughter, because we now draft women, which is insane, might be drafted into a full-scale war against Russia.
Did your senator think that through before they voted for that?
And they say, well, this is here to deter Vladimir Putin.
It does the opposite.
It strengthens his hand.
You see, Vladimir Putin actually is a fan of this because now he gets to go back to his Russian nationalists and say, see, the West will not leave us alone.
The West is marching onward, as Lindsey Graham said.
Let's get that tape again, Connor, where Lindsey Graham said it's time to play offense.
We are going to Russia.
I want you to imagine if China or Russia started to gobble up a Russian NATO equivalent in our hemisphere, and all of a sudden Mexico decided to become a member state of, quote-unquote, the theoretical Russian NATO.
How do you think we would respond?
We would have a call to arms.
We would have people enlisting in the military.
Whomever the domestic leader would use that as a sign of, see, they're coming towards us.
Now we need to have more commitment to war.
Washington, D.C. does not have a heart for peace or to broker a settlement here.
It's almost as if they want to continue it.
Some people say, well, Charlie, the only way we could broker peace is to smash Vladimir Putin.
Okay.
Then you have to be willing to have 400,000 men and women die in battle and deploy 3 million troops to push him back roughly 1,000 miles to the current border of Ukraine.
Are you willing to do that?
If the answer is no, and it should be no, by the way, then this entire thing is a false construct brought to you by an abstraction-focused Republican Party that can't answer simple questions about Ukraine.
The False Construct Of Abortion 00:06:11
One senator voted no.
How many years have I been telling you about Relief Factor?
Producer Andrews 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 relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now, relieffactor.com.
You should order the three-week quick start too.
Discount only $19.95.
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 relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now.
So I want to talk about Kansas.
I have talked a little bit about this ballot issue in Kansas.
And so, for example, we got an email here of some people in Kansas.
Hey, Charlie, I'm McCanson, pro-life and Christian.
I voted in person and yes for the Value Them Both Amendment.
It was very confusing language on the ballot, but we do have many Christians and churches supporting choice.
It was heartbreaking, but nothing has changed as far as I could tell.
Basically, it seems the amendment was just for future protection laws.
It goes on to say this is big hit for us, but it's not the end.
Thanks for all that you do.
And so I have a couple takes on this.
Number one, I think it was very poorly worded.
I think that there was legitimate confusion.
But I have another take on this that I do want to build out here that you might feel free to disagree with.
I'm 100% pro-life.
However, I do think that there are more people in Republican circles that are not as pro-life as they might espouse publicly.
That's not to say that they're totally pro-choice, but I actually think that, and I think it goes both ways, by the way.
I think that there's some people that say they're 100% pro-choice that are actually more pro-life than not.
And this is only just from private conversations and from talks with people that some people start to get very, very nervous and they say, well, Charlie, what about this circumstance?
What about that circumstance?
It's done in private.
It's not done publicly.
And so that's not to say that it's a pro-choice political party or anything, but I do think we have to lean in and do a much better job of explaining what does it actually mean to be pro-life.
And so I think there was a combination of things here.
Very poorly worded ballot referendum.
Churches that did not do their job adequately based on people in Kansas.
But I think that there is a private and soon to be realized, whether or not I'm correct or not, let's just say a little bit of a hedge in some Republican circles that might not necessarily be on board for the pro-life cause as much as it might seem.
The Democrats, I think, are taking this as, hey, we now can win in the midterms.
Play Cut 51, A.B. Klomachar saying that we're in the mainstream, the people are with us.
That's what you saw in Kansas.
They're going to lean all in on the abortion issue in November.
Play Cut 51.
This isn't just rhetoric anymore and campaign ads.
We're moving this country forward.
And this isn't just something we did overnight.
It was hard work while getting tummeled by these extremists time and time again.
I love working across the aisle.
I have friends that are Republicans.
But as just pointed out, we are in the mainstream and the people are with us.
And that's what you saw in Kansas last night.
That's what you saw in Kansas.
Yeah, Amy Klobuchar loves working with Republicans as long as it's invading sovereign countries.
Because remember, she went with Lindsey Graham and John McCain to go threaten Putin and saying it's a time for offense.
But I would love your thoughts on this.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
Disconnect from all the polling what you see on TV in your own personal conversations.
Do you think the conservative movement is as personally pro-life as it might lead on?
I know plenty of people that are pro-life with some limitations.
They'll say, okay, we can allow abortions up to six weeks or we can have these exceptions.
I'm curious for a couple reasons.
Not to say I think we are a pro-life nation.
I think we're a nation that deep down, a majority of people do value the life of the unborn.
But I think there is a tension here, though.
And I don't necessarily believe Kansas is the indicator here because this amendment was so poorly written, but it certainly is worthy of reflection of how pro-life is the conservative movement really.
A little bit, somewhat minorly, majorly.
And I think we have our work cut out for us.
Exactly, what does it mean to defend the unborn?
When does life actually begin?
I could tell you right now, we received at least 50 emails in the last 24 hours that said, Charlie, I'm somewhat pro-life, love your show, love what you do.
I'm a conservative, pro-MAGA, all that stuff.
But I think that abortion should be legal up till six weeks, or I believe it should be legal up to nine weeks, or whatever.
We're getting a lot of emails like that.
And then I connect the Kansas results, albeit cushioning that the ballot referendum was very poorly written, very confusing, and all of that.
But it does make you wonder.
And I think it works both ways.
I think there's a lot of people in Democrat circles that say they're for abortion all the way up to the end when in reality they know it's very wrong.
Wonder if there is actually people's beliefs are much more in the middle on this.
My belief is not in the middle, let's be very clear.
Life begins at conception, period.
FBI Agents Juicing Conservative Numbers 00:05:48
We certainly have our work cut out for us to explain and motivate it.
I love your thoughts, though.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com, because the Democrats think this is how they will be able to keep the U.S. Senate.
They think this issue is a gift to them.
We'll see if they're right.
Joining us now is one of the fighters in the U.S. House of Representatives.
And boy, one of the best arguments for us to take back the House is to make sure Jim Jordan is in a position of leadership.
Congressman Jordan, welcome back to the program.
Good to be with you, Charlie.
And thanks for all you're doing for the cause of freedom.
We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Well, you're fighting every single day.
So, Congressman, walk us through this new whistleblower.
It seems like there's a lot of whistleblowers right now at the FBI, and it's kind of hard to keep them all straight.
Walk us through the one that you're kind of focused on right now that reveals scandalous push by FBI to pad domestic terror data.
Please go ahead.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, your first point, there, we've had over a dozen Charlie FBI agents come to us as whistleblowers.
And think about it.
They're coming to us when we're in the minority where we can't subpoena documents.
They're just coming to us because it's so bad.
The political nature of that place now is so egregious that they're willing to come to us just so we can begin to tell their story and tell the truth to the American people.
And we had one come to us in the last few weeks who said that they are being pressured to label almost every case, to catalog or categorize almost every case as a domestic terrorism case, as it didn't domestic violence extremism, I think is the technical term they use.
And remember, they created this office within DOJ back at the start of this year.
They stood it up a few months ago, and now they're being pressured to do it.
And kind of the interesting thing about it is they said one of the key people who was doing the pressuring on the good rank and file agents is this guy named Timothy Teebald, who just happens to be the same guy who the other whistleblower, a different whistleblower who went to Senator Grassley, said was the individual who was responsible for suppressing evidence about the Hunter Biden story, suppressing evidence that would have disproved the whole disinformation campaign that we got from the left in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
So that's how political this place has become.
And it's why we're trying to tell the story.
And as you point out, hopefully, if we get in the majority, we can do a little more about it.
Yeah, so, but when asked, Christopher Ray was asked actually a really good question by Senator Tillis, of which Senator Tillis is a little bit in the doghouse on this program for multiple reasons.
He actually asked a really good question.
For example, he said, so who's been held accountable for Crossfire Hurricane?
And then Christopher Ray kind of goes in this meandering answer of like, well, they're in our internal disciplinary program.
I mean, does anyone ever get held accountable at this agency, Congressman?
Only if they're Republican, only if they're getting pressured, only if they're conservative, only if they're doing their job, it seems.
But no.
And I always go back to the, I'm always amazed.
Remember, when it was the Clinton email investigation, that was called the mid-year exam.
But when it was go after President Trump and his campaign, spy on his campaign, the name for the FBI gave that was Crossfire Hurricane.
You can just see them all flexing their muscles and going crazy on that.
So, yeah, it never seems to be the case where the so-called elites who are part of the system, part of the swamp, ever get held accountable.
It only seems to be when it happens to be someone who may be conservative or Republican.
I want to reinforce this point that you made, Congressman, and just expand on it.
I'm going to read from a Fox News article of your talking about it.
One whistleblower explained: because agents are not finding enough domestic violent extremism cases, they're encouraged and incentivized to reclassify cases as DVE cases, even though there is minimal circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification.
So, I have two takes on this.
First of all, we have a supply and demand problem with domestic violent extremism.
Is that right, Congressman?
There's so little of it that we have to create it out of thin air.
Am I processing that correctly?
No, and I like that it's sad that that word I think is appropriate, create, because at first I said they're juicing the numbers.
But then, when you look at what a colleague of mine, a good friend of mine, Dan Bishop, pointed out in a hearing a week ago where he went at the so-called Whitmer kidnapping plot, they found out that there were 12 undercover or FBI informants as part of that effort.
And he went through all these facts.
So, it almost seems like they're not just juicing the numbers.
Remember, in that trial of those individuals, no one was found guilty.
Two were hung jury, two were acquitted, two had pled guilty earlier to the kidnapping plot.
But when they did the trial, no one was found guilty.
They're going to retry a few of them.
So, but what was interesting is all the informants, all the FBI agents who were involved in that, and it almost seems like in some ways they're not only juicing the numbers, but they are, in fact, doing what you just described.
They're creating the numbers by having these informants go round up some people and persuade them to do something that they shouldn't do.
It's just unbelievable.
And so, what really bothers me about this whole thing, though, Congressman, is the smugness of which Christopher Wray responds.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time he's testified in over a year.
Republicans take back the House.
I mean, how do we get these guys, at least from an attitude standpoint, like, no, no, you work for us, Christopher Wright?
You don't have some sort of regime control over the legislative branch.
These are co-equal separation of powers.
I watch a little bit of it, and just from an attitude standpoint, I know this is rather subjective, but I think people would agree.
He just kind of just didn't care.
Do you get that sense sometimes?
Well, there's, I think there's just in a general sense, there's this disdain that the left that certain people have for conservatives and for us, you know, just regular people who live in the heartland that live across the country.
I mean, I never forget when Pete Buttigieg a few months ago said, Well, if you don't like $4 gas, go buy an electric vehicle.
Democrats Adjust Their Message 00:11:54
Well, easy for you to say, but where I'm from, people drive pickup trucks and they work in agriculture and manufacturing and construction and landscaping and all kinds of things.
So there's just this general disdain.
And I think that's what you're pointing to as well with the director.
So, Congressman, I'm going to shift gears for a second here.
The FBI thing is super important.
I want to talk about the Mansion-Schumer spending deal.
Can you explain what exactly that all entails?
It's very confusing.
There's all these massive spending bills happening.
What is this Mansion-Schumer spending bill consists of precisely?
And what are the chances of its passing?
Well, I mean, well, come on, Charlie.
You know, when you raise taxes, that's going to help the economy.
When you increase spending dramatically, three-quarters of a trillion, that's going to help with inflation.
I mean, the name, the Inflation Reduction Act, is so ridiculous.
It's almost like they treat us like we have no common sense.
But, you know, you and I know the American people.
The American people get it.
They know that this massive spending, close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next several years, this massive spending and the fact that it's going to raise people's taxes is only going to exacerbate the 41-year high inflation rate and the energy cost and everything else that families are dealing with now.
Looks like there's also a slowdown in job creation, which is interesting because employers have told me now forever that it's tough to find people to work, but now that may be slowing a little bit as well.
I saw some numbers today.
So this bill is not going to help it.
Let's hope.
I've been traveling today, so I don't know if Senator Sinema has made any announcement, but let's hope it doesn't pass.
So, Congressman, it seems as if, and I'd love your take on this, that Democrats are adjusting slightly.
They're still as radical as ever, but I believe that they probably had an early July strategy urgent meeting with some of their more kind of slick consultants.
They're talking a little bit differently.
They're starting to use language like, oh, we're now going to reduce inflation.
And, you know, I'm not, of course, I think they're transparently dishonest, but I think that in the polls show this, the generic is tightening slightly.
Do you see that from Democrats?
And do you think that we as Republicans need to maybe get out of a little bit of a complacent posture?
What's your take on that?
Well, we definitely shouldn't get complacent.
You know, you were an athlete.
My background in sports is like you never want to be overconfident.
You want to be confident.
You want to campaign confidently, but you never want to be overconfident.
You certainly don't want to be complacent.
So we've got to go take our message to the American people.
They can try to change, but the left that controls their party is not going to let them.
Remember, it was just a few months ago in a hearing where Roe Conna, a Democrat colleague of mine, when you had the oil and gas executives from all the major companies, he went down the line and said, Will you pledge today to decrease production?
Why won't you promise today that you'll decrease production?
I mean, and I looked at him, I said, What do you want?
$8 gas?
And the truth is they do.
So I don't think they can really change.
They can try to put a different veneer and different cover on it.
And you're seeing them do that, frankly, with the president.
I mean, the New York Times ran a piece a couple of weeks ago that said, you know, should Joe Biden run again?
When the New York Times is asking that question, that tells you how bad the Democrats are doing.
So they might try to change how they message, but they are hard left.
They believe in this crazy climate change and driving up the cost of energy and gas.
They hate the internal combustion engine.
They're intentionally doing what they're doing to the border.
So I don't think they can change those things.
They're going to try to have a little slightly different message.
But again, you and I know the American people are smart and the American people get it.
And I think they're going to show up in a big way on November 8th.
So we have, we're up against huge money.
There's two schools of thought here, Congressman, that some people think that the Republican establishment only wants to win the majority by a couple seats because it empowers them.
Other people say it's the opposite, that the bigger the margin actually empowers the Republican establishment.
Do you see any evidence of that?
Or is it just we need to keep our head down and win as many races as possible?
Yeah, they're definitely the latter.
Go win the races because I'll tell you what, the most moderate Republican is much better than the hard left that control the Democrat Party.
And the differences that you and I may have with some of our Republican colleagues, and we do, and we've had some fights over the years, and I understand that.
But the difference between the Freedom Caucus and someone who's in the Republican conference who's not in the Freedom Caucus is minor compared to where any Republican is at and where the left that now controls the Democrat Party that's given us the open border, the record crime, the record inflation, the 41-year high inflation and $5 gas.
And not to mention what the radical left is doing to your First Amendment liberties, your Second Amendment liberties, your Fourth Amendment due process rights, and every other liberty we enjoy in this country.
That's why it's important you elect as many Republicans as possible.
Final question here, Congressman.
What races specifically are you going to be spending your time on?
What candidates are exciting you?
What districts do you think we have to focus on?
We're like 90 days out and 60 days out from voting.
What are you focusing on?
Yeah.
Well, no, we got great, great conservative Republican candidates running the House races, but I'm also trying to help.
I want to do everything we can to help JD Vance win Ohio.
Keep that Senate seat in Republican hands.
And Ron Johnson, who's done such a great job in the United States Senate.
Yes.
That is such an important raise.
And so I'm going to try to get up and help Ron as well because he's a great senator.
Ron Johnson, Wisconsin is a fabulous senator.
Congressman, thanks for your leadership.
Please keep the pressure on the FBI.
Not enough people are focusing on it.
It's one of the great stories, most tragic stories happening, but with your leadership, we'll get to the bottom of it.
Thank you, Congressman, for your time.
Thank you.
You bet.
Thank you, Judge.
Rebecca has emailed us and said, I'm a lifelong Kansan.
Let me tell you across the board, misleading advertising to vote against the abortion bill was 10 to 1 more for it than against it.
The money was huge to fight this.
The yard signs here in the capital city of Topeka were far more to vote, for far more to vote yes.
And yet TV advertising was chocked full of lies.
All of our local news was filled with a lien to vote no.
Our country is so comfortable to live in fear.
This election result isn't a surprise.
I'm absolutely heartbroken that Kansas has lost its way.
God bless us all.
So it's interesting.
We're getting a lot of emails of people that are saying that freedom at charliekirk.com.
So this one person says, Am I a fascist?
Do you want to impose your beliefs on others?
Well, no, I believe that every human being should be protected and their life actually has a moral obligation, the natural rights, to be protected by the state.
So no, I'm not a fascist, but I do know plenty of leftists that are.
We're getting a lot of emails, though, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Charlie, I'm pro-life, but I think that abortion is okay up to six weeks or up to eight weeks.
That certainly does prove some of my suspicion on this.
Sally listens to us from Florida, and she says people on the right are multifaceted.
If the extreme end of the Republican Party does not realize that soon, they're going to lose the majority of their party.
Believe it or not, not everyone in the Republican Party is religious, straight, and white.
Whatever stereotype the left and very religious would like to paint us, I've been a Republican my whole life, and I'm accepting of other people's differences.
All or nothing.
It's not my belief.
I don't know how applicable that is to the abortion topic, but I do agree.
The Republican Party actually is becoming more diverse, more multiracial.
The Democrat Party is becoming incredibly upper-middle-class and white.
Go to this email here.
Getting a lot of emails on this, but we have about a couple hundred emails coming in every minute on this.
And the consensus is that, Charlie, I'm pro-life, but with certain exceptions.
And so that makes you think on the Kansas vote, what would the line be drawn there?
Charlie, I'm pro-life.
I believe that life begins at conception.
The soul is born.
All hearts should be protected, and it could be done through adoption.
100% pro-life all the way through.
So, look, the reason I'm talking about this is: yes, it was very poorly worded in Kansas.
There was a ton of money spent on this.
However, I think that there is just a general question, though, in the conservative movement of where is the line.
I've been very clear about what my line is on this program.
And the emails are reflecting this, by the way.
I mean, you guys listening right now are the base of the base.
And even most of you are not 100% pro-life.
That's fine.
I'm not accusing you of anything.
We have reasonable disagreements.
It's just interesting how instructive that might be in Kansas.
Okay, let's get to some other sound here.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
I want to get to this one here, Play Cut 50, Amy Klobuchar, and what she thinks the Kansas result tells us, Play Cut 50.
You're not going to tell women, you're not going to tell a little 10-year-old girl who got raped that she somehow's got to find her way to another state to get health care.
And then when she goes there, that attorney general starts investigating the doctor who gave her her health care.
This is off-the-charts extreme.
And this is why we won big time in Kansas.
And yeah, you guys are right.
Those extreme candidates won in a number of places, not all places, but they won with those voters that are the Trump mega voters.
That's who they won with.
And now we go to the general election.
And guess what just happened in Kansas?
When it's a general election, when independents are voting, when moderate Republicans are turning out, they're going to choose the mainstream.
They're going to want a party that actually is willing to take on the pharmaceutical companies and stand with AARP and reduce drug prices.
They're going to stand with a party that's willing to take on weapons of war in the hands of 18-year-olds.
They're going to stand with a party that's willing to say to women, you don't have to go across the country just to get your reproductive health care.
And they're going to stand with a party that is willing to acknowledge that our forests are burning across the country and that we need to finally do something about it and stand up and invest in clean energy.
That's the Democrats' message.
And I got to be honest, they're far more on message than they have been in quite some time.
Klobuchar has always been a little bit more of a moderate.
That's going to be a tougher message for Republicans and conservatives to counter message.
Obviously, it's all garbage and nonsense.
She says, yeah, we're going to stand up to the pharmaceutical companies.
Oh, really?
You'll stand up to the pharmaceutical companies by mandating an experimental gene therapy on the American military and kicking them out if they don't take it.
Is that what you mean by that?
Or giving a massive handout to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna?
Give me a break, Amy Klobuchar.
Go back into a blizzard, snowwoman.
However, she is pinpointing something of how the Democrats are going to be messaging in November.
Let me be very clear.
I want to win in November.
I want to win huge.
But I'm not just going to keep on doing on this program like, hey, keep on doing the same thing.
Let's make sure we're charting our course correctly and navigating appropriately.
I personally don't believe we should waiver an inch on the life issue.
But the referendum in Kansas, I would chalk up a vast majority, 80 to 90% of it, because it was poorly written and because of out-of-state money.
But based on just the emails, I'm getting freedom at charliekirk.com, the conservative base has more nuance on the abortion issue, I think, than most people recognize or realize.
And that's interesting.
It's understandable.
And it's now coming to a forefront.
So those of us that are pro-life, we have to talk about it.
We have to be willing to engage on that issue and then hopefully persuade on it.
The Democrats know what they're doing, though.
The Democrats think this is a winning issue.
We better figure this out.
How are we going to message on it?
How are we going to talk about it?
It's incredibly important.
I believe that standing up for those that can't stand up for themselves is popular.
And even if it's not popular, it's still the right thing to do.
I couldn't care less about what's politically popular at times.
It's the right thing.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection