All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 6, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
32:45
The Collapse of Libertarianism? + Trump's Constitution Comment Explained with Andrew Koppelman
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Libertarianism and Corporate Deregulation 00:14:20
Hey everybody, today the Charlie Kirk show.
Email me your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com slash support.
A professor joins our program to talk about libertarianism.
He says something about Trump that I don't appreciate.
I just don't agree with.
I appreciate it's too strong.
Don't agree with.
I don't push back because I didn't find that our time together would be as fruitful with that, but I could talk about that in a future episode.
Maybe I didn't ask me anything, so just keep that in mind.
And then I talk about the Georgia runoff.
And finally, does Donald Trump want to obliterate the Constitution?
Email me your thoughts as alwaysfreedom 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 the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
One of the more fascinating aspects of my 10 years, almost 11 years of doing this, is seeing how certain ideas, books, thinkers have grown in popularity and also collapsed in popularity, mostly in the conservative movement.
When I got started in 2012, 2013, 2014 in particular, the conservative movement, especially the young conservative movement, was very libertarian.
The libertarian think tanks, libertarian organizations, almost all conservative Republican literature was laced with hyper-libertarianism.
And I'm not saying that critically.
I mean, I read Murray Rothbard, Ludovic Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, became steeped in libertarianism, Milton Friedman, without really ever a proper similar journey until recently into Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke.
And I've obviously become more conservative and less libertarian on almost all topics, but not all, most topics, not all topics in the last couple of years.
But libertarianism definitely had a moment in 12, 13, and 14.
It felt like it was a rising tide.
And then it's less popular than ever before in the conservative movement outside of a couple of issues like guns and I would say maybe civil liberties and privacy.
But to help us unpack this, super excited for this conversation because I've actually lived part of this is Andrew Koppelman, award-winning John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University and author of several other books as well.
And the name of the book is Burning Down the House.
And Professor Koppelman joins us now.
Professor, welcome to the program.
Thank you for having me.
So, Professor, let's get our terms straight.
What do you mean by libertarianism?
You say how libertarian philosophy was corrupted by delusion and greed.
I actually tend to agree with that largely.
How do you define libertarian philosophy?
Libertarianism broadly understood as the idea that people will be freer, people will have more control over their lives if we minimize government.
That small government is the path to giving us control over our own lives.
That's the basic idea that's shared by multiple flavors of libertarianism.
I agree.
I think that's what you just summarized it perfectly, and that's terrific.
So therefore, you say it was corrupted by delusion and greed.
You start in at least the summary.
I haven't read the book yet.
I look forward to, but you start in some of the summaries as saying that Hayek was one of kind of the modern day, let's just say 1940s, 1950s, you know, composed road to serfdom.
But then you say his philosophy was corrupted by other thinkers.
First, tell us about F.A. Hayek.
Tell us about his warnings against totalitarianism via Road to Serfdom, and then we'll go from there.
So Road to Serfdom is a book that Hayek writes in 1944 when he is a professor at the London School of Economics.
He was born in Austria, but he was working in London, and he was writing against the program of the British Labour Party, which was frankly advocating socialism.
They wanted government control of the means of production.
They wanted central economic planning.
And at the time, everybody, you know, intellectuals generally thought that central economic planning was the way to go.
The world's most admired economic managers were Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, because they were the ones who turned their economies around while Britain and France and the United States were still in depression with high unemployment.
And Hayek wanted to argue in the book that central economic planning was necessarily both wasteful and tyrannical.
It would exercise totalitarian control over people's lives and it wouldn't even work.
It wouldn't make people more prosperous because economies have way too much information, more information than any central planner can know.
And the only way to assimilate all of that information is a price system.
I appreciate F.A. Hayek's contribution in that sense, because fighting up against the alleged celebratory praise of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin's economic planning, good for him.
And I'm glad he did that.
However, then you argue in the book, okay, so Hayek lays this foundation.
And then there's some other people that come onto the stage, two in particular that caught my eye that you argue, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.
Let's start with Ayn Rand.
I have read a fair amount of her literature, obviously Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, Anthem, you know, We the Living, but she brought a different take on it.
In my personal opinion, she was more focused on the morality of selfishness than danger of totalitarianism.
She did agree the danger of totalitarianism, but her books almost always began to echo back to the very over-the-top type of celebration of money making for your own purposes and the evil of altruism.
What are your thoughts on that, Professor?
Yeah, so she's offering both a personal ethic and a philosophy of government.
And the personal ethic is one of you really should try to fulfill yourself.
That's your first obligation.
I'm less interested in that in the book than in the political philosophy.
She thinks that anything that government does other than protect people's persons and property is illegitimate.
So one of the differences between her and Hayek is if we think about regulating market transactions that affect people who aren't party to the transaction, like pollution.
People who suffer from pollution, they're not part of the, they're not the buyer, they're not the seller, they don't get to veto the transaction, but they can be harmed by the transaction.
And Hayek thought, well, in that case, you have to have government regulation because the market isn't going to fix that.
And she was opposed to any kind of government regulation, even preventing harm to third parties.
She was absolutely opposed to any kind of redistribution.
So a welfare system, even a social safety net to prevent people from starving, she thought was illegitimate.
And those are fundamental differences between her and Hayek.
She categorically opposed any kind of redistribution, any kind of regulation.
And even a step further than her would be Murray Rothbard, who almost had anarcho-tendencies and leanings.
Tell us about him.
Not almost.
Rothbard was an anarchist.
He was a frank anarchist.
He thought that any state, any state action at all was illegitimate.
He thought that taxation was robbery.
And he thought that if we do away with the state altogether, that people would gain from trade.
It's in nobody's business.
It's in nobody's interest for us to fight with each other.
So we don't need the state to maintain peace and prosperity.
So, therefore, with that kind of a backdrop, you argue then that the last couple decades, especially recently, last 10 years, we're actually living in some of the economic policy and philosophy, especially in the Republican Party, that these libertarian thinkers kind of built for us in the 50s and 60s.
Help us explore that.
Yeah, so if you look at the position of the Republican Party, for instance, Trump during his presidency, and he had control of both houses of Congress to support him, and he presented himself as a champion of the working class.
But if you look at what he actually did, what he did was primarily big tax cuts for the rich and gutting the federal regulatory apparatus, including the apparatus that protects people from pollution, and an effort to massively cut health care in order to have more tax cuts for the rich.
And none of this particularly benefits working people, even though that's what he was offering.
The basic idea in practice was anything that we can do to limit the state is a good thing.
And this worked primarily to the benefit of businesses and people who were inconvenienced by any kind of regulation and redistribution.
There are people in the Republican Party who are pushing back against that, but there's only a few of them.
And so far, they're pretty politically isolated.
Do you want to make extra money?
Then you need to get an e-store from my friends at Nobilis.
That's N-O-B-L-E-U-S.
Nobilis offers all the resources needed to run a successful online business, creates your customizable website, provides hundreds of thousands of products and solutions to sell.
And Nobilis handles the billing, shipping, returns, and more.
No other platform offers you more.
The leadership team, I met them.
They're really great.
It includes former West Point officers and entrepreneurs who love America.
And their mission is to empower you with more freedom.
Nobilist, the easiest way to sell online.
So Nobilis is announcing its founders club available to the first 2,500 registrations with a discounted registration fee, two months free, and two tickets to their national launch conference in early 2023, a combined savings of $1,000.
To launch your e-store, it only takes a few minutes to register.
Go to charliekirkshow.com or charliekirk.com and click on my store to get started today.
Amazing product.
More opportunity, more money.
Nobilis.
I might disagree with some of the characterization of the Trump stuff, but we could put that aside.
I'm more interested in talking about and exploring how certain people in the Republican Party will fight for corporate handouts and giveaways or deregulation of corporations and almost have these, let's say, libertarian philosophical think tanks backing them up for it.
So let me give you just a very simple example, okay?
There's a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. called the Cato Institute, who will argue for almost no government regulation at all for technology companies.
And certain Republicans will say, here's the documents of why I believe this.
But you look at the donors, it's Google and the biggest technology companies that are funding these libertarian think tanks.
Talk about how some of the biggest corporations have found friends in the libertarian community, even though the corporations themselves probably don't believe this, but it is good for business.
I think that that's right.
I'll say that as a general matter, corporations are just unreliable guides to politics because assuming that I'm running a company, honestly, my job is to maximize value for my shareholders.
I am not there to have an abstract conversation about truth.
I want to promote the government actions that are going to make money for my company.
And so sometimes that means that I'm going to say things that I don't believe.
And so I'm going to say things that I don't believe.
You shouldn't assume that a company really believes what it's saying any more than you should believe that a lawyer believes that his client is innocent.
Even if he thinks that his client is guilty, he's got an obligation to his client to make the best case he can for his client.
No, of course.
But the issue is not the corporation.
It's that they fund other think tanks generously who then have at least the appearance that they believe this stuff.
Yeah, the people I know at the Cato Institute really do honestly believe what they are saying, but it is true that their funders have other motives.
Okay.
So just kind of walk us through kind of more of the modern day argument here, like just kind of the application, right?
So we have a conservative audience.
What do you think that conservatives can learn kind of most like what is the most helpful lesson from your book, you would argue, or your research for conservatives about libertarian philosophy and how you believe it was corrupted by both delusion and greed?
Well, I think that if what you are trying to do is promote traditional values, I mean, one point that you've sometimes emphasized is that the value of the American working class are at some distance from the values of the educated elites in the Democratic Party.
And that creates an opening for the Republican Party.
But I think if the Republican Party is going to take advantage of this, it has to actually raise the standard of living for those working class people whose lives have become much more precarious than they were 30 years ago.
And that's going to require some more intervention in the economy than the libertarianism allows.
And that's going to require a fundamental value shift within the Republican Party.
It's going to mean, for example, Tom Cotton introduced a bill to try to provide more vocational training for people who are not going to go to college at all, who are just out of high school and they want to work.
Raising Standards for Workers 00:14:37
But that involves redistribution.
That involves raising money via taxes and using it to give these folks training.
Libertarianism is absolutely opposed to this because it involves raising taxes and it involves giving money to people just because they need it and distributing outside the market.
Another is pollution.
Pollution tends to benefit large shareholders, tends to hurt workers and ordinary people who've got to drink the air and breathe the water.
And the Republican Party's become more extreme in both those directions.
And to the extent that it remains extreme in libertarian directions, that damages its chance of being an appealing working class party.
Professor Koppelman, very interesting.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
MyPillow is excited to announce the original MySlippers are back in stock in time for the holidays.
Last Christmas, you made our slippers the number one selling MyPillow product.
And now they've added smaller sizes, larger sizes, wide sizes, and all new colors.
What makes my slippers different is the exclusive four-layer design that you're not going to find in any other slippers.
MySlippers patented layers makes them ultra comfortable, extremely durable, and they help relieve the stress on your feet from all the running around this holiday.
Wear them anytime, anywhere, and save $90 off with promo code Kirk.
That's only $49.98 a pair.
You'll absolutely love MySlippers.
And now they're extending their 60-day money-back guarantee until March 1st, 2023, making them the best Christmas gift ever.
So go to mypillow.com and use promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425 now.
Again, use my promo code Kirk and save $90 on the original MySlippers.
That's only $49.98 a pair.
Quantities won't last long, so please order now.
Okay, I want to get through a couple topics here.
The first of which I just want to explore with you the Georgia runoff, and then I'm going to get to Trump's statements this weekend, which I actually saw President Trump this weekend.
We had a great conversation.
As you know, I'm a supporter of his.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
I do want to mention.
So the professor in the previous segment, I didn't know anything about him coming in.
I thought he was articulate and he got some things right.
I didn't want to spend my time debating the finer points with him about the Trump stuff or the blue-collar boom.
I have disagreements.
Actually, blue-collar workers did very well under President Trump, and then they didn't do so well once the lockdowns came.
But there was a blue-collar boom.
It was legitimate.
It was real.
But I felt our time was best, most fruitful talking about his book and his philosophy, not having some sort of sparring match back and forth.
And you guys have heard my opinions rather extensively on that stuff.
If you have any questions about it, email mefreedom at charliekirk.com.
But I thought he was compelling and articulate, partially on it, but I also think that it's not totally true that Republican Party has completely embraced pollution, but that's a separate issue.
Okay.
But he seemed like a sweet person.
Okay, so let me first get to Georgia.
So I have a flurry of emails about Georgia.
I think there is an understandable hesitation for some people in the conservative movement and the Republican Party to stop getting our hopes up.
I think a fair amount of people say, you know what, Charlie, if I keep on getting my hopes up, then I'm just going to keep on getting crushed.
And it seems as if at least nationally, people are, it's a symbol.
It's similar.
Let me put it that way.
It's similar to the following.
It's similar to, I will never love again.
I will never get my hopes up.
I will never date again.
I will never allow myself to be in a meaningful relationship because getting dumped, breaking up, it's just too damaging.
It sounds very similar.
And by the way, it's perfectly understandable.
You get you, somebody sent me this email.
They said, Charlie, it's as if you get cheated on by your girlfriend or boyfriend repeatedly.
You're not going to want to date anymore.
You get the whole cheated on.
It's very, very wise.
It's very smart.
And it's in some ways very true.
People say, I'm done.
I'm tired of being cheated on.
I'm tired of the two-face.
However, that's not a good excuse to give up on the country.
And I'm not saying you are.
I know a lot of you guys are working hard in Georgia right now, but there is an undeniable enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans.
There is a malaise.
There just is.
I'm reading the emails right here.
I got an email right here from Beau.
Charlie, I could not care less about what happens in Georgia.
We need to fix our elections before I start caring about some stupid, silly runoff.
Okay, I agree with part of it.
I think we should fix our elections.
I think that's right.
But saying I'm not going to care about a runoff that could determine the future of the balance of the U.S. Senate, I understand the base is completely demoralized.
But look, right now, Republicans are down probably about 200,000 early votes right now in Georgia.
We have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow in Georgia.
It would take a lot of voters to turn out.
We'll see.
Now, I think it's a mistake what's happened in Georgia.
This is what really bothers me about the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
How people don't get on the same page.
If Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis would have both barnstormed the state of Georgia in certain select areas, I believe that Warnock would be defeated.
If every voter who voted for Walker a month ago turned out again, it's almost a guarantee win.
But because turnout will be down and our voters don't want to go vote twice, of which takes all of five to 10 minutes, the country will be less free.
It's really that simple.
Now, someone says here, Charlie, how can I get excited about an election when we feel it's rigged to start?
Okay, that's understandable, but that's also not a good reason not to go vote.
At least open up the opportunity, at least make it possible by you voting.
Said separately, not voting guarantees the bad guys will win.
Voting gives us a chance that we can win.
And every state is different.
Georgia is rather crooked.
Florida is not.
If the people of Florida thought that way, Ron DeSantis never would have become governor.
And I have to keep on reminding you: Democrats do not talk like this.
Democrats are always ready to fight.
It takes a lot to demoralize Democrats.
It takes a lot.
When we won in 2016, we won the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and Donald Trump carried the country on his back.
What were liberals doing?
They showed up on Inauguration Day and afterwards, yeah, I know they were burning down Washington, D.C., but they also had the female march, what are they called?
The woman's march, whatever it was, Madonna saying she's going to blow up the White House.
They were ready.
They planned a coup 19 minutes after the inauguration.
How do I say this without upsetting a lot of people?
As a general rule, this is a better way to say it with the right pretext.
As a general rule, in America today, liberals want it more than conservatives.
I'm not saying you.
If you're listening to this program, you are the exception to this rule, okay?
But as a general rule, they give more money, dedicate more time, they fight harder than we do.
That is a general rule.
Right now, Democrats see a clear vision for a takeover of America.
And by the way, sometimes caring less is actually a good thing.
You should actually care about your family more than politics.
It makes you much, it makes you a deeply unhappy person if you care about politics as much as Democrats do.
But Democrats are salivating because they see our side is caring very little.
Charlie, I voted early in Georgia for Herschel Walker.
I'm very disappointed that Herschel Walker or others didn't come to the second largest city in Georgia to rally the base.
I'm not sure what the second largest city is.
Is Savannah the second largest city?
Can we double check that?
I don't know what the second largest city would be.
Or Columbus, Georgia?
Maybe there's an obvious city I'm missing.
I love Georgia.
I just don't know the geography that well.
Yeah, I would guess Savannah is the second largest city.
Maybe Athens?
I don't know.
Augusta is the second largest city.
Is that right?
Is Augusta really the second largest city?
I don't know.
Columbus is a great place.
Wow, Augusta is the second largest city.
Yeah, Augusta is a play.
Yeah, Augusta is famous for obvious reasons if you like golf.
But Augusta should be a Republican stronghold and it's just turned in recent years.
I don't know why I can't answer that.
So look, do we want to be a generation that gave up on America?
That's currently what's trending here.
Got an email here from Ann, Ann from Georgia.
Charlie, I reluctantly voted in the runoff.
I don't think my vote counts.
Many of my MAGA Patriot friends are refusing to turn out.
It's all rigged.
Okay.
Derek from North Carolina.
Charlie, I live right on the border.
I see a lot of the ads as they spill over into North Carolina.
It doesn't matter who wins in Georgia.
The country's going to hell.
Okay.
Yeah, that's a common sentiment we get emailed to us, by the way.
It's all over.
It doesn't matter.
I'm 29 years old with a daughter.
I don't have the luxury just to be cynical.
I refuse.
I reject.
I'm not going to give up on America and say it's all going to hell.
I think that's a deeply damaging belief.
But a lot of people believe it.
I see it right here.
Here, Charlie, I live in North Carolina.
I have walked door to door for Herschel Walker, the phones for Georgia, because they're our neighbors.
I'm astounded at how many younger voters like Raphael Warnock.
I've spent the majority of time untangling the lies they put out.
See you in Phoenix for Amfest, Margo, and North Carolina.
God bless you, Margo.
Thank you.
It's very interesting.
Years ago, there was a belief, people speculated that North Carolina was going to go blue, and no one really thought Georgia could go blue.
Georgia's Democrat turn has happened very quickly.
It's also because of Georgia's silly and dangerous law that invited Hollywood into Georgia and gave tax credits for the film industry.
One of the dumbest things they've ever done.
Arizona blocked that law years ago.
You see, the Democrats after 2016 were smart.
They realized Florida and Georgia with the new Republican Party, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, were going right.
Same with North Carolina, rural, industrial.
So they decided to try to open the map.
And do you know what Georgia and Arizona have in common?
Can we get the Jeopardy music?
What do Georgia and Arizona have in common?
Mass populations clustered in urban areas.
Arizona, 62% of all voters are in Maricopa County.
And also Atlanta and Phoenix have very significant suburban populations, suburban populations, with upper-middle-class white women that watch television a lot and can be easily persuaded with messaging about fringe candidates and Donald Trump and a return to normalcy.
They're making Raphael Warnock look like a moderate Democrat.
The guy's a Marxist, and that story is not being told.
Democrats are outspending Herschel Walker 10 to 1 in the state of Georgia right now.
10 to 1.
Democrats just want it more.
They raise more money.
They're able to deploy more money.
I think it's a huge mistake to not have Donald Trump come to Georgia.
I see no calculation whatsoever why Donald Trump should not have done two rallies, one in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district and one in Valdosta, Georgia.
Donald Trump is a 45-minute flight away from Mar-a-Lago to Georgia.
Ron DeSantis is 50 miles away from the Georgia border.
Did Ron DeSantis come and campaign in Georgia for Herschel Walker?
I didn't see it.
I'm not accusing him.
I'm saying, why was this not done?
Why didn't we just prioritize this?
Our donors, the Republican Party, the RNC chair, I don't care, but who's in charge?
This is a Senate seat that is so winnable where you have a state that has more registered Republicans than Democrats.
I don't know.
I hope Herschel wins.
But if not, you're going to have to scratch your head and say, wait a second.
Ron DeSantis is 50 miles away from the border.
Donald Trump is 50 minutes by plane.
Okay, I want to lean right into this story that has everybody freaking out over the Trump post this weekend.
Okay, I want to read it word for word.
He said, okay, so with the revelation of massive and widespread fraud and deception in working closely with big tech companies, the DNC and Democrat Party, do you throw out the presidential election results of 2020 out and declare the rightful winner, or do you have a new election?
Okay, I think that's a fair question.
A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
Our great, quote, founders did not want and would not condone false and fraudulent elections.
Okay, I don't think it's helpful language to say that we should throw out the Constitution.
I think that's probably a fair thing to say.
But the essence of what I believe he is saying here, and I'll continue, is saying that the founding fathers and the designers of our system would not put up, would not put up with, or would not have a system that would be therefore desirable in the sense of allowing a private actor to come in and suppress the distribution of information.
He clarified, he continues, the fake news is actually trying to convince the American people that I said I wanted to terminate the Constitution.
This is simply just disinformation and lies.
Debating Constitutional Claims 00:03:11
Okay, so he's clarifying.
Just like the Russia, Russia, Russia, and all their other hoaxes and scams.
What I said was that if there was massive and widespread fraud and inception, as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 election, steps must be immediately taken to right the wrong.
Only fools would disagree with that and accept stone elections MAGA.
Simply put, if an election is irrefutably fraudulent, it should go to the rightful winner or at minimum be redone.
Where open and blatant fraud is involved, there should be no limit for change.
And then the media comes out and says Trump calls for the termination of the Constitution in Truth Social Post.
No, he did not.
That's not what he did.
The language could have been more precise so that it would not be able to be misconstrued.
The way I read it originally when I read it is what he was saying, in my personal opinion: if we cannot have elections, then what's the point in even having a Constitution that is all designed around the premise of consent to the governed?
Okay.
And you also must understand, this is a former president who should still be president, who is rather fired up right now for good reason, because from every direction, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Justice, all across the board.
But the way I read it, and I think that a lot of other people did, is, what's the point in even having this beautiful Constitution, having separation of powers, checks and balances, consent to the governed, permission of the people, and elections?
What is the point if all of it just gets thrown out because we can't have fair and free elections?
Okay.
And people say Donald Trump wants to shred the Constitution.
No, actually, Joe Biden shreds the Constitution on a daily basis, from vaccine mandates to unconstitutional student loan forgiveness to keeping the United States southern border wide open.
Paradoxically and ironically, more ironically is the more appropriate word, Donald Trump was a defender of the Constitution when he was president.
Donald Trump actually listened to court judgments when they came through.
These posts mean very little to me, and they should mean very little to you.
Show me the actions of an individual.
And when Donald Trump was president, he was a defender of the Constitution daily, hourly, minute by minute, from the border to treaties to appropriate and prudent foreign policy intervention to justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, circuit court judges, to executive power.
Donald Trump was right within the tradition of honoring, appreciating, and defending the United States Constitution.
Joe Biden pretends he's for the Constitution and obliterates it on a daily basis.
So people say, oh, he wants to get rid of the Constitution in the social media posts.
Just calm down.
First of all, look at his clarification.
Look at what he really meant by what he said.
Language could have been more precise.
Get over yourself.
He as a president, the most pro-Constitution president of my lifetime.
Pro-Constitution Leadership 00:00:35
Obama, I got a pen and a phone.
George W. Bush, I'm going to send troops to every sovereign country and every continent, regardless of what the Constitution is.
We're going to waterboard.
Donald Trump follows the Constitution to the letter of the law.
Show me the actions of somebody, not some musings on truth social so that the media can say he wants the termination of the Constitution.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection