All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 30, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:45
The Vile, No Good, Rotten RESTRICT Act
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Scary Restrict Act 00:08:39
Hey everybody, it's a Charlie Kirk show, the Restrict Act.
We actually read the bill.
This is horrifying stuff.
We don't like TikTok, but what they are doing here is really scary.
Text this episode to your friends.
You need to learn about this and see what Republicans are behind it.
Email us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Open up your podcast bill and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
Get involved with TurningPointUSA, tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Turning point USA is America's last best hope.
So get involved today at tpusa.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.
Last week, we had Senator Josh Hawley on the program who laid out a very convincing and persuasive case about how damaging TikTok is to our country.
And boy, do I believe that.
It's digital fentanyl.
It's helping spread the trans social contagion.
It's addicting kids to screen time.
It is ruining their ability to engage in the real and natural world.
It spreads awful elements of social leftism while suppressing conservative speech.
The Chinese Communist Party is profiling our children and spying on our children.
The Chinese Communist Party is using TikTok as a way to try to remake the youth of America in a weaker direction.
TikTok is awful.
It's garbage.
It's terrible.
We're not ever going to defend TikTok, obviously.
And so Washington, D.C., being pushed, by the way, by the tech companies, this is the first thing that we must understand.
So out of nowhere, ex-Nihilo, Washington, D.C. started to have bipartisan hearings on TikTok.
All of a sudden, they start to care about the Chinese Communist Party.
No, no, no.
YouTube, who has well over a thousand lobbyists on payroll, Facebook, who has hundreds of lobbyists, and other tech companies, started to build a coalition together to try to get Washington, D.C. to ban TikTok and do more than ban TikTok, by the way.
It wasn't just about banning TikTok.
We'll get into that in a second.
But all of a sudden, you started to see Democrats and Republicans agree on something that should just make you take pause.
Wait a second.
Bipartisanship is not exactly something I trust.
That means that you have a lot of people that are going to get very powerful very quickly.
Red flag, if you will.
And the biggest winner, by the way, of a TikTok ban would be YouTube owned by Google.
And we called this nine or 12 months ago.
No one really took us seriously because we're on these platforms so often.
But YouTube about a year ago launched YouTube Shorts a little bit actually before that, but they've really been ramping it up.
And so YouTube would be a major market winner if they are able to ban TikTok because they already have a TikTok lookalike competitor.
So does Facebook on Instagram, something called Instagram Reels.
So it's in their own business interest to get this done.
So that's why Washington, D.C. just sprang into action, not because of any concern about the CCP or any problem with TikTok or any concern that TikTok is spreading this trans social contagion.
So TikTok is awful.
It's very clear.
Something that every grassroots American patriot should be able to agree on.
So we have something that is awful.
We have something that has many holes in it.
A data privacy issue, from the content issue to the censorship of conservative voices.
So they seize that and they put it on display.
They put this individual who actually is from Singapore representing the Chinese Communist Party, who I think very clumsily navigated the congressional oversight hearing, didn't really answer questions, was very sloppy, was very unpersuasive about who hosts the data and didn't answer questions directly.
And so then at that moment, it looked as if finally there was going to be a bipartisan breakthrough to do something significant and something good, something real, which is, hey, let's get TikTok out of our country.
And then last week, we kind of took pause and you, the audience, to your great credit, heard me out.
Now, some of you thought I was nuts after we listened to Senator Hawley, but a fair amount of you listened to my concern.
And in a kind of unscripted way, I just started to say, look, I haven't read the bill, but I know these people that if they're trying to tell you all of a sudden that they want the power to ban social media companies, they're just going to use it to ban social media companies they don't like even beyond TikTok.
And we were totally speculating, by the way.
This is before we actually had the opportunity to read the bill that would do this thing.
In fact, let's just play a piece of tape from our program last week.
This was completely just kind of off the cuff, just kind of going on our instinct, saying, wait a second, yes, TikTok awful.
However, are we going to act in the same pattern and behavior that we did post 9-11 with the Patriot Act?
PlayCut 88, please.
It's interesting because I definitely sympathize with this idea of CCP awful, evil, modern day Nazis, digital fentanyl.
But I'm a little bit hesitant in one regard because giving the government a lot of power post 9-11, because we were very concerned about radical Islamic fundamentalists, understandably concerned, ended up creating an infrastructure that then could be used against conservatives.
And I think we've learned our lesson.
I hope we've learned our lesson that sometimes a bipartisan prudent action against a foreign actor can set a precedent to then be used against a conservative company.
Are we opening up a potential opportunity for Democrats and the regime to say we can now ban free speech companies?
And that was before we ever read the piece of legislation.
Well, now there is a piece of legislation that confirms our concern.
Our concern is that Washington, D.C. was going to consolidate power in both political parties and trigger a move to be able to use the hatred and the concern of TikTok to establish a new censorship regime.
It's exactly what is occurring here.
And we have to continue to repeat ourselves.
This is not a defense of TikTok.
What this is, it's a reminder that after 9-11, we passed the Patriot Act, which has been a disaster.
The Patriot Act and elements of the Patriot Act were used against President Trump.
They've been used against moms and dads at school board meetings.
So you have these great intentions and you give the fourth branch of government all of this power.
And then they're never given congressional oversight.
And then in the years that follow, you have a new precedent that is set that gives the fourth branch of government, and in this case, the Secretary of Commerce, basically jury, judge, and execution ability to be able to restrict speech online.
This restrict act is horrifying.
And they're doing it all because people have a concern about TikTok.
They take advantage of our concern.
They take advantage of our opinion against TikTok.
They seize that thinking that we're not actually going to read the bill.
In fact, we're going to show you in a second.
The very people sponsoring the bill don't even know what's in the bill, very similar to Nancy Pelosi's healthcare bill.
They don't even know what it covers.
And when you actually dive into this piece of legislation called the Restrict Act, it would be, if put into law, one of the great attacks on speech in American history.
Period.
There is no other way to put it.
The Restrict Act gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of Commerce.
Sweeping Censorship Powers 00:03:01
So let's just take a pause.
How many of you even know who the Secretary of Commerce is?
Did the Secretary of Commerce run for office?
Did they have to collect signatures to get on the ballot?
Do we know who this person is?
Yes, you can find out who this person is, and it's Senate confirmed.
Is it a good idea?
Is it within a constitutional framework to say that the Secretary of Commerce should be able to have this power?
Now, yes, we know who the Secretary of Commerce is, Gina Raimondo, but it's not exactly a household name.
So you should just give this unelected bureaucrat unlimited amounts of power to be able to say, you know what?
I don't like Rumble because they were founded in Canada.
Let's investigate them and use the Restrict Act to be able to prevent conservative speech from being spread online.
I don't like Real America's voice because I heard a rumor that they have foreign influence, even though they don't.
I don't like Salem Radio Network.
What the Restrict Act will do will pale in comparison.
And we'll make the Patriot Act pale in comparison.
This right here will give the fourth branch, the regime, the deep state, unprecedented ability to shut off all of our digital dissident distribution networks.
And that is exactly why all of a sudden the bipartisan regime is pushing this piece of legislation through.
I'm just getting started on this, but we got to wake up, everybody.
There is a move afoot to give power in an unprecedented fashion to censor our voice.
Hey, everybody, this is Charlie Kirk.
We are saving babies with pre-born.
What are you doing today?
When you introduce a girl to her baby by providing an ultrasound, you are giving her the truth at the most important time in her life.
And more than 85% of the time, she will choose life.
You're also giving her access to a two-year mentorship program and a chance to receive free maternity clothes, baby clothes, diapers, parenting classes, but perhaps, and most importantly, someone to walk alongside her and be a friend during the most crucial time of her life.
$140 gives five mothers a free ultrasound.
It saves babies.
$280 can save 10 babies.
And just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day.
And a $15,000 gift will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, that opportunity is just a phone caller, click away.
I'm a donor to pre-born, and you should be too.
Call 833-850-2229 or go to preborn.org.
That is preborn.org.
So Congress is finally able to agree on something.
I get this question all the time from people that really don't understand the conflict that we're in.
Charlie, why can't we get along more?
Well, we can't get along.
We're not getting along because the other side is evil.
That's one of the main reasons.
But when we do get along, really bad things actually usually end up happening.
Like we can all agree on Ukraine.
It's a disaster.
A Dangerous Psyop Unfolds 00:11:58
Or we all can agree on restricting speech.
So this bill is literally called the Restrict Act.
And it is so vaguely written that it can be basically used to shut down any social media app that you don't like.
So, for example, Telegram.
Telegram is a communication application.
A lot of people get news and information from Telegram as well.
The government doesn't like Telegram because they can't control it.
The regime hates Telegram.
Telegram was founded by two Russians.
So you could imagine that the Commerce Secretary banning Telegram because they say, look, it's founded by Russians.
The Restrict Act would have total ability and freedom, not freedom, the capacity, capability for the government to be able to stamp them out.
But if you look even further ahead, there's basically zero limitations on who the Secretary of Commerce could declare a foreign adversary or what they could do and what they can end up banning it.
Now, you might say, well, Charlie, this bill has no chance of passing.
You are, no, no.
This is being pushed by Republicans and Democrats.
Jon Thune from South Dakota is one of the big chief sponsors of this.
There are more than 20 co-sponsors of this bill.
This thing looks like it's going to pass.
Democrats, of course, want to shut us up.
Why are Republicans so enthusiastic about shutting us up?
Well, they say, well, it's about stopping the Chinese Communist Party.
That is a fake camouflage veneer.
That is not what this is about.
And there is no program.
Bannon and our program are two of the most outspoken anti-CCP programs.
But now this bill has huge bipartisan support, including your Republicans that you elect, like John Thune, who just seem excited to be able to give the Secretary of Commerce complete ability to go ban Rumble and Twitter and Telegram at a snap of a finger.
If they just say, oh, we heard a rumor that there is foreign interference, they would never go after Facebook or Google and Facebook or Google.
They would love this piece of legislation because all Facebook and Google have to do then is whisper in the ear of a lawmaker that they have or whisper into the Secretary of Commerce and say, hey, go ban our enemies because they might be foreign.
And again, let's repeat it: TikTok is garbage.
But you know what's even more dangerous than garbage?
Having our own federal government be able to destroy every single social media application that we are currently able to get the truth out.
If it wasn't for Rumble, we would not be able to get the truth out on the vaccine.
If it wasn't for Salem, if it wasn't for now Twitter, if it wasn't for Telegram, what would the landscape look like?
And that is exactly why the Uniparty is licking their chops.
And so speaking of co-sponsors, one of the co-sponsors of this bill, one of the people that support this bill is Lady Graham.
Lady Graham, who endorsed Donald Trump, he's a big co-sponsor of the bill.
And this goes to show exactly how Washington, D.C. operates.
He was confronted about it on Jesse Waters' program.
God bless Jesse Waters.
This show is amazing, by the way.
He's doing a great job.
And Lady Graham doesn't even know that he sponsored the bill.
He doesn't even know it's in the bill.
So it's obvious what happened.
One of his pals called him up, said, Hey, lady, we need to put your bill, your name on the bill.
Just don't worry.
It's against the CCP.
And he probably asked, well, does that mean we can invade him?
Probably.
Yeah, that means that we could probably do a ground invasion soon.
Great.
I'm on board.
Put my name on the bill.
Whatever gets us closer to an amphibious ground invasion of mainland China, I will enthusiastically sign up for that.
So Lady Graham just kind of said, Sure, sure, John Thune, put my name on the bill.
Didn't even read it.
Play cut 79.
Yeah, I don't think I support the Restrict Act.
You don't support this?
Because you were named as one of the supporters because this is garbage.
You don't want the government looking into your private phone.
No, I don't.
If they have a hunch you're colluding with the Russians, we remember how that turned out.
Congress.gov, you're listed as one of the co-sponsors of this thing.
Maybe it's like Fetterman when your chief of staff does all your work for you.
So let me get back with you, but let me just.
Get back with me because you co-sponsored it two days ago.
Okay, all right.
Yep.
See, makes me look bad.
I don't know a better explanation.
All right.
My bad.
My bad.
Those are your leaders.
Those are the people that are about to put a piece of legislation into law that very well could give unprecedented tyrannical authority to the Secretary of Commerce to basically ban Telegram, Rumble, Real America's Voice, Salem at a moment's notice.
He doesn't even know what the bill consists of.
Oh, I don't, I don't support that.
Are you kidding me?
You're a sponsor.
We're just getting started on this.
The Restrict Act must be stopped by patriots.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell with My Pillow is launching the My Pillow 2.0.
That's right, you heard me, My Pillow 2.0.
When Mike Lindell, great American Patriot, invented My Pillow, it had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
But now, 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has a patented, adjustable fill on the original My Pillow, and now with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
For exclusive listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Kirk and get your best sleep ever.
My Pillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in America and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square to buy one and get one free offer.
Enter promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
That is mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
Check it out.
So unlike Lady G, we actually have the bill here, the Restrict Act.
You guys can all check it out as a citizen.
S686 for the 118th Congress, Restrict Act.
The first sentence to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries for other purposes.
Now, mind you, they could pass a very clear and simple piece of legislation targeted at TikTok, but you're trying to tell me the regime is going to pass up this opportunity to create a new Patriot Act?
Of course not.
This is not about TikTok.
This is not about TikTok.
This is about being able to usher in a brand new censorship regime.
So who's behind this exactly?
Lindsey Graham has his name on the bill as a co-sponsor.
John Thun, Republican from South Dakota.
Fisher from Nebraska.
Joe Manchin, waste of time.
Jerry Moran from Kansas.
Sullivan from Alaska.
Susan Collins from Maine.
Of course, Mitt Romney.
Shelly Moore Capito from West Virginia introduced the bill.
Have they actually read the bill?
Or is this just read by, you know, is this composed and basically put together by lobbyists?
And if you know how legislation works, you know that K-Street lawyers, the DHS lawfare types, working for the Alliance of U.S. Tech and Deep State Interests probably wrote this Restrict Act.
This is written by Google and written by Facebook and written by congressional staffers.
And on this program, we're going to do the rare thing.
We're actually going to read the bill to you.
And Congress thinks they can just sneak this by because they say, oh, you know, people don't like TikTok.
Yeah, that's true, but I like Liberty a lot more than I hate TikTok.
Okay, so here's the piece of legislation.
Let's just talk, let's read it straight from there.
Section six, designation of foreign adversaries.
Listen to how broad this is written.
The secretary may, in consultation with the director of national intelligence, designate any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary.
If the secretary finds that the foreign government or regime is engaged in a long-term pattern of serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security or safety of U.S. persons.
So hold on, let's just slow down.
Let's pause.
They could get rid of Telegram tomorrow.
If they just say, oh, you know, Telegram was funded by a bunch of Russians, they could get rid of Twitter.
Why?
Saudi Arabia is an investor in Twitter.
And they could say, well, because of Jamal Khashoggi, the Commerce Secretary could now launch a cyber war.
Who owns Telegram?
Pavel Durov, founder and owner of the messaging app Telegram, billionaire, has been called the Mark Zuckerberg of Russia.
So Telegram, which has millions of active users, tends to be more on the right.
They could get rid of it instantaneously.
So Graham was asked about this on Jesse Waters' program, and Jesse confronts him.
I mean, the lawmaker, this is your job, right?
You're putting your name on the bill.
Play Cut 77.
The Banned TikTok Act, they call it the Restrict Act.
Cute.
Gives the government the power to, quote, review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries.
So not only no more mail-ordered brides, that means the government has the power to, quote, enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person or with any respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the secretary determines.
Translation.
The federal government wants to watch anything you do on the internet.
Not just watch everything you do on the internet, but be able to use the power of the federal government to shut up any business, any company that might be remotely connected there.
And so basically their argument, if you go read this, John Thune from South Dakota, by the way, we have a lot of patriots in South Dakota.
Why do you put up with this guy?
I really don't understand it.
It's beyond me.
Well, actually, I do understand it because Senate races are really hard to win.
You raise a bunch of money and you pretend you're conservative and all that.
Anyway, that's, I mean that more rhetorically.
Why don't you do something about it is what I mean.
But anyway, so when challenged, these senators say, no, no, no, don't worry.
You just got to trust us.
It's actually what they say.
They say, this won't be abused.
They say, look, that they put out a statement where they said, no, this is not going to be used against ordinary Americans.
That's literally their argument.
Senator Mark Warner and John Thune are just saying, guys, you're overreacting.
I mean, you're a bunch of conspiracy people, paranoid.
I mean, come on.
Just give up the power and just whatever.
By the way, all of this ties into hearings being held currently by the House Weaponization of Government Subcommittee.
And we're learning more and more how the government created these informal agreements with Twitter and the rest of big tech to censor Americans.
The regime in Washington, D.C., views the American people as a population to be monitored and controlled.
This is a psyop that we're seeing happen right now.
The first step is to put on display how clumsy, how awful, how just corrupt, how terrible TikTok is.
So you put that on public display.
That's step one.
And everybody jumps on it.
And by the way, we're all for that.
I mean, that guy that testified was a disaster.
Then step two is to seize on that consensus, seize the moment with a piece of legislation that nobody actually reads that could change the First Amendment as we know it.
Republicans Co-Sponsor the Trap 00:08:49
This is exactly how COVID happened.
This is like how Ukraine happened.
This is how the Patriot Act happened.
You have an emergency, you have a crisis, you have something, and all the cockroaches come out and they use the template, they use the blueprint to be able to restrict our freedom, restrict our liberty.
So, in the bill here, it says: here's just a couple examples: companies connected with the Russian Federation.
Now, again, Telegram is not connected to the Russian Federation, but the owner happens to be Russian.
So, Telegram could go away.
And by the way, it says, including, but not limited to the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, Venezuela.
And here's what it says: What is the definition?
If you have an equity interest in the company, if you have an equity interest in the company, including a foreign national connected to.
So, for example, if a dissident who has a Chinese passport, who might have formerly been part of the CCP, invests in a company, for example, Getter, this is all public information, they could ban Getter.
They could say that we're going to get rid of Getter because the investor in Getter is a Chinese Communist Party dissident, multi-billionaire guy.
So, let's just get rid of Getter.
They could use this right here, right here, could get rid of Getter.
It's all right there.
And yet, Republicans are the ones co-sponsoring this.
And you got to wonder, what's really going on here?
And the answer is so clear: establishment Uniparty Republicans like Lady Graham and the Turtle and many of these other people, their life would be easier without the Salem Radio Network, without Real America's Voice, without Rumble, without a robust open Twitter, and without Getter.
They would love this.
Their life would be easier.
The amount of nonsense that is challenged thanks to these platforms currently is significant.
And the bottom line, we keep on repeating this, is that the Restrict Act is a ruse to restrict our freedom.
And if this was just being passed by Democrats, like, okay, that's bad.
It is Republicans that are trying to get this through in both the House and the Senate.
I cannot emphasize enough how great of a threat this is.
And you could just see the Uniparty stooges on Wall Street.
They say something like, look, they lick their chops.
These people are on K-Street, not Wall Street.
K-Street is where all the lobbyists are in Washington, D.C.
They just lick their chops and they say, boy, what a great opportunity!
Great opportunity because people don't like TikTok.
TikTok is awful and it's garbage.
Let's make sure the bill allows us to crush conservatives and make our clients, Google and Facebook, richer and more powerful.
They're playing all of us.
They are playing us like a fiddle.
But I think we're starting to wake up to it.
Our instincts, our worst fears, last week that some of you said, oh, come on, Charlie, that's nonsense.
They're just going to ban TikTok.
Stop being paranoid.
They always overreach.
As soon as we give them an inch, they take a mile.
That is exactly how they operate.
And to Senator Josh Hawley's great credit, who last week came on this program and said we need to ban TikTok, he's now speaking out against this bill.
Let's play Cut 91, Josh Hawley.
We should act decisively to ban TikTok directly.
We shouldn't give new open-ended authority to federal bureaucrats.
We should target this threat specifically.
That's what this bill does that we have before us today.
It goes right at the problem.
It bans TikTok in this country.
It protects the American people.
And it sends the message to Communist China that you cannot buy us.
So, what Senator Hawley is doing there is he's introducing a separate, more targeted piece of legislation and is opposing the spirit of the Restrict Act.
That's good.
That's exactly what is necessary.
But guess what?
The regime is probably not going to agree with Josh Hawley because it's not actually about TikTok.
It's a ruse.
It's an excuse to then be able to build this mass leviathan.
Why is it that Dan Sullivan and Mitt Romney and Deb Fisher and Jerry Moran and well, Susan Collins, you shouldn't have to ask Mitt Romney, Shelly Moore Capito?
Why is John Thune?
What are they thinking here?
If you live in any one of their states, you should ask him, have you read the bill?
I hate to be cynical, everybody, but basically where I'm at is there will not be a way for the quote-unquote ban TikTok without empowering these cockroaches.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Email me, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Okay, so who are the co-sponsors of this bill, of this Restrict Act that we've actually read?
I'm not going to read the Democrats.
They're a waste of rations, as you well know.
I mean, they're just a waste of time.
John Thune, co-sponsored early March.
Deb Fisher, Republican from Nebraska.
Jerry Moran from Kansas.
Dan Sullivan from Alaska.
Susan Collins from Maine.
Willard Mitt Romney from Utah.
Shelly Moore Capito from West Virginia.
Kevin Kramer from North Dakota.
I'm super curious.
And Kevin Kramer can come on the show anytime and make the argument, make the case for the Restrict Act.
By the way, any of these people have an open invitation.
Chuck Grassley from Iowa.
I almost guarantee he didn't read the bill.
Just a staffer put his name on it.
It's ridiculous how DC works.
Tom Tillis from North Carolina.
Of course, Lady Graham didn't even know he was a co-sponsor of the bill.
They put my name on it.
What?
Mike Crapo from Idaho wants to be able to destroy the conservative movement online.
John Boozman from Arkansas.
By the way, any of these people are welcome on our program anytime.
We'll give you an opportunity.
By the way, when actually confronted, Lady Graham said, I don't support it.
That's what's so amazing that when he was on Jesse Waters' program, he says, no, I don't support that.
Yes, you do.
You co-sponsored the bill on Monday.
You're one of the leaders.
And he said, oh, well, my bad.
I suppose I can give him points for humility, but is that really the case here?
Is that just kind of a cop-out?
I mean, this guy's a legislature, legislator.
He's in the Senate.
It's his job.
So, but look at how red these states are.
Arkansas, Boozman, Crapo, Idaho.
Obviously, Graham.
Tom Tillis, North Carolina.
Chuck Grassley, Iowa.
Kevin Kramer from North Dakota.
Shelly Moore Capito from West Virginia.
Mitt Romney.
Susan Collins from Maine.
Dan Sullivan from Alaska.
Jerry Moran from Kansas.
Deb Fisher from Nebraska.
And John Thune from South Dakota.
If these people pass it, every one of them should be primaried.
Every single person should be primaried if they vote for this bill, period.
They need to back away completely.
Every Republican on this need to say, you know what?
Look, we were moving too fast.
Our staffer put a name on it.
We thought it was something that it wasn't.
We're done.
We're sorry.
We're putting it to bed.
Fine.
Done.
Appreciate it.
Move on.
Let's go to the next topic.
Kill the bill.
Every single Republican right now, just like Lindsey Graham did.
Lindsey Graham basically killed the bill on Jesse Waters because it's indefensible.
It is indefensible.
This activity does not stand up to the scrutiny.
And even, you know, Lindsey Graham, if we had the longer clip, he says, well, I don't want the Chinese Communist Party to be able to get the date of my children.
Yeah, we got that.
Okay.
We agree.
We're actually, you, if all of a sudden you're really worried about that, there's a much more bold legislative agenda that you could be embracing than just destroying conservative speech online and giving the Secretary of Commerce war authority to be able to choose what social media platforms they want to exist and which ones they don't.
Someone says here, Charlie, Restrict Act is terrible.
Why are so many Republicans stupid?
I don't know if they're stupid or if they are being probed by lobbyists or if they actually have a sinister intent because they would love nothing more than to be able to have Department of Homeland Security, Department of National Intelligence, Department of Commerce be able to have a button to restrict the speech of people they don't like.
We have to find out what staffers wrote this bill.
They need to be fired.
Good Intentions Exploited 00:01:16
This is not a joke.
This thing, if it was not for Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon's war room, Jesse Waters, and this program, I'm afraid this thing would have passed.
I'm afraid this thing just would have glided through and, you know, a couple objections here and there.
And just people say, okay.
And by the way, do you know there's more Republicans than Democrats supporting this bill?
There are 20 co-sponsors.
I think 11 or 12 are Republicans.
So look, let me close with this.
Good intentions are taken advantage of by bureaucrats.
The good intention of wanting to stop the CCP from administering digital fentanyl is currently being totally perverted by these bad actors.
I'm at a current place right now where I don't see a world where we can meaningfully ban TikTok without also empowering the Leviathan machine.
You give up liberty, be careful what you get in return.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection