Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

Ask Charlie Anything 184: The Pro-Life Cause in Danger? What's Wrong With Noticing? The Most Overused Word in Politics?

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
April 15, 2024 5:00 am

Ask Charlie Anything 184: The Pro-Life Cause in Danger? What's Wrong With Noticing? The Most Overused Word in Politics?

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 749 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

April 15, 2024 5:00 am

Charlie answers questions from Charlie Kirk Exclusive members, including:


-Is the American pro-life movement in peril?

-Is "noticing" racist?

-What's the most overused word in American politics?


Become a member to join our next one at!

Support the show:

See for privacy information.

The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk

Hey everybody, in Ask Me Anything Monday, we take your questions, but only questions of those of you that are members, If you're not a member, you're missing out, you can get your questions answered, you can get involved with our effort. Also, listen to all of our episodes, advertiser free, as we are building this beautiful community of members.

Be part of it, it's, Some of the questions, we talk about abortion. Can you be pro-life and also vote for Donald Trump?

Of course you can, but some people disagree. Talk about the Arizona Supreme Court decision and more. We also discuss the FISA news that has come out of Congress, including how a Turning Point alumni is really standing her ground and doing a wonderful job. We also talk about getting your PhD from Harvard, and finally we talk about Nebraska and whether or not they are going to get this across the finish line.

Go to, that is, email us as always, freedom at 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. Go to, it's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to Let's go to the first question here from Lisa. Charlie, how can we stop what I'm calling holier-than-thou wars that are going on social media since Trump came out with his stance on abortion? And what I heard was a states' rights issue, but he also mentioned exceptions that are akin to Ronald Reagan's exceptions. Now every pro-life group is outraged, some even saying they're turning in their Republican card.

A candidate cannot make changes until he's in office. How do we appease these groups, all of whom I believe Trump will give an audience to, so he can effect real change and get them back on track? So let's walk through this. I have been a recipient of many of the pro-life leaders, and they're wonderful people, people that are really upset right now. You know, Kyla Rose, Kristen Hawkins, I don't want to speak for them how upset they are, but you know, they've been saying some things publicly and they're fired up. And they're fired up because they believe and they think, based on some of the things that Donald Trump has said, is that he's betraying his pro-life promises. I might be a little charged in my vocabulary selection, but he's turning his back on some of the pro-life promises and he's no longer a pro-life president.

So there's a lot of things going on here right now. So first of which is, you're right, Donald Trump does give an audience to pro-life groups and he was the most pro-life president in modern American history. He got Roe vs. Wade repealed. Understand, abortion would not be a primary topic on any of our political lists or conversations, outside of on the fringes, if he would not have repealed Roe vs. Wade, sending it back to the states where it is necessary. Now, you know my stance is on abortion. I'm 100% pro-life and I remain 100% pro-life. And your principles and your moral stances must be very clear.

I hope one day that our politics can be in alignment with what I think is the morally correct stance on abortion, very similar to how we abolished slavery in the 1800s. It took a lot of work. It took a lot of advocacy. In fact, there were abolitionists of slavery that attacked Trump for being inadequately anti-slavery.

I sent out this tweet and it was very well received, I think. And there were some pro-life leaders that texted me, but to their credit, they weren't mad because they know that it's true. And I see it both ways. For pro-life leaders that, and I got to give Blake credit on the team, because Blake has really kind of pulled the alarm on this, the pro-life leaders are afraid that the Republican Party is going to become the Republican Party like in Canada, where there's no pro-life movement whatsoever. That the pro-life position has no political home and it just disappears into oblivion.

I think that's a legitimate concern, not necessarily from Trump, but there are certainly forces in the Republican Party that want to make this issue go away forever. They don't care about pro-life voters. They don't care about the issue. They don't care about the unborn.

So I think that is a legitimate concern. And so when pro-life leaders reach out to me, I'm not angry. I could not be more enthusiastic about the Pregnancy Crisis Center cause. I think they're doing the Lord's work.

So here's the tweet I sent. I'm 100% pro-life. I have spent countless hours defending the pro-life position on campus and in the media. To all my fellow pro-lifers, we must be passionate as well as strategic.

And the choice is simple. If you allow November to become a referendum on abortion, evidence suggests our side will lose and more babies will die. If we win in November, we'll be positioned to claw back radical pro-abortion policies while we continue to persuade more voters of the horrors of killing babies. Win and we can save lives and lose and even more will die. Now the criticism some people would say about that tweet is, Charlie, you are compromising your pro-life position.

I'm really not. I'm making a statement rooted in political reality. Which is, without political power, how are you going to advocate for the unborn?

It is legitimately incrementalism. And I would ask for the pro-life warriors in California, how's that working out for you? You're constantly under attack. You're constantly under siege.

You're constantly under assault. In fact, you have the California Attorney General going after pregnancy crisis centers. Understand, they will not stop with just people believing in pro-life positions. They will try to lock down any organizations that try to help a woman choose life instead of abortion.

At the federal level, the wins we need to look for are very simple. To defund abortions. Stop having the military enable them. Impose the restrictions that we can. Morally delegitimize the pro-abortion cause.

But we're not strong enough in numbers or will yet to impose a nationwide ban on a country that rejects it. And that is an uncomfortable truth for my incredible brethren in the pro-life movement. Because for those of us who are pro-life, we see it so clearly. We don't understand how people could look at it any other way. And therefore, there's a fair amount of impatience and anger that sets in because those of us who are pro-life say, well, if you're not with us, then you're against us and I won't move or compromise an inch. It's not even a matter of compromising. It's a matter of taking incremental wins towards a greater goal and a greater purpose.

But I will repeat what I said, which is a very difficult truth, but it's a necessary one. Our movement is not yet strong enough to impose a nationwide ban on a country that currently rejects it. We had to fight for 50 years just to overturn Roe vs. Wade. And we have to remember the way we fought in those times when banning abortion was literally impossible. And now it's banned in 15 states.

That would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. And so the way that it looks, it's going to be just a kind of a chart where we have a huge win and then there's going to be a little bit of a regression and a retreat. And then there'll be a win and then there'll be a retreat.

But the moving average, the trend is our friend. Betray the pro-life community. And I don't think Trump is doing that. But there are certainly voices in Trump's ear that are trying to get him to do that.

Why? Look at what they got done with limited resources, limited money, 50 years of fervent prayer and activism, launching a multi-decade legal strategy. Got it done. We have scored wins and there are children alive today who would not be alive today if it was not for Dobbs and the heroic work of pro-lifers. But we are not on the brink of final victory and we cannot act as though we are. It's likely going to take another 50 years to get to our end point and that will require cultural change, spiritual change, political change, all three of those things. And the bad guys that are all on board for the slaughter of the unborn, they're playing offense right now.

And sometimes when they play offense, we don't play very good defense so we're gonna have to hold the line the best that we can. And there will be a backlash. So I see it in a very balanced perspective as someone who's 100% pro-life and I think I'm uniquely positioned to do that because some individuals with their head down in the pro-life movement are very foreign to politics. And some people that are very head down in the political movement are very foreign to the moral crusade of getting rid of abortion in this country.

I happen to be both. I happen to be both trying to change hearts and minds in the cultural, ideological, and spiritual landscape while simultaneously trying to increase political power for good causes. Against evil, for righteousness, the constitution, for life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

So both things can be simultaneously true. So what then needs, how do you, the question Lisa asked who's a member, thank you, how can we deal with the holier than now? Look, first of all understand where they're coming from because they actually are advocating for the right thing.

Secondly, ask a series of questions which I've been doing all week which is, do you think having no political power like we do in New York and California will advance the pro-life cause? Now their objection is, well Charlie, all you care about is winning elections. No, it's not all I care about, but it is a primary concern because winning elections gets you political power that then allows you to get policies.

That is the system that we have, but it's not all I care about. Elections are a means to the end. Political power is not the end and that is what differentiates us from the leftist Marxists. The Marxists look at power as the end. We're rather uncomfortable with losing political power. We just don't want, it feels dirty to us, it feels totalitarian. But using political power for good and righteous purposes is necessary. The first step though is not to call them holier than now, Lisa, but I understand where you're coming from. This is a scourge on our nation.

It's innocent blood being spilled and I think people deserve grace if they're getting upset. However, I think walking them through a strategy the same way. We need a recasting of a strategy. For 50 years the strategy was get rid of Roe versus Wade. We now need a recasting without a vision that people perish and there might be some movement perishing happening. What does that new 50 year strategy look like?

I have some ideas and I think that is worth getting into the details. Folks, so many people I know are disheartened that our country seems to have forgotten the importance of citizenship and they wonder how a strong sense of citizenship might be revived. That's why my friends at Hillsdale College have produced a free online course on this topic, American Citizenship and its Decline. Taught by historian Victor Davis Hanson, the course traces the history of citizenship and explains how it is undermined in America today by open borders, by identity politics, by the administrative state and by globalization.

Americans taking the course will gain a deeper insight about the connection between citizenship and freedom, an insight they can share with their family members, friends and neighbors. Hillsdale's free online courses are an important component of Hillsdale's mission to reach and teach increasing millions of people on behalf of liberty and the American way of life. So sign up today for Hillsdale's free online course, American Citizenship and its Decline by visiting That is

Start your free course today at So I want to read a statement here and then I want to just go to one of the objections here that somebody has. So let's go to this statement here.

Donald Trump just put on Truth Social. The Supreme Court in Arizona went too far on their abortion ruling in acting and approving an inappropriate law from 1864. So now the governor and the Arizona legislature must use heart, common sense and act immediately to remedy what has happened. Remember, it is now up to the states and the goodwill of those that represent the people. We must ideally have three exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. This is important. Democrats are the extremists. They support abortion up to the moment of birth and even execution of babies, in some cases after birth. There should not be.

Arizona legislature, please act as fast as possible. So the last part of the statement is excellent. Let's start there. President Trump is talking about how the Democrats are the extremists.

That is absolutely right. I am I'm neutral on this particular truth social post. I understand why he's doing it and let me defend it.

Let me let me think why he's say why he's doing it. The current abortion decision by the Supreme Court in Arizona was technically legally the right decision. It's one that I morally agree with, but it is unpopular with the people in Arizona and Arizona is a must win state. So President Trump is trying to float out the idea, float out, hey, he does not want to be tied to the unpopularity of this current measure. That is why he put that out there. However, there is an email we got here from John, which is, Charlie, I'm not voting for Trump anymore. What is the point if Trump compromises on abortion, even if he has a better chance of winning?

Why not offer everyone free school, health care, UBI that would help him win an election, right? So based on what do you think, whatever it takes to win a compromise when you can't govern, Trump has abandoned the pro-life cause who doesn't deserve my vote. I have never said you should do whatever it takes to win. I've never said that.

I've never alluded to that. However, you want to try to have the most morally clear position that can fit within the popular will of the people so you can get political power. There are positions that we hold that are unfortunately untenable with the American people. So you try to find one that is the best version of that and then you try to find how can you make it fit with the American people. That is the whole idea of the will of the people and the sovereign. And sometimes the people, they don't want the morally correct and clear position.

So do you completely betray or do your deeply held beliefs that are rooted in scripture and rooted in truth? Of course not. So no, Trump is not pro-choice and I think it's kind of laughable if somebody were to say that. This is a guy who put the justices on the Supreme Court that got Roe overturned. He helped defund parts of Planned Parenthood.

To say that is laughable. In fact, I would say he's the most pro-life president in history. Spoke at the March for Life first to do so. You know who is pro-choice? George W. Bush was pro-choice, like actually pro-choice. And yet pro-lifers voted for him because they saw other merits in his presidency. Even though George W. Bush, especially his wife, were very, very big pro-abortion advocates, he never spoke at the March for Life. Okay, let's get to another question here.

Bill from Arizona. Charlie, as a conservative heading into my first year as a PhD student at Harvard, surrounded by predominantly liberal perspectives, what strategies do you recommend for maintaining intellectual independence and fostering constructive dialogue while staying true to my principles? All without getting in trouble with my views. That is definitely written by someone who's getting a PhD.

The best thing I could say is you will be an intellectual minority. Ask more questions than you tell people's statements. Try to find weak spots in people's arguments and that will strong your arguments. And read vociferously.

There's another good word for you. And go deep into these ideas. Become a master of them. Do not sit idly by and just allow people to say things unchecked. And wow, you're getting a PhD at Harvard.

Honestly, I'm going to talk about that after the second. We need more people to get credentialed at the highest level. The Angel Guild stands as a powerful movement, and I want you to become a guild voter. This grants you the power to influence the green lighting of the next groundbreaking project. By joining with the Angel Guild, you'll not only endorse the creation of more quality content, but also unlock access to exclusive perks. From complimentary movie tickets to early previews of films and TV shows, your membership comes with a variety of benefits.

Participate today and help shape the future of entertainment, not just for your generation, but for your children's as well. Visit slash Guild. That is slash Guild. Together we'll craft movies that resonate deeply. slash Guild. OK, let's get to another question here. Michael says, Charlie, when Nebraska Republicans fail to act, what will you say to you about the nature of conservatives and future ways of addressing the future? You see, Michael, you're far more blackpilled than I am.

Blackpilling means that you think everything is just pessimistic. I have confidence that Nebraska is going to act. I do. I have confidence that the governor is going to call Nebraska into session, special session, any time now. And I have confidence that once called into special session, the senators will do the right thing and make Nebraska winner take all. Because I can't imagine the great conservatives in Nebraska being able to justify to the rest of the 300 million Americans that will be looking at Nebraska, not 300, but say 100 million Americans, why did you give us the Joe Biden presidency? But if they don't do it, it will be Nebraska Republicans telling you, we don't care that much about Joe Biden becoming president. It's just not a priority. Priority is other things.

It has always been a matter of the will. If Democrats in April of an election year, for whatever reason, in California or in Massachusetts could find a way to guarantee another electoral vote for their cause, they would absolutely do it. So I'm not quite where you are yet, Michael, but we shall see.

If they end up not doing it, it is then sending a message that the country is not that important. Okay, let's get to a lot of questions about the Arizona Supreme Court. I think we've covered that thoroughly here. Charlie, you were so supremely articulate and eloquent the last time many moons ago, you answered a question to me on air.

Should Christians watch the TV series Ozark? Boy, that was a couple years ago. Would you mind giving me that same Charlie Kirk level response?

Oh boy. To the topic of racism versus pattern recognition. I feel I know the gist of what you would state, but I still would love your same articulate response. P.S., have you listened to every podcast of yours since 2020, every single one? Keep it up.

Wow. Brooke, let's send Brooke a signed book. She's listened to every single one.

That's impressive. P.S., only Blake has listened to every episode, I think, in the last two years. Maybe Andrew too. For Blake, how was his viewing of the solar eclipse in Austin?

Really want to meet him in my home state, but also don't want to weird him out. Brooke, we might have somebody for Blake here. It's Brooke and Blake. Okay, so you asked the question here, response to topics of racism versus pattern recognition. Okay, so this is an interesting topic in the sense that if you notice a pattern, and I don't even want to make this racial, but if you notice a pattern that doesn't necessarily make you bigoted or doesn't mean that you have any sort of stereotype towards a specific group. In fact, God gave us the ability to notice patterns. Let me give you a very innocent, not innocent, just an example off the top of my head, which is if you're driving at two o'clock in the morning and there's a car that is swerving left and right, that is a pattern that you are recognizing and you suppose that that person is drunk and they're a drunk driver and you should. If you're in school and you see that a certain group of students do not do their homework, that is a pattern and you recognize that pattern. So there's nothing necessarily wrong with pattern recognition. The activists on the left think that there's something inherently wrong with recognizing any sort of patterns, especially when it comes to crime. It is not racist to simply state the fact that 55 plus percent of all murders are done by 13% of the population.

Largely, God gave us this ability to look at pattern recognition as a way, dare I say to, you know, to analyze data in a synthesized fashion. It is never racist to observe a real pattern. It isn't. They want you to say that and it's never wrong to use your brain to notice something. If you notice that there is a theme or a trend and then somebody says you can't notice that theme or trend and you're a bad person for doing so, you then should ask the next question. Why? Why am I a bad person for noticing that theme or trend? What are you either trying to hide? What are you trying to force? So I'm not even to get into any of the more provocative examples in modern society, but Brooke, great question.

Happy to connect you with Blake. OK, let's go to this one here. So boy, a lot of questions from Nebraska. Alexa says, when you talk about fight that we need to have if the election doesn't go our way, can you expand on what does that mean? Growing up a good Christian always meant coming under authority. Now, of course, I feel government authority is completely wrong. But when does civil disobedience cross the line or how do we ever know how much we should buck against law? OK, so media matters and all these groups come out, they say Charlie Kirk says we should fight if the election doesn't go our way. So what do I mean by that? I mean that you have to not give up and continue to politically organize. I don't mean anything physical, any confrontation.

That's complete nonsense. I have to say the word fight is the most overused word in American politics without a doubt. I overuse it. Democrats overuse it.

I mean, you could have you could have a montage of Joe Biden saying we must fight for women's rights or fight for this or fight for reproductive freedom. And so what I mean by fight, I don't mean go take go into the streets. I simply mean that you do not give up. You continue to organize. You continue to rally.

You do not give in to the predominant viewpoints around us. OK, how about this? Frank here, who is a member at Charlie, what's the latest on FISA?

It's very confusing for me to understand. Let's play this piece of tape here. We didn't get a chance to do this. This is Turning Point alumni Ana Paulina Luna on Newsmax.

Let's play cut 124. I think that in general, you know, in discussing it amongst each other and then also to knowing for a fact that this was the tool that really the Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden administrations used to spy on this president. We ensured that, you know, that can't happen again. But not just that. I mean, it literally has been responsible and breached, I think, over a quarter of a million times in additional to the fact that they actually had made carve outs in this legislation for members of Congress, but not the general population. Meaning that if you're a member of Congress, you'll be notified by the FBI nicely that you're being under surveillance.

But if you're a normal person that you're not. So that's completely unacceptable. Ana Paulina is now throwing up a rare procedural hurdle. God bless her. This is Turning Point USA alum at finest. Ana Paulina is an American hero on FISA renewal, which will force another vote and delay sending the bill to the Senate. Can we applaud Ana Paulina Luna here? Let's play cut 125, please.

Something that's pretty rare. And we're just breaking this down right now that they're going to have to go through. You're absolutely right. They passed the bill 273 to 147 here. But there was a motion made by Ana Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, that's going to hold this up and there's going to have to be another vote to kind of discharge this to get this over to the Senate.

We don't see this very often. All that is is a delaying tactic, but they have passed the bill. The bill is, in fact, passed, but they can't send it across to the Senate. Keep in mind that there is a deadline here in about a week and a half where the Senate has to sync up with the House or the House has to align with the Senate to make sure that these programs don't go dark. But they have passed the bill today. Two year reauthorization through 2026.

I want to just reiterate this. Ana Paulina Luna, being a Turning Point alumni, is almost single-handedly delaying the FISA bill. It is just a delay tactic. And it is not itself going to block the bill.

So what is the latest? Speaker Johnson cast the tie-breaking vote. Now, Speaker Johnson's office reached out to us. They said, well, we weren't the tie-breaking vote. We voted early.

Hold on a second. It doesn't matter if you voted early or voted late. You're Speaker of the House. You do not vote on these typically. If you would not have voted, we would have had a Fourth Amendment provision. They said they didn't whip votes, but you still voted for this. So why did you decide to vote against the United States Constitution and the Fourth Amendment?

That is the most simple question I could ask. This is how the Constitution dies. It dies by a bunch of congressmen saying the Fourth Amendment, they got that wrong. That George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and the beautiful, amazing founding of this country was incorrect.

They weren't as smart as we are today. And I want to repeat Cut 123, the abuses by the FBI. Play Cut 123. This court document released just a few hours ago found that the FBI misused a popular digital surveillance tool on everyday Americans more than 278,000 times in 2020, going into 2021. We're specifically talking about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA. It gives the FBI and other agencies the ability to digitally surveil without a court order or a warrant.

We now know the FBI used the tool on people connected to the civil unrest following the death of George Floyd on the streets of the United States. Those involved in the January 6th Capitol attack, even political donors. According to the court, a redacted name or names, quote, conducted a batch query for over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. 19,000 donors to one campaign.

So they spy on like every single donor to a congressional campaign. Good job, House Republicans, really making a strong argument as to why we need to keep on giving you political power. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. I talked to you about how horrible nutrition has become for people in our ultra processed food society. Truth is, it's even worse for our beloved dogs. Seen dog food lately, it's more like dead food.

Mr. Briggs is our best friend. And the more adventurous we are, I've realized this food is the most important thing, ensuring he's healthy. Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black has invested everything into bringing our dogs food to life. He created rough greens, not dog food. It's a natural supplement to your dog's existing food, full of essential vitamins and minerals and made right here in America. You don't have to change your dog's food. Just adding rough greens to their existing diet will be the best decision you ever made to improve their life.

Mr. Briggs has more energy, plays longer and is overall the best version of himself. Dr. Black is so confident that this will change your dog's life. He is providing a free jumpstart trial bag so your dog can try it. You just cover the shipping. Head to slash Kirk. That is slash Kirk. Go to slash Kirk to grab yours today. slash Kirk. You know, the best part about being surrounded is you can shoot in any direction. That's right, Brian. Brian knows all my one liners almost as much as Blake. But speaking of that, these are tough times. There's no spin.

There's no BS. These are tough times. And I got to be honest with you. We're getting all these questions here. I live to be let down by politicians. I don't like thinking that way.

But I'll be it. I was I was in expectation that FISA was going to pass. But when there is an up or down vote to allow to say, hey, FBI, you have to get a warrant and that fails. That is a gut punch to the republic. That is a gut punch to the Constitution.

That you have to get a warrant to spy on Americans. And it fails just by one vote. The speaker didn't have to vote. The speaker could have abstained from voting. You know if Speaker Johnson would have abstained from voting, we could have put an attachment of the amendment there. Speaker Johnson could have been a hero in this story. Just a little reminder, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, any particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons of thereof to be seized. And who are the ones that are pushing for FISA?

Andy McCabe, Playcut 104. The idea that Israel is at war with Hamas. Hamas we know has a presence here in the United States. The idea that we would turn off the prime vision, the prime insight that we have into terrorists who are overseas, terrorists like Hamas terrorists who may in fact be talking to people in the United States and planning activities here. We know that, but it's certainly a top priority for the FBI right now. The idea that we would turn off that flow of information, which is entirely lawful and has survived every court challenge is just astounding to me. There is no one in the community in the intelligence community who would support such a thing.

Did you hear what he said there? There's tons of people that support Hamas in our country. Why are they in our country? And that's because mass migration is an excuse for mass surveillance. How do you get mass surveillance when you have a low trust society?

And we have a very low trust society. In fact, Joe Biden outrageously came out today and this is what Mike Johnson voted for. The Biggs Amendment is a threat to national security. The extreme amendment would impose dangerous limits on the ability to review critical intelligence on key threats. Joe Biden is saying the U.S. Constitution is a threat to American national security.

Now, do you want some hope? Usually that these righteous amendments, they fail in spectacular fashion. It's 212 to 212 and there are even some Democrats that are not willing to give the Uniparty the regime unchecked authority to surveil Americans. Joe Biden continues, sections of 702, including U.S. person queries, are essential to identify and disrupt threats to our national security. Hold on, Joe Biden says the greatest threat to our national security is white Christian nationalism, white rural rage, white supremacy, domestic violent extremists.

They say that are all white political organizations. Are they going to use this to go after MAGA? They're using it today to go after the Trump movement at its core. And Joe Biden is pushing it.

Joe Biden is pushing. The Biggs Amendment is a threat to national security. The White House of the United States of America in year 2024 says that the Constitution is an impediment to keeping us safe. You cannot have both liberty and safety. Joe Biden thinks the Fourth Amendment is a threat to national security, just like he believes that free speech is a threat to national security. I'm going to keep on arguing and advocating for the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution.

I just wish our Republicans would do the same. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening. And God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlie Kirk dot com.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-04-15 06:20:47 / 2024-04-15 06:34:16 / 13

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime