B (4:44)

running for the hills ultimately, I think we're seeing a really clear schism in the Republican Party right now between individuals who are answering to their constituents, who maybe are upset about the results of this last election, are rightfully concerned with some pretty credible allegations of voter fraud that were never followed up on in a court of law or by our Congress of the United States, and then individuals who are trying to appease the establishment Republican Party, trying to keep good favor in the United States Congress. Obviously, we know that things accomplished in Congress are usually done through party favors. And from the top down when it comes to leadership within the individual parties. So right now, you, you're seeing a lot of those Republican Party loyalists maybe who've been in office for several years or several decades start to align more with this idea of impeaching Trump, whereas individuals more responsible to their constituents are trying to hold the line a little bit there.

A (5:34)

Andy Biggs has called for the removal of Liz Cheney as head of the Republican Conference chair, as has Jim Jordan. And we're starting to see there is kind of this schism happening. Let's go to cut 71. I've called for her resignation. I don't think she should be the chair of the Republican Conference anymore. The reality is she's not representing the conference. And so what has really bothered me throughout this entire event post, what happened tragically last Wednesday is you're starting to see who really supported President Donald Trump and his ideas and who just said they supported his agenda and his ideas. You're starting to see at the first opportunity of trying to banish him and trying to eliminate his existence completely, you're starting to see people like Liz Cheney and others really lean into that. Let's go to cut 70. Representative McGovern says I can't think of anything that would unify this country more than a bipartisan vote for impeachment. Cut 70. Do I want to talk about unity? I can't think of anything that would unify this country more if there was a big bipartisan vote in favor of impeachment. Every second that this president remains in office is a danger to this country and to the world. So again, they can't wait seven days. But it's really not about seven days. It is about trying to put a not just a flag down, but also draw a line where they say if you support him, you will no longer. They are even saying you shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes, just so we're clear. But you will not be allowed indecent or polite conversation at all whatsoever. And we can all agree what happened last Wednesday was horrific and tragic. In fact, I was watching some of the video last night and it's really hard to watch some of the new videos that have been coming out and we're not going to show them here on this live stream. But when you watch a police officer of the United States, the police officer Washington, D.C. and we have those shirts that say police officers matter, and you see some people come up and just beat him from the back and he just collapses, I mean, that's tragic. And it's tragic. If the people that did it there are on the left or on the right or on the radical right. It's terrible. And so there's a lot of understandable rage and there's a lot of understandable, let's say, discontent. However, there are political opportunists now on the Democrats that are now using this event and I would like to say to try to accomplish preexisting political goals on the livestream here you can see on the bottom right hand of your screen, this is to agree to the resolution to impeach the President of the United States. Every single Democrat voted yes. It doesn't look like everyone has voted, though. Does that add up to 435? Well, I guess there's some members missing. It looks like the Republicans voted almost uniformly. So this must just be to be agreeing to the resolution. We'll see how Liz Cheney and these other folks vote. It does look like it is like there's eight people that didn't vote and five people that did not vote for the Democrats. They didn't show up for the vote. So it looks like it's increasingly likely that this impeachment vote will come through today. We're gonna be monitoring that very closely. And look, this is a full throated attempt to try to recreate history, to try to destroy a president at all costs and try to destroy his movement alongside of it. And Tucker Carlson brought up a great point last evening on Fox News. If you really want to get rid of Donald Trump, just ignore him. Stop talking about him. He doesn't have a Twitter feed. He doesn't have an Instagram profile. He doesn't have a Facebook profile. Not that we support all this. We actually denounce that completely and categorically. But instead, instead what they've done is the exact opposite. Let's try to make him seem even bigger. And this is the first time in the history of our country that a president is facing two impeachment resolutions within one calendar year, let alone at all in any form of a presidency. And all of this stems from what happened last week. And you know, we were here covering this live. And it's also because former vice, not former vice Vice President Pence was asked to invoke the 25th Amendment and he sent a letter that really, I think, summarized it nicely. His letter's pretty good. He said invoking the 25th Amendment in such a manner would set a terrible precedent. After the horrific events of this last week, our administration's energy is directed to ensuring an orderly Transition. The Bible says that, quote, for everything there is a season, and for a time for every purpose under heaven, a time to heal, time to build up. That time is now. In the midst of a global pandemic, economic hardship for millions of people, and the tragic events of January 6, now is the time for us to come together. Now is the time to heal. This is not going to allow anyone to heal at all whatsoever. Instead of, this is going to try to poke the eye in the Trump supporters, basically, this is, this is their revenge towards President Trump, towards everyone who supported him for not making Hillary Clinton president in 2016. When Joe Biden becomes president the next week, they're gonna have a lot of ground to make up. And we're gonna cover this in the next segment because they're not gonna be able to get rid of President Trump's judges. They're not going to get rid of his amazing results internationally and geopolitically. And they know that. And because of that, they're doing everything they can to try to rewrite history, making sure big government and Big Brother not spying on you is very important. With some leadership changes that seem to be coming very, very soon, your data is not safe at all. But when you anonymize your connection, you could surf the Internet freely without wondering who will get a hold of your search history or viewing habits or what they will do with that information. Do you want the government to be reading over your shoulder every time you go online? No way. There's never been a more important time to protect your Internet activity. And that's why I urge you to get ExpressVPN, the VPN that I trust that I have on my phone that works very well. ExpressVPN is really easy to use. When you search for something online, it all gets tracked by big tech companies. They match your activity to your true identity using your device's unique IP address. When I use ExpressVPN, these companies can't see my IP address at all. My identity is anonymized by a secure VPN server and my data is encrypted for maximum protection. And besides hiding my Internet activity, what I liked most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use. Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected. So stop handing over all of your data to big tech companies and the government defend your rights with a VPN that I trust that there really is only one choice and it's ExpressVPN.com Charlie that's E X P R-E-S-S VPN.com Charlie to get three free months. Free. That's right. Go to ExpressVPN.com right now to learn more. Eric Swalwell is trying to resurrect his career by saying that Donald Trump is America's Osama bin Laden. So look, this is now the way the conversation is going. When I was young, when Isabel and I were in high school, we were called prejudiced as conservatives. Couple years later, they started to throw around racist. Then they started to use National Socialist Worker. You know what I mean by that? I don't even like saying the term. You're the worst person ever. Now they're using terrorist and it's not going to stop. Despite people that have denounced the violence, repudiated it, they are now going to group anyone that calls themselves a conservative that term. Now, what's the significance of this? This is not just cancel culture gone wild. No, no, no. This is beyond that. Okay? Now that they control every single instrument of power in our country, that word, especially post Oklahoma City bombing and post 9 11, is a word that carries a lot of significance in what the government can do to you where they can all of a sudden make it that you don't get representation, you do not get First Amendment rights, you don't get the rights to counsel. Let's play tape here of Eric Swalwell comparing President Donald Trump to the leader of Al Qaeda. Well, Osama bin Laden did not enter US soil on September 11, but was widely acknowledged that he was responsible for inspiring the attack on our country. And the president with his words, using the words fight with the speakers that he assembled that day who called for trial by combat and said we have to take names and kick ass. That is hate speech that inspired and radicalized people to storm the Capitol. All right, so instead of getting too worked up about this, let's just look at this logically. First of all, Osama bin Laden did not inspire the attacks. Osama bin Laden was the chief architect. I can't believe I'm even talking about this right now, but I guess I have to go back into a history lesson. Maybe Eric Swalo is too busy with Fang Fang during the investigation of all of this. He's minorly distracted. Osama bin Laden was the international criminal, the architect that was overseeing wire transfers, movements of people, weaponry, training to even equate a duly elected president who just received 75 million votes from the American people to our generation's most evil figure. I think that's probably a fair way right you think about our generation. Who is the person we were told is the most evil person who's living? It was Osama bin Laden, right?

B (16:10)

Without a doubt.

A (16:11)

And to even just compare that parenthetically, let alone directly, it's not just reckless, it's not just wrong. It's gonna have real consequences and it has to be stopped. Now, people that are saying this needs to, they need to be confronted. Congressman Swalwell, as he's an impeachment manager, I hope some other member of Congress will cross examine him and say, do you really believe that President Trump is moral equivalency to Osama bin Laden? Do we have cut 76 ready? Let's play cut 76.

B (16:54)

For years we have been asked to turn a blind eye to the criminality of corruption and blatant disregard to the rule of law by the tyrant president we have in the White House. We as a nation can no longer look away.

A (17:14)

All of Ilhan Omar's, let's say scandals have suddenly disappeared. And they probably will disappear because they control every single arena of government. But going back to what Congressman Swalwell said, the left is not joking around anymore. So you see, this stuff used to be just bluster. This stuff used to be kind of CNN fodder, clickbait. Now this stuff has real consequences. And now they are going to use terrorism statutes that were used in the Patriot act to monitor, infiltrate, detain people that wear hats like this that say conservative. And don't take my word for it, Eric Swalwell is calling the 45th President United States a leader of Al Qaeda. And we'll get into whether or not the President inspired or incited what happened last week. I don't believe he did at all. And we'll go through all of that. However, for Eric Swallow to make that comparison, it's not a mistake because Eric Swalwell is not a very bright person. What this means is that other higher up people are using this language as well. Eric Swalwell is a very dumb person, but he's just repeating what other people are saying and that is scary. In our fast paced world, it's tough to make reading a priority. At least it used to be. At Thinker.org, they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great books in bite sized form. Read or listen to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes. From old classics like Dale Carnegie's how to Win Friends and Influence People to recent best sellers like Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life. I've used Thinker before. I love it. There are so many great titles. You got to check it out. If you want to challenge your preconceptions, expand your horizons and become a better thinker, go to thinker.org that's thinker.org to start a free trial. Again, thinker.org, check it out. T H I N K R.org Become a better thinker thinker.org A lot happening right now as speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi goes on her speech about why we need to impeach the president of the United States. She seems to be using up every single minute of this to try and abolish every single conservative imaginable. Let's go to some tape here. Are we loading 79? Is that here yet? Are we still loading that? We're getting that one right there where Steny Hoyer said MAGA stands for Make America Grieve Again, comparing January 6 to 911 in Pearl harbor and Fort Sumter. Let's play cut 79 MAGA Civil War. They had the hats on of the army of maga, which I refer to as Make America Grieve Again. We grieved at Fort Sumter. We grieved on December 7, 1941, and we grieved on 9 11. And yes, we grieved on December, excuse me, January 6. It's very dangerous, as we said on the night of this happening, when Chuck Schumer started to compare what happened to Pearl Harbor. It's an insult to Pearl Harbor. And what they're trying to do, though, is create a narrative that the JV squad of wannabe kgb, whatever, the guys that were parachuting down the side or like caravaning down the side of the Capitol with zip ties, that somehow they are comparable to the imperial fighting force of Japan. Now, why are they doing this? Well, first of all, some of them, I want to say, I don't know all of their intentions. I'm sure some of them are I'm talking about members of Congress. You, even some of the moderate Democrats are moderately disturbed by what happened, or they're disturbed, fine, that's a take. But other Democrats are seeing this as a political opportunity because it is the intersection of something that makes them feel good to talk about. It achieves a political aim and objective, and it gives them an excuse to expand the security state that they have been wanting to for quite some time now. The Democrats are not just focused on President Trump. They're also focused on other members of Congress that they believe helped with Reconnaissance before the riot. Let's go to cut 77.

B (22:16)

I also intend to see that those members of Congress who embedded him, those members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on

A (22:24)

January 5, a reconnaissance for the next day. I'm going to see that they're held

B (22:29)

accountable and if necessary, ensure that they don't serve in Congress.

A (22:35)

This is a massive accusation that the congresswoman from New Jersey is saying. Want me to tell you what probably happened? You probably had freshmen members of Congress that were giving tours of the Capitol to friends and family. To say that members of the GOP conference were giving reconnaissance tours is basically. Basically, she's calling other Republican Congress people traitors to the United States. Now, that actually is what they're doing. There's no hyperbole there. There's no exaggeration. The Washington Post has now said this. Will the GOP turn into Hezbollah? This is out today, out yesterday, from Daniel Dresner. He is a professor at the International. Of course he's a professor, International politics of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He, by the way, he knows better than this. He is doing an intentional disservice, provocatively, to try and compare one of America. You could argue it's a bigger political party in most states than the Democrats. He doesn't say, will fringe people turn into Hezbollah? He says, the gop, the infrastructure, the committee itself, turn into Hezbollah. He said, here are these armed protesters, merely a radical fringe of the gop. Only if you think the president, United States is also on that fringe. And it's not just Trump. The intercepts, Ryan Grim and Ada Chavez reported that the head of the House Freedom Caucus helped organize last week's event. Whoa, hold on a second. No, no, no, no, no. If you're talking about the peaceful event at the Ellipse and the one that was permitted by the United States National Park Service, maybe. Says here Madison Cawthorn spoke at the rally saying, quote, call your congressman. You can lightly threaten them and say, if you don't start supporting election integrity, I'm coming after you. Now, mind you, when the left uses charged speech, it immediately gets categorized as metaphorical and not literal. When the right uses terms like fight, you know, like the Biden fight fund or fight for, you know, fight for Roe versus Wade, which are things that we talked about all yesterday. That's perfectly fine. But when we say, let's go fight for our president, people say, you must mean physical combat. Absolutely not. That is nonsense. And they know it is, too, because I guarantee you that in the next couple weeks, one of these guys is gonna be on a cable television show, one of these Democrats, and they're gonna all of a sudden say something that they've been saying for years, like, we need to go fight for affordable healthcare. How many clips of Bernie Sanders could I put up right now of Bernie Sanders saying we must fight for $15 minimum wage? I can just hear it in my head. Like I've heard him say it and never once did I levy the accusation. Now, some of you will say, well, but there wasn't a violent event that happened out of it. That's exactly the point. The point is that this language is used all the time without violent events occurring. Therefore, the language is not particularly tied to people inciting violence whatsoever. Now, if all of a sudden there was a pattern of language that was used with specifics of how to enact the violence or what to do, that's a completely different conversation. But all of a sudden, trying to read into this these statements that are used so often. So, for example, one person that they are going after very hard right now is Lauren Boebert from Colorado. They are really going after her.

B (26:40)

She's actually trending on Twitter as we speak, with officials calling for her expulsion from the United States Congress.

A (26:47)

Yeah. And so Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, what part of Colorado is she from?

B (26:53)

She is from the western half of the state. So her district is actually massive population wise. Most of the population in Colorado, that's where I'm from, is centered around Denver and then along the I25 corridor right in the middle of the state. So she covers the vast majority of land mass of the state on the west side.

A (27:09)

So she has tweeted this. Calling 75 million Americans domestic terrorists is not unity. But the left really doesn't care about that right now. They don't care about their political strategy. Is this is to try to intimidate and force basically people into following their political viewpoint. They are going to try and marginalize anyone who is a conservative or a Trump supporter. You know, no nuance, no detail at all whatsoever.

B (27:38)

While of course calling it unity at exactly the same time, which is the left's playbook that we've seen.

A (27:43)

It's projection, gaslighting. It is nothing that is surprising at all whatsoever. And so this fight over the narrative is actually really important. It's extraordinarily important because if we do not push back on this narrative, all of a sudden, it is only going to empower the security state. It's only going to empower the prosecutorial state to be able to push in directions that they otherwise would not be able to push, for example, because the media, this is how powerful the media is. This is what people have to realize that without shows like this, without radio programs pushing back, they would just dominate on this. And again, I'm gonna get into some of Governor Mike Huckabee's comments cuz I actually agree with part of them. We'll get into that in a second. But just to. If you have a one party media state, then what they say ends up being the truth. And so very few people know that BLM Incorporated almost penetrated the outer ring of the White house and injured 67 Secret Service members. I was outraged by that. I'm also, I'm just sickened when I see a police officer get bludgeoned to death outside of the Capitol. And so the lack of detail or context when we're talking about these matters is super important. It's really scary and chilling, but it's important in the sense that we get the actual message out because so many people are just taking the Democrat narrative as completely and totally true. And now look, I went through the New York Times article yesterday. I thought they did some actually good reporting on part of it. However, the way they described a lot of things I thought to be misleading. But the biggest takeaway from the article is that there were people congregating on the eastern side of the Capitol already before that. And let me be clear, if your intention when you go to any one of these things is to go seek violence or to go seek agitation, I mean, I saw some pictures of people that were wearing the red Make America Great Again hat and they came out and they were spraying mace at the police. Now, we don't know who that person is. You know, the easy description is that's a Trump supporter because they're wearing the hat. We don't know that. But if you're spraying mace at a police officer like you're a thug, you're not part of the Make America Great Again movement. Now, instead of Democrats giving an opportunity for Republicans to say that's not part of our movement, instead they're saying you're all part of it. Now what do you think is gonna happen? This is. Maybe the Democrats are doing this by design or maybe they're recklessly running into something that they don't know about. I don't know. But 75 million people. Let's just pretend it's 50 million people. Okay? Let's pretend there's 25 million people. That reluctantly voted for Trump. Let's just say it's 50 million people. Okay, that's a lot of people. Okay, a lot. Let's say it's 50 million people. They can't access social media like they used to. They can't even see what the President is saying or what he's thinking. They're migrating to new platforms that just suddenly disappear because of server space issues. They're seeing friends and family members that they know that went to the events in Washington, D.C. like one of my dear friends who's like the sweetest guy in the world, Pastor Rick Brown, who was here on this podcast. He went to the Ellipse, he went to the Washington Monument, walked about a mile away from the Capitol, saw some of it, walked to Union Station. Is that guy all of a sudden Timothy McVeigh? Of course not. But this guilt by association tactic is a unique Marxist tactic because they don't look at people as individuals. They look at people as part of groups. Therefore, if you were there in Washington, D.C. and you attended, you're guilty. You're part of the problem. All of you must be eliminated. Despite the fact that the events that happened before, what happened tragically at the Capitol is disconnected large in part because a lot of people didn't even go to that. Zoe Lofgren is speaking from the House floor, so we will definitely not cut to her. And Tom McClintock from California just gave a great speech. I want to give him credit for that. It was really well done. So the sequence of events that is taking place seems to be, could be argued as an intentional provoking exercise to 50 million people. Now, if I was trying to provoke more outrage, if I was trying to provoke more. Unrest, I would eliminate the President of the United States from Twitter. I would collude with three $1 trillion companies to try to basically eliminate Parler and its distribution, its distribution and its hosting. I would call the President of the United States, who is still loved by tens of millions of people, Osama bin Laden. I mean, why not reach for the star Swalwell, call him Stalin, just get it over with. If I was trying to keep the unrest going, I would talk like this and I would do this. Now, maybe that's not their intention. Intentions are hard to pinpoint. However, there is no way that you can say that you're trying to achieve unity and healing when acting in this manner. Speech is always the answer. And Democrats have decided to not even allow us to speak or have our viewpoint be heard. And all of the media articles and the Clippings that you see about what those of us are saying are completely and wildly inaccurate. I had a friend of mine text me the other day. They said, charlie, why haven't you condemned the riots? I said, what are you talking about? I said, have you not watched one of our livestreams? He sent me one of these news clippings because they took one, two sentences that I said of a nuance statement where I said, not everyone at the Ellipse went to the Capitol and those people are not insurrectionists. What do they say? They say some sort of crazy thing that I'm validating it. And so unless you watch this program uninterrupted, just the perception of how the media is portraying us is if we're justifying this. And so what's the consequence of all this? The consequence is you're going to see more discord, you're going to see more unrest and less civility. I hope that doesn't happen, by the way. I hope things remain peaceful and I hope things remain human. What the Democrats are doing, though, is all the different metaphorical ways you can fill in the phrase kicking you when you're down, poking you, spitting on you once you fall, have fallen. And the tens of millions of Trump supporters across the country. The biggest question that I get@freedomarliekirk.com is what can we do anymore? I can't speak, I can't go outside. My whole county's locked down. What can I do? And we're gonna help unpack that. But the Democrats know that they have removed almost all activist toolkits, tools from the toolkit for you to be an effective messenger. They've obliterated hundreds of thousands of Twitter accounts from Twitter. I started with 1.9 million followers on Twitter, 1.927000 followers on Twitter last week. We're now down to 1.7. Magically, 200,000 people were just eliminated from Twitter. Speech has always been the answer. And even if you think it's grotesque speech, that speech needs to be protected. There are a lot of people at the Capitol that, guess what, hate me. There are people at the Capitol that have followed me around the country, followed me through airports, and to try to loop me into these people. They hate me. You don't believe me? Just look at their message boards, look at what they talk about on social media. And so to try and loop everyone into guilt by association is no different than a Soviet style kulak program. And it's incredibly important. Mitch McConnell's office called Schumer's people today told them McConnell would not consent to reconvene immediately under the 2004 emergency authorization. So the Senate won't be. The Senate will not have a trial before January 19th. I just want to tell you what is happening. Look, we need to pause and recognize that Democrats are fast tracking a narrative to lay groundwork to eliminate dissenting voices and install a one party state. There is wave legislation in the pipeline that will systemically change the fabric of our nation. That was sent to me by a friend of mine and I think that's exactly right. So Lauren Boebert is under fire for what exactly?

B (37:45)

Allegedly everyone is saying in Congress from the Democrat side of the aisle that the freshman congresswoman from Colorado, Lauren Boebert, should be expelled from Congress simply because she dared to Tweet this is 1776 or today is 1776. Last Wednesday before the debate happened in the United States House of Representatives. I find this interesting because people must not understand the historical significance of 1776. What we mean by that, this is some violent insurrection against the government. That was simply the year the Declaration of Independence was written and ratified. So I find that very interesting.

A (38:23)

Well, and we celebrate. That is a federal holiday.

B (38:25)

It is correct.

A (38:26)

So we do commemorate and celebrate something that happened in that year. And some people might hijack the meaning of 1776. But what do we mean by that when we say it? Well, we mean it that that historical turning point, no pun intended, was when people decided to make the peaceful sep. Hopefully the peaceful separation against the monarchy. Now what happened after was obviously not peaceful, mostly because Britain declared war on us, not the other way around. If you read the Declaration of Independence, it is not a declaration of war. It says very clearly that they wanted to dissolve ties that King George was not the supreme or superior force over the citizens of the colonies. Instead, God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence and it says very clearly that they want to be basically live under the laws of nature and nature's God. And so what you're going to start to see is this misrepresentation of history trying to say that Anyone who uses 1776 in any form whatsoever must be talking about something violent. That is not true at all whatsoever. And if that was the case, then all of the Democrats commentators over the summer that were praising the mobs calling like Don Lamond back cut six when he said our country was started because the Boston Tea Party rioting. Let's go back to cut six. So if they were to attack Lauren Boebert on it why weren't they attacking Don Lemon for saying this? And let's not forget, if anyone is judging this. I'm not judging this. I'm just wondering what is going on, because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time ago. Our country was started because this is how the Boston Tea Party rioting. So don't. Do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has not never happened before, and then this is so terrible, and where are we? And these savages and all of that. This is how this country was started. Now, mind you, that's while footage was on his screen of people walking into an electronics store looting. And in Graffiti, it says, i4i, which is not legal. Okay? That is not legal. So. But Don Lamond says, oh, this is how our country was started. So cut it out with the kind of misrepresentation of our country's founding. I don't want to hear it anymore. It's an intentional gaslighting tactic to try to achieve a 1619 agenda for our country. Jeff Van Drew, who's a former Democrat, has decided to oppose the impeachment and basically saying, this is disenfranchising half the country, which is exactly right. And they're just not rushing through this. They are going at a blitz speed. And just so you know, this goes to show where. How much outrage there is right now on the left, and they're not thinking rationally and they're not thinking analytically. Louie Gohmert right now is trending on Twitter because he said, quote, I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be. He was quoting Nancy Pelosi. God bless Louie Gohmert. He's the best. I love that guy. He's been on our program. He came down to our Turning Point USA Student Action Summit. So they're really angry that Louie Gohmert was quoting something that the speaker of the House said. He wasn't actually saying it himself. But of course, for the radical Democrats, that is not good enough for them. For them, they want. Only the Democrats are able to support violence. And so I want you guys to continue to email us your questions. Freedomarliekirk.com, freedomarliekirk.com the question that I think a lot of you have here is, what is the point of all of this? And the point is this one word, punishment. That's the point, is that in their mind, they have had to sit through their own concocted version of Benito Mussolini over The last couple years. Of course, that is not true, but that's actually how they view Donald Trump. Now that they have total and complete control basically of the United States government, or soon to be in about seven days, their goal is now to not try to legislate. They are trying to exile and punish anyone that was involved in this at all whatsoever. And exile is a very interesting thing. Exile and banishment. Instead of trying to remove this 50 million people, they want that 50 million people to go down to 30 million because they're gonna try to marginalize it. There'll be a couple Republican Congress people here and there. There'll be controlled opposition. And anyone that actually speaks the truth or pushes back will either be deplatformed, will be marginalized, or just continually under massive pressure from the United States government security state, which is exactly what is happening here in this country right now. And so, because the Democrats perfected how elections are done in this country through the mail in balloting process, through signature verification, relaxing of standards, all these sorts of things, they control now basically they control the United States Senate. We lost both the seats in Georgia. They control the House of Representatives by a slim margin. And they're gonna control the presidency. And so people are now saying, a lot of people reaching out to us, what can we do? Where can we go from here? Here's one lesson. If there's only one thing you take away from here, support the good guys, okay? Find people that are truth tellers and just get behind them and pray for them, think about them, stay in contact with them. And it really, I mean, whether it's our program or other programs like Mark Levin or what Candace Owens is doing, because I'm telling you right now, the future of our movement and whether or not we're going to have a movement will depend solely and wholly on our ability to be able to support the courageous folks in this moment. That's really the big takeaway right now. And the other parts we'll get into of exactly what you can do and how you'll be able to handle all that. There's Congressman Ken Buck, also from Colorado. We got a lot of Colorado representation. If I were to venture a guess though, I think they're going alphabetically through states because all the California folks spoke and now all the Colorado folks spoke. So we'll get to Congressman Ken Buck in a second who is opposing this impeachment. And by the way, they are going so quickly through an impeachment. Just so you know, traffic court takes a couple days to try to figure out Whether someone had a fender bender or not, they're trying to impeach a president in half a day. Congressman Kevin McCarthy is speaking from the House floor right now. He has said he opposes impeachment, but he believes that the president does bear some responsibility for what has happened. The question is, does he bear legal responsibility? Governor Mike Huckabee said something that I think is pretty widely accepted, that the president could have chosen some of those words more carefully. I don't think. I don't know what the president thought would happen or not. That's up for, you know, that's an internal discussion and conversation that's going to need to happen, however, to say clearly that, you know, that the president knew it was going to happen. He was inciting the former attorney general of Washington, D.C. shapiro wrote a long piece in the Wall Street Journal saying that he believes that he bears no legal responsibility at all for speaking at that rally. And so Congressman McCarthy is continuing to speak here. But, Isabel, you brought up a great point in the break here about how words are changing, about how when you control words, then you're able to control an entire society.

B (46:29)

Absolutely, Charlie, and I'm glad you brought that up. We're seeing this rhetoric dramatically evolve right before our eyes. Last Wednesday, we said, just you wait, they'll say this. And lo and behold, that all came true in just a few days. And now I think it's gone beyond our expectations with Representative Eric Swalwell obviously equating President Trump to Osama bin Laden. I believe that was earlier today, and then now following that up with a statement on the House floor saying that President Trump is leading thousands of what he calls radicalized terrorists in this country. First of all, there was only a few hundred people in the Capitol Rotunda last Wednesday, so it's pretty safe to assume that statement is a blanket statement across Trump supporters. But we've seen this rhetoric on the left of violence and division for many, many years. Obviously, we saw that with Madonna threatening to blow up the White House, Kathy Griffin holding up the severed, bloody head of President Trump. You saw Eric Holder saying, we're going to kick them while they're down. Maxine Waters encouraging people to confront administrative officials in this administration where they are. But those words fight, confront and even blow up didn't seem to be taken literally in the past. And yet today we've discussed that fight has somewhat become the new F word.

A (47:37)

That's right.

B (47:38)

When it comes to American culture, Congressman Gates said it best just now in his speech on the floor. Words matter. And when you can effectively control, from a government and a cultural perspective, 100% of the words. By silencing all of your opposition, you control 100% of society, history, and what's happening right before your eyes.

A (47:56)

That's really well said. And so when you're able to control the language that people use, when they describe certain circumstances and how they communicate values, then you're able to control basically everything, which is exactly what is happening right now in our country. And so an analysis, I think what happened here at the Capitol is that you had some really, you had some guys that were trying to make some trouble. You had some troublemakers that were there before the President even started speaking. That's according to the New York Times. They were there wearing bulletproof vests, helmets, they had very similar looking goggles, they had mace on them. They looked like they were there ready for a fight. They did not look like they were just kind of the normal Trump supporter where they're kind of just wearing a Make America Great Again shirt and kind of waving the flag. Right. Those were different looking folks. What I think ended up happening is that some of the instigators and some of the troublemakers, and quite honestly, the ones that assaulted the police officers, the criminals, started to attack and attack and attack. I think that Trump supporters that never would have been caught up in something like that did get caught up in it. And a lot of them have expressed sincere and total regret, however, for the people that had come into Washington D.C. with schematics that planted pipe bombs at the RNC and the DNC that were coming and were acting in forces of violence against police officers that killed the police officer. Yeah, I mean, I find that very hard not to call that domestic terrorism. However, looping in every single person that was there in Washington D.C. into that category is extraordinarily dangerous. And here's the one thing that I'm struggling to figure out, which is if we knew those instigators were there, and if we knew this was happening and the FBI and the DOJ had advance notice of this, did they tell the President about that? Did they? I don't know. I'm just asking a question. If they did and the President still gave his remarks, that's a different story. But I think the question is of this, I think the deeper question is why are the Democrats intentionally not talking about these events with zero nuance at all whatsoever? And the reason is that they do want permanent political banishment. They see here, this is their great power grab. They see this as an opportunity to remain in almost permanent political power under this because of this event. They're almost making it seem as if that half the country justifies and supports what happens there, happened there. And that is not true. And there have been people that have been listening to our program that have emailed us that have been calling for this kind of some of this nonsense. And I can tell you what's been really interesting to see, though, is that some of the people that were emailing us saying, you know, time for a civil war, many of them have emailed me since and say they regret emailing, that they no longer feel that way, and we were pushing back against it in real time. And I think that when emotions are running high, some people do things that they really, really regret. What makes the argument that they're making on the House floor categorically different is that they're comparing President Trump to Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden did not launch the attack because he just got suddenly angry.

B (51:20)

Correct.

A (51:21)

It was patiently and specifically and strategically planned over a long period of time. That's what they're acting as. If this was and that everyone was involved in that, that is just not true.

B (51:34)

In the legal community, they refer to that as crimes of passion. Right. You get taken away by the moment, your emotions get the better of you, and honestly, you kind of lose your ability to think clearly and have logical rationing to help you get through those situations. Clearly. We know that this was not a crime of passion that happened at the Capitol last week. There were people there hours and hours and hours before President Trump's speech. So even to suggest that the language in his speech, which we've gone through over and over and over again with his statement saying peacefully and patriotically demonstrate at the Capitol, even to say that speech would have incited any violence on Capitol Hill is completely wrong. It's false, and it's a lie. But similarly, what happened on 911 and throughout history, really, with radicalized terrorist groups is that these weren't crimes of passion. These were very carefully and meticulously planned out. So their narrative is very obviously conflicting in and of itself.

A (52:27)

I'm so shocked to see Maxine Waters support impeachment.

B (52:32)

Shocking, really. I'm floored, honestly. You know, I found it interesting. She said, from the first day of his presidency, he's been trying to undermine democracy and has been dangerous. But they've tried impeaching the president since the first day of his presidency.

A (52:45)

Exactly right. They tried to impeach him during the transition. Yeah, that's right. So I'm not exactly shocked at Maxine Waters take there. And her language. Again, you can start to see parallels between how the Democrats are wrongly describing this, that President Donald Trump is capable of starting a civil war, that President Donald Trump will continue on this path. And so they made it very clear that they don't want to just criminalize Trump supporters, they want to go after him. And that's what this is trying to do as well. This is trying to create this narrative. And so look, the Democrats policies are awful. You might say, Charlie, what does that have to do with any of them? Bear with me. The Democrats policies are unpopular, they don't work and they're awful. And deep down, Democrats actually know this. Cortez hasn't learned this yet. She'll learn this in maybe a decade. But the policies Democrats have, it's actually really hard to stay in long term political power in close elections when you endorse the Democrat policies. How do you stay in political power then? You stay in political power if you're not the worst thing in the world. That's what the Democrats know this. The Democrats, now that they control all of government, that they're actually going to be blamed for the awful policies that are about to happen. Tax increases, abolition of oil and natural gas regulatory requirements, shutting down the country, all of that. So the Democrats are looking strategically, how can they stay in positive light in the public while also having these awful policies on display? And the answer that they have is by creating a narrative that half the country is actually Timothy McVeigh. And if you don't know who Timothy McVeigh is, we can go into that, I guess in a future episode of the program. But he was the Oklahoma City bomber, one of the worst acts of domestic terror in the country. Now, Timothy McVeigh did not do that as a act of passion, right? That was plotted, that was planned. Some people would even say that he did that in response to the Waco Branch Davidian massacre. Anyway, we can get into that a different time. The point is that that is an archetype of what the left considers to be what they call a far right wing domestic terrorist. How do you stay in permanent political power? You convinced people in the middle and your base that the other half of the country is always trying to plan an insurrection. And that's why it's so important that we make this abundantly clear of who exactly is behind this, who exactly is condoning this, who exactly is supporting this, what actually happened? Because if the Democrats are successful here, they're going to create a very Very troublesome political narrative. I don't know if you guys remember this or not. This is actually where I got my political start back in the Tea Party movement. The Democrats were very threatened by the Tea Party and they did call every Tea Party person anti government. Timothy McVeigh. There was a moment where a black congressman was leaving the House of Representatives and he alleged that a Tea Party person spit on him and called him a very, very bad name. That actually ended up not being true, ended up being unproven. But we have dealt with these sorts of accusations before. What obviously makes this different and very, you know, it's just not gonna go away is because, yeah, people did go and break windows and thugs did go and assault police officers and people did go plant pipe bombs and these jv, whatever you want to call them, domestic terrorists, whatever came with zip, they have these zip ties. I mean, what do you think you're doing? And that's just wrong and it's just reprehensible, quite honestly. And so it does make the framing of this different. But this playbook is not necessarily anything new. We saw a lot of this language back in 2010 and 2011. And the reason the Democrats resorted to this language back in 2010 and 2011 is when Barack Obama was president, they started to realize that his policies were not actually helping people and they were incredibly unpopular. And so, believe it or not, a lot of what's happening today in the House of Representatives floor driven by Democrats is trying to buy them some time. They actually know that President Donald Trump had a pretty amazing track record of success policy wise, and he did. They also know that they soon are not gonna be able to shift the blame if vaccines aren't getting delivered. They're not gonna be able to shift the blame any longer if all of a sudden that lockdowns continue. They're no longer gonna be able to have these long morning show diatribes at how Donald Trump is intentionally infecting people and all that sort of stuff. They are gonna be in. They're gonna be in charge now. What's the one thing that could give them a, an excuse, though? The one thing that could give them an excuse is if they're focusing their time and energy on a multi million person potential insurrection. That would give them potential public support, it would give them media support. I was already giving them social media support. So just look at this strategically. The Democrats have never wanted to actually govern. Democrats are awful at governing. They actually don't like it. Democrats care much more about politics than government. I Know, that sounds strange. Democrats like personnel, but everything Democrats do is always viewed through the lens of politics. Everything. You look at states where they actually have to govern, they're all catastrophic. They're catastrophes. Look at California when they had to govern. I mean, it's a disaster. When Democrats don't lose power is if they can caricature the other side as being a terrible, awful, horrible person. This is how they beat Mitt Romney back in 2012. They said he's a corporate raider and he puts dogs on the roof of his car. A lot of you don't even remember this, but we went through this sort of stuff and we defended Mitt like you wouldn't believe, and whatever. We all know how that one played out. You remember that, Isabelle, the dogs on the car when they used to make Mitt Romney. You want to know what a political scandal used to be? A political scandal used to be a candidate at a fundraiser saying, you know, only 47% of the people pay taxes in this country and 51% don't, and they're going to have to subsidize the other side. He's the worst person ever. That used to be a political scandal eight years ago. The point is, the media will make anything into a political scandal. Okay? We were talking about this 47% remark endlessly. So the question is, why are the Democrats really doing this? And the answer is, obviously, they see a political opportunity in this, but they're actually really scared that they're gonna soon be blamed for governance and they're not good at it. So when the next tax bill comes up and Senator Bernie Sanders is in charge of the Budget Committee, they don't like that. They're like, oh, no, no, no. However, if all of a sudden he's in charge of the Budget Committee and he's gonna say, I need $100 billion to go fight insurrection. People are gonna not focus on the other side of it. And so that's why it's so incredibly important that we make our position clear of who is actually there, how they have no support at all whatsoever of the people that committed those heinous crimes, and how we put the Democrats hopefully, on defense of some of this.

B (60:21)

Right, Charlie? And let's not forget that in two very short years, that sounds like a long time away, but it's really not. Because campaigning for that starts very, very soon. These individuals in Congress are going to have to defend their seats again and prove to the American voter that they are the right choice to send back to Washington, D.C. they don't have to worry about that so much if they completely eliminate the opposition. So what does that mean? It doesn't necessarily mean taking President Trump out of office. It means identifying the ideology that put him there to begin with and squashing that to the highest extent possible. They are looking specifically, if you pay attention, at these new age conservatives that have just come into Congress as the first people who have to go. It's just like firing in a corporate structure. The first people in are the first people to go because they represent this newfound resurgence of conservative ideas.

A (61:09)

Right. That's why they're going so hard against Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, against Matt Gaetz, who's not necessarily new, but he's been there for a couple years. They want them gone. They don't like the energy. And this is all about 2022. Remember, Democrats don't like governance, they like politics.

B (61:25)

And they're just as focused on erasing this narrative from the president as they are in completely erasing the color red by 2022. So I think that's going to be

A (61:33)

a. I don't know. Yvette Clarke was wearing a lot of red.

B (61:35)

It's a red dress.

A (61:36)

Yeah. With a red mask, too. So I don't know. That's gonna be a tough thing to do.

B (61:41)

Yeah.

A (61:41)

But I think that's really an important point that I think we need to, you know, we need to mention and talk about, which is that the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can right now to try and rewrite history and trying to misrepresent half the country. And even just. And we've been through this many times, but even just the people that were in D.C. even just the people that were within a mile of the Capitol, not all of them even stepped foot on the Capitol steps, let alone into the Rotunda. There's a lot of different, you know, gradations of difference here that I think are super important, you know, to this. And so you look at this debate that's happening, I don't know who that is right now in the impeachment of President Trump. And we're gonna be monitoring this all day on our streams here. The Democrats have made their position very clear. They almost don't want to live with the other half of the country. They don't. And this is their second impeachment of this president. They very well could have just let the term expire. And instead we are seeing the exact opposite of that right now.

B (62:50)

Right. We're hearing a lot of this word unity from the most outspoken individuals in the Democrat Party. But from what I can tell, unity does not actually mean reconciling our differences and coming together as one United States of America. It means get in line or else. And if you're not part of our agenda, we are going to do absolutely everything we can to destroy everything. Your existence. You have no digital footprint online. They're trying to take away legal licenses from people associated with President Donald Trump. We're seeing that with Rudy Giuliani in the New York State Bar. They're trying to put outspoken conservatives who weren't Even in Washington, D.C. such as yourself, on no Fly list, saying that you shouldn't be able to commercially fly airlines.

A (63:28)

That'll be tough for me to do my job.

B (63:29)

Ridiculous. I mean, the level of insanity that we've reached while also simultaneously calling it unity just mind boggles me.

A (63:36)

Also, where was I on the day of all of this?

B (63:39)

This room. We were both right in here.

A (63:41)

What was I doing?

B (63:41)

I was denouncing over and over and over again. I can't tell you how many people have sent me emails or DMs saying, how come you haven't denounced this? How come you haven't said anything? We're here.

A (63:50)

Watch this footage. Geez. Okay, let's get to a question here. Hi, Charlie and Isabel. I appreciate both of your insights. They spelled it insight. I don't think they meant that. On what's happening in America, Longtime listener, big time fan. Are the Democrats even making any valid constitutional points to impeach the president? To me, it sounds like they're just having a big wine party, but what they don't like. What are your thoughts on this?

B (64:14)

Great, great question. Alana from New Hampshire. We appreciate that you listen. We were just talking about this during the break because now we are hearing from Mitch McConnell that they're likely not going to schedule a trial before the termination of President Trump's first term by Inauguration Day. So what does that mean? Can you impeach a prior president that's not currently sitting in publicly elected office? It's sort of a constitutional gray area, which I find interesting because we were just talking about constitutional gray areas last week, and all of a sudden this is being pushed full steam ahead. But essentially what the Constitution says is that the only individuals that are eligible for impeachment are called civil officers. So that's people currently sitting in elected position or within the executive branch. President Trump becomes a private citizen here in just a few days. He's no longer a civil officer. So in a very plain black and white text reading of the Constitution, I would say that that's not constitutionally permitted.

A (65:10)

Yeah. And so some people say you can impeach when someone is out of the office. We don't know yet.

B (65:15)

Right.

A (65:15)

It's a very. I mean, they also wanna bar President Trump from ever running again. Now, I'm gonna talk in metaphors here, but metaphorically what they want to do is, is they want to try to get the top of a movement that threatens their political power. They want to try to remove it. They want to metaphorically try to at all costs make an example of President Donald Trump, which is exactly what we predicted. And tragically, what is happening here. Email us your questions as well. Here. Freedomarliekirk.com, freedomarliekirk.com I'd be really interested to kind of hear what your thoughts and what your feelings are of what's happening right now and your thoughts on it. I know a lot of people are quite honestly outraged at what's happening in our country and a lot of Republicans are going along with this. They're just trying to duck for cover. But Liz Cheney has also come along with this, which is, you know, pretty, pretty incredible.

B (66:14)

Yeah, I was a little shocked reading some of that and the language that she used. I think this really goes back to what we were talking about a few days ago on this stream, Charlie, and that is we're seeing a great divide politically on both sides of the aisle. You're seeing that on the left between socialism and more classically liberal ideas. And then obviously you're starting to see that now between establishment Republicanism and what I like to call New Age conservatism. People like Madison Cawthorn and Lauren Boebert.

A (66:38)

Yes, I love that.

B (66:39)

Who feel much more directly responsible for the American people rather than the political party that they're adhering to. So I'm curious to see how that might ride out. I anticipate that the two party system is really going out of style here pretty quickly.

A (66:52)

Yeah, I think you're right. Here's a question from Michelle. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, will he be facing criminal charges for inciting violence? We don't know. There's been a lot of stories written about this. It could be that the attorney general of D.C. which actually files in federal court, who has the jurisdiction of whatever happens in Washington, D.C. might be coming after him for inciting violence. That's gonna be a tough threshold beyond a reasonable doubt to hit. But that's not to say that's going to be Necessarily impossible for them to be able to achieve. But I will say that they're going to try to do everything they possibly can. And I think there were some remarks done yesterday that goes to show that. And they're not being shy with that at all whatsoever. So just in a crowd with expel all fascist signs seen outside of the United States Capitol. So that is probably an antifa group is my best guess. And that is they are wearing lots of masks and they are congregating outside of the United States Capitol. So we will be monitoring that in real time as it happens. It looks like the Capitol Police are much better prepared. And so there's a couple, there's a couple of, there's a couple competing theories of. And I think that again, this is the nuance that's really important is that at certain points of entry, the police were letting people through. At other points of entry, police were getting dragged and beat with fire extinguishers. Other parts of entry I'm talking about in Congress, barricades are being overrun and mace was being spread. So there was almost like 15 different areas that were happening. And whether or not there was a central like command structure of this, you know, needs to be found out because I don't know if there was someone that was trying to, you know, oversee all this or what the, you know, what the operation of it all was. But I can say this, that the police, some of which seemed, they did not want to give an inch, right. Other police said you can come all the way through. But I think it's very fair to say that the police were not prepared at all. And so there's a couple theories on this where they was just request denied because they just underestimated it. Or did the police just think that in rallies in past with Trump supporters, they're mostly, you know, they're basically always, always, always peaceful. And so there won't be any problems here. We don't know, but that investigation is gonna continue on and we're gonna find out exactly what happens here. Isabelle, any other thoughts?

B (69:21)

I do have a thought as we're waiting for some of your guys questions. The word fascism I have seen more frequently in the last week than the last four years combined. And if you're watching this program and you don't inherently understand what fascism is, it's time to start looking these things up. Fascism centers around complete control of a population from the highest levels of government and culture and society down. It involves eliminating your opposition, restricting free speech. None of that is upheld within the conservative movement. Or the Republican Party. So don't believe the headlines that you read from the mainstream media. This sign of expel all fascists from government outside the US Capitol. Right now they're saying that's in reference to conservative individuals in Congress. But in reality, if you actually break down ideology, it has nothing to do with one another whatsoever.

A (70:07)

I agree completely whatsoever. And fascism was originally coined in the 1930s. Antonio Gramsci played a role in that. More in kind of cultural Marxism. They actually go into what fascism means. It means a bundle of sticks because it's all very tightly bound in the control. The actual term is what it comes from. So continue to email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com, when you support us@charliekirk.com support it really helps us continue to do what we're doing. And please subscribe to the Charlie Kirk show podcast if you want to get in the running to win a signed copy of my book, type in Charlie Kirk show to your podcast provider and hit subscribe. Let's get to this question here. Hey, Charlie and Isabelle, I really like your show. It's very insightful and informative. So we have the 25th amendment for the president, but how can we remove a congressperson besides an election to vote them out? Some of these Congress people are very divisive and dangerous with their violent rhetoric. Best, Doug. So it's my belief that only fellow congresspeople can remove them. Is that right?

B (71:02)

Yeah, I believe it's called expulsion. It's not called impeachment. So they can essentially vote together by majority vote in either the Senate or the House to expel a fellow member of their body.

A (71:12)

And the next question is here. Let's say, hi, Charlie and Isabella. I've studied a decent amount of European history. For a long time, the east has looked to the west for advancement. But do you think the time has now come where the west has looked to the east for wisdom on how to break through this spiral of socialism and communism? From what I've read, the only way that this evil can be removed from our country is through the persistent cultural change, never through violence. I completely agree. I would definitely not look to China, though, right now to actually how to solve totalitarianism. I don't know if that's. I don't know if they'll actually have a very good playbook for that. Let's get to this question here. Hi, Charlie. I just wanted to say I love your show and we'll continue to support it. I have a couple questions. What is the Insurrection Act? And did Trump sign it? Do you think he'll declare martial law? I do not. There's a lot of fake Internet rumors out there that a lot of good people are believing the Insurrection act was not signed. The Insurrection act is in place to help quell mobs and violent uprisings in the country. It was last used by President H.W. bush to quell the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Many of us were calling for the President to use the Insurrection act over the summer. But no, the President has not signed the Insurrection Act. He has declared Washington, D.C. a state of emergency, but he has not declared the insert. He has not signed the Insurrection Act. Let's go to one more here. After 30 years of trying to talk to our representatives to follow the Constitution and protect our God given rights, how many more years do we have to talk? Citizens Talked up until 1770-75. 1775, Lexington and Concord. I'm just asking, how much longer do you think we have to talk before we realize it's a wall? Jeff kaye from Clarkson, Michigan. P.S. they'll never stop hunting Trump. That's true. They're never gonna stop going after Trump. Look, as soon as you go to violence, there's no going back and there is no good, there is no good playbook for how violence plays itself out. Well, that's why we have time and time again condemned and pushed back against violence, especially violence that tries to engage in any sort of, you know, going after elected officials. But look, the question is rooted in, basically, I'm running out of patience. And look, the conservatives held a lot more cards 10 or 15 years ago. And I know that, you know, a lot of people said I did a lot back 15 or 20 years ago, maybe you did. But I can tell you right now that the left was relentless. The left was relentless for years. And they took over institutions, they took over, you know, every form and fashion of our country and our government. Now it's us. For us to build new things and to take over things as well back in our country. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. I encourage you to get involved with Turning Point usa. Start a high school or college chapter. Get engaged, get involved. @tpusa.com, email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com and if you want to support our program, go to charliekirk.com support thanks so much for listening, everybody. God bless.