The Charlie Kirk Show - A 21st Century Renaissance of Religious Liberty with Kelly Shackelford

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, my conversation with Kelly Shackelford.

00:00:04.000 We go through his debate in front of the Supreme Court that might impact every mom and dad that cares about education.

00:00:09.000 We also talk about a court case that he is fighting for regarding vaccine mandates in the military.

00:00:15.000 Very important conversation with my friend Kelly Shackelford from FirstLiberty, firstliberty.org.

00:00:20.000 Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com, if you want to hear about our latest news and information.

00:00:25.000 And also to send us any questions you might have.

00:00:28.000 I read all of our emails.

00:00:29.000 I don't respond to them all, but I read them all.

00:00:31.000 If you want to subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, I highly encourage you get subscribed.

00:00:35.000 Charlie Kirk Show podcast.

00:00:36.000 Hit subscribe in the upper right-hand corner.

00:00:38.000 That's Charlie Kirk Show podcast.

00:00:40.000 You want to support our show?

00:00:41.000 CharlieKirk.com slash support.

00:00:41.000 You can do so.

00:00:43.000 I want to thank Rachel from New Jersey for supporting us.

00:00:46.000 Leslie from Arkansas for supporting us.

00:00:48.000 Annette from North Carolina.

00:00:50.000 Lorraine from California.

00:00:51.000 Michael from Illinois.

00:00:53.000 Very generous support.

00:00:54.000 Thank you so much for getting behind us.

00:00:57.000 Alita from Wisconsin.

00:00:59.000 Emily from North Carolina.

00:01:00.000 Francis from Georgia.

00:01:02.000 Rita from Illinois.

00:01:03.000 Ronald from Alaska.

00:01:05.000 And David from Washington.

00:01:07.000 Thank you, thank you, thank you.

00:01:08.000 CharlieKirk.com slash support.

00:01:10.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:01:12.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:01:12.000 Here we go.

00:01:14.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

00:01:16.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:01:19.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:01:23.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:24.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:25.000 His spirit, his love of this country.

00:01:27.000 He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.

00:01:33.000 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.

00:01:42.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:45.000 Hey, everybody.

00:01:46.000 Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.

00:01:48.000 With us is Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty, FirstLiberty.org.

00:01:51.000 I get that right.

00:01:51.000 You got it, man.

00:01:52.000 We've been doing a lot of partnerships together this year, your Supreme Coup and many other things.

00:01:56.000 But you just argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:01:58.000 Is that right?

00:01:59.000 Yeah, we had an argument last week.

00:02:01.000 It's a big deal.

00:02:02.000 It's a case out of Maine where for over, if you're in Maine, most of the school districts do not have a public school.

00:02:02.000 Tell us about it.

00:02:10.000 So for over 100 years, they've said, we're just going to let the parents pick any public, any private school, put their kids there, and we'll use the state tuition amount, and they can just carry it to whichever one.

00:02:23.000 Until a few decades ago, they decided, you know, we're going to change that.

00:02:26.000 And we're just going to say, you can pick any school you want as long as it's not a religious school.

00:02:30.000 Wow.

00:02:32.000 And, well, we said, you can't do that.

00:02:35.000 You can't create a program where everybody gets treated the same except discriminate against religious.

00:02:40.000 It's very Orwellian. 0.89

00:02:41.000 And some are more equal than others.

00:02:41.000 Yeah.

00:02:43.000 And so my favorite question in the oral argument was about Justice Alito.

00:02:49.000 He asked the Maine attorney, he said, so CRT school, okay.

00:02:55.000 White supremacist school, okay.

00:02:58.000 Religious school, not okay. 0.93

00:02:58.000 Wow. 0.93

00:03:00.000 What was the answer?

00:03:01.000 The answer is, well, if we had white supremacist schools or CRT schools, I think our legislature would create a new law to take care of this.

00:03:09.000 But the point is, under this law, the only people that get discriminated against are the parents who want to choose the school that's best for their kids, and it's a religious school.

00:03:19.000 And I mean, we had clients, farmers, didn't have the money, and they were being robbed of the ability to.

00:03:26.000 What part of Maine is this?

00:03:27.000 What?

00:03:28.000 The whole state.

00:03:29.000 So you're saying there's no public schools in part of Maine?

00:03:31.000 Most of the school districts, no public schools.

00:03:33.000 So what kind of schools do they have?

00:03:35.000 They just have, you know, private schools that pop up, other schools.

00:03:39.000 But you can use taxpayer money to go to those schools.

00:03:42.000 Is that right?

00:03:43.000 Including you can go to the most exclusive all-girls school, you know, in Portland, Maine or whatever.

00:03:50.000 And it's $67,000.

00:03:54.000 And you just take your little, and you can apply there, and it discriminates there on the basis of sex, does all these things that public schools can't do.

00:04:02.000 But that's fine.

00:04:03.000 The one thing you can't do is go to the little system.

00:04:06.000 Maine hasn't had a public school system for a while.

00:04:06.000 So I'm just curious.

00:04:10.000 Parts have public school systems.

00:04:11.000 Parts.

00:04:11.000 Yes.

00:04:12.000 Okay.

00:04:12.000 Maybe around Banger or Portland or Kenny Bunkport.

00:04:17.000 Half of the school, they're called SAUs, but they're basically school districts.

00:04:21.000 And so you can go to the public school.

00:04:21.000 Have a school.

00:04:23.000 But if you can't, which is a lot of rural areas and these other areas, what do you do?

00:04:28.000 Well, they've said, well, we'll allow you to take this and go to a voucher, basically.

00:04:33.000 That's right.

00:04:34.000 And I'll tell you, I'm like two of the, well, the mom and dad, we had a number of families, but one of them was really sad.

00:04:43.000 They wanted to pick the Christian school, not even really just because it's Christian, but because the testimony was powerful, I thought.

00:04:52.000 The father said, you know, he's having to do a snowplow.

00:04:55.000 He's a farmer just for extra money.

00:04:57.000 They said, why did you pick this school?

00:04:59.000 He said, because I know that other local school.

00:05:02.000 He said, and the education's horrible.

00:05:04.000 And they said, how do you know that?

00:05:06.000 He said, because I went there and I'm still suffering from it right now.

00:05:09.000 And I want my child in the Christian school, which is a much better education.

00:05:09.000 Wow.

00:05:13.000 They said, no, we're going to discriminate against you because that school.

00:05:17.000 And the way they did it is they said, if you taught everything that the public school wanted you to teach, but you added one class on religion, you're out.

00:05:26.000 And this is all religious schools, basically?

00:05:28.000 Every one of them.

00:05:29.000 In Maine.

00:05:30.000 So what option would there be for these families then?

00:05:35.000 They would have to choose like a private school that's not religious.

00:05:41.000 And listen to this.

00:05:42.000 You could even pick a school outside of Maine.

00:05:45.000 You can do like a boarding school, like Exeter or whatever.

00:05:49.000 Absolutely.

00:05:50.000 And that was my favorite.

00:05:51.000 Is they said, they said, why are you doing this?

00:05:54.000 I asked the Maine attorney.

00:05:55.000 They said, because we want to offer an education that is equivalent to a public school.

00:06:02.000 And they said, equivalent?

00:06:04.000 And a number of the good justices asked this question.

00:06:06.000 They said, so you're saying Exeter, Exeter?

00:06:09.000 So that same example that I used is equivalent?

00:06:09.000 Exeter.

00:06:12.000 Yes.

00:06:13.000 It's equivalent because there's no religion in it.

00:06:16.000 So this is the argument.

00:06:18.000 Yeah, like St. Paul's or, you know, Episcopal outside.

00:06:21.000 Well, Episcopal would be religious, but not really.

00:06:23.000 Would be, I guess those are religious.

00:06:25.000 But yeah, Exeter is secular.

00:06:26.000 Now, why this is important, though, is people say, okay, it's about Maine.

00:06:29.000 No, no, no.

00:06:30.000 It's much bigger.

00:06:31.000 Because there are school choice programs everywhere.

00:06:31.000 Yeah.

00:06:34.000 Arizona, for example.

00:06:35.000 And what this will mean is, if we win, and I do think we're going to win probably late June, along with the abortion decision, this will be another one of the controversial decisions.

00:06:45.000 But if we win, it'll mean that from now on, when you have a school choice program, you can't exclude religious schools.

00:06:52.000 That's a big deal.

00:06:54.000 You think about all the areas now where you can't, where there are no choices like that.

00:06:58.000 They're going to come into existence because people who now, as parents, wanted to pick those types of schools, they'll come together and form those types of schools.

00:07:08.000 So it'll make a huge difference in a lot of people's lives from here going forward.

00:07:12.000 So not everyone gets to argue in front of the Supreme Court.

00:07:14.000 Walk us through what that's like.

00:07:15.000 So you wake up super early that morning, you've been prepping like crazy.

00:07:19.000 Just walk us through the kind of game day of arguing in front of the United States Supreme Court.

00:07:25.000 The most nervous I've ever been in my life was sitting in the lawyer's lounge before the argument because you're not in there yet, right?

00:07:30.000 So this was not the first time you've argued.

00:07:32.000 No, and this, I was second in this case.

00:07:34.000 There was another guy who never argued.

00:07:36.000 He was, we let him have his first time.

00:07:38.000 He did a great job.

00:07:40.000 But 20, I guess 25 years ago is the first time I was there.

00:07:43.000 And, you know, what you do is there's a lot of briefs filed.

00:07:49.000 You file, when I say briefs, they're 50 to 60 pages.

00:07:52.000 You file one, the other side files one, then you file a reply, and then about 50 outside groups each file.

00:07:52.000 Okay.

00:07:58.000 Amicus briefs?

00:07:59.000 Amicus briefs.

00:08:00.000 They're all in here, and the court's reviewing all these things.

00:08:04.000 And then you do what's called a moot, a number of them.

00:08:07.000 Which means mock, right?

00:08:09.000 So like we went to Georgetown.

00:08:09.000 Yes.

00:08:11.000 Law professors pretended they were justices.

00:08:13.000 We did Harvard.

00:08:14.000 We did a number of different places so that you're ready for any kind of question that might come your way.

00:08:21.000 And you polish, you work on it, you work on better answers.

00:08:24.000 You really get your best ideas.

00:08:27.000 And then you go into that lawyer's lounge where you're waiting, and then they eventually let you out into the courtroom.

00:08:34.000 And for me, and I told our guy who was with me this time, Michael Bendis, a good guy with Institute for Justice, I said, this is the most nervous I was where you're standing right now.

00:08:45.000 I knew he was probably nervous.

00:08:47.000 And I said, just realize when you get in there, as soon as the argument starts, it'll all go.

00:08:52.000 Because I noticed within a minute.

00:08:53.000 Like a minute.

00:08:54.000 Yeah, exactly.

00:08:55.000 Yeah, it's not.

00:08:56.000 When my opponent got up within 30 seconds, I remember thinking, I'm not nervous.

00:09:02.000 I'm going to destroy this guy.

00:09:03.000 Yeah, I got a better argument. 0.98

00:09:05.000 And so that's what you think.

00:09:06.000 So as soon as you get in there, it's fine.

00:09:08.000 But it is unlike anything else because people think you go in there and like you give a speech and the justices clap or cry or whatever.

00:09:18.000 No, no, no.

00:09:19.000 You start and they come at you.

00:09:21.000 And they're allowed to interrupt at any time.

00:09:22.000 Is that right?

00:09:23.000 From the beginning.

00:09:23.000 Yes.

00:09:24.000 Do you even get an opening argument?

00:09:25.000 Well, you didn't used to.

00:09:27.000 You used to get about 30 seconds most and they would come at you.

00:09:30.000 They just changed the rules where you now get up to two minutes uninterrupted and then it's free.

00:09:35.000 The games are off.

00:09:36.000 That's free.

00:09:37.000 The rules are off.

00:09:39.000 So go ahead.

00:09:39.000 No, but the thing that you don't realize is the justices have had all these briefs and all this stuff and they've all got four of the smartest young attorneys in the country clerking for them.

00:09:50.000 But they have not talked to each other.

00:09:52.000 About this case.

00:09:53.000 The first time they do is when the oral argument occurs, they're talking through you.

00:09:58.000 So but when do they, so when they're having lunch or whatever, they're not talking about the case?

00:10:01.000 They throw an argument at you because they're actually trying to speak to other justices.

00:10:07.000 So are there people in the gallery while you're doing this?

00:10:09.000 Normally, this last week, because of COVID, no one allowed justices.

00:10:13.000 And it's not broadcast, though, but it's audio cast.

00:10:16.000 It was, in fact, if people want to listen to it, we've got the audio where they can listen to the actual argument that occurred at firstlibertylive.com.

00:10:25.000 We have the argument so they can listen and hear the questions.

00:10:28.000 And what they'll realize, what a lot of people said to me is, I had no idea how intense and how hostile it was.

00:10:34.000 I said, yeah, this is not, these are not, you know, friendly questions.

00:10:39.000 So walk us through it.

00:10:40.000 So then, do you, did, so since you're suing the state of Maine, you had the opening argument, is that right?

00:10:45.000 We open, and then Maine responded to us.

00:10:50.000 Their solicitor general or whatever, right?

00:10:52.000 And then the Solicitor General of the United States jumped in to join them.

00:10:56.000 Biden's DIY lackey.

00:10:57.000 Yeah.

00:10:58.000 So while Trump was in office, they filed a brief supporting us.

00:11:02.000 And then the government switched off.

00:11:03.000 And they flipped sides in the middle of the litigation.

00:11:06.000 And so we basically got 35.

00:11:10.000 We got 30 minutes, left five minutes for rebuttal.

00:11:13.000 So we went 30.

00:11:14.000 Then they went 20 and 15.

00:11:18.000 And then we got our five minutes of rebuttal at the end.

00:11:22.000 But the thing that was so unusual was the justices can ask questions beyond the time.

00:11:27.000 And, you know, they might do that some.

00:11:30.000 Our hour and 10-minute argument ended up being over two hours.

00:11:34.000 So are you allowed to say who asked questions?

00:11:37.000 Yeah.

00:11:38.000 And you can tell, but you can listen back.

00:11:39.000 So who asked questions?

00:11:41.000 Every one of them.

00:11:42.000 Every one of them.

00:11:42.000 All nine.

00:11:43.000 Clarence Thomas even asked questions.

00:11:44.000 He usually doesn't ask questions.

00:11:44.000 Absolutely.

00:11:46.000 He made some great points.

00:11:48.000 One of the arguments that the Biden administration was trying to make is, well, you have a right to the free exercise of your religion, but you don't have a right for the government to provide you money to do it.

00:11:59.000 But Clarence Thomas probably said, it's not the government's money, though.

00:12:01.000 Well, and he said, isn't this a compulsory attendance?

00:12:07.000 So the state is forcing them into a school, and then they're saying, but we're not going to allow you to choose the Christian school.

00:12:14.000 He said, how is it a subsidy when you're forcing them to do it?

00:12:18.000 But the facts and circumstances probably played into your hand because of Maine not having other public options.

00:12:23.000 Is that right?

00:12:24.000 Somewhat, but I think it had been the same either way.

00:12:27.000 I mean, I think the idea that if you create a, you don't have to create a program.

00:12:33.000 Maine, if they wanted to just create public schools and have everybody go to public schools, fine.

00:12:38.000 But when you create a program that says we're going to let parents choose, you can't at that point start discriminating because really it's no different than, let's say, let's take the college university.

00:12:50.000 We're going to allow the student groups to use our facilities.

00:12:53.000 But then as soon as the religious student groups apply, they say no. 0.97

00:12:57.000 Right.

00:12:57.000 You can't, we've got old cases that say you can't do that.

00:13:00.000 So then who else asked questions?

00:13:02.000 You said all nine did, but like the concern.

00:13:05.000 So Kavanaugh asked good questions.

00:13:06.000 Kavanaugh was great.

00:13:07.000 Kavanaugh was really strong.

00:13:09.000 The chief was really strong.

00:13:11.000 Really?

00:13:12.000 One of my two favorites were both by Alito.

00:13:12.000 Yeah.

00:13:15.000 Okay.

00:13:17.000 Him asking them, so the white supremacist school is okay and the CRT school is okay, but not the religious school.

00:13:23.000 But my other favorite, he said, what if my religion, my religious school, was that what their beliefs were were tolerance and American values like, and he went through these sort of American values.

00:13:36.000 And the response from the attorney for Maine was, well, that's real close to what the public school teaches, so that would be okay.

00:13:42.000 Alito responded by saying, what I just described to you was the Unitarian religion, which he had just said, certain religions are in and certain are out, which that's a very bad thing for them. 0.61

00:13:56.000 So I think the way the argument went, it showed, of course, Kagan, Breyer, Sodomayor, the liberals in the court were very much against this.

00:14:07.000 What were their arguments?

00:14:08.000 I mean, some of them were bizarre.

00:14:10.000 The argument by Breyer was to me the most unusual.

00:14:14.000 He kept saying, well, there's all these religions.

00:14:17.000 If you allow religious schools, it's going to be divisive and strife. 0.84

00:14:23.000 And I wanted to like raise my hand and go, no, what's strife about treating everybody the same? 0.99

00:14:28.000 Yes.

00:14:29.000 You know, strife is when you discriminate against people, which is what you're doing.

00:14:33.000 And there's some guy in Augusta, Maine, who's looking at your curriculum and how you're teaching and deciding whether you're really religious or not.

00:14:43.000 Because there were schools that they said, well, we're not sure.

00:14:49.000 We see you have a chapel.

00:14:51.000 They said, yeah, but our chapel, we just really teach, you know, math.

00:14:55.000 Yeah, we teach issues and things like that.

00:14:57.000 And they said, well, you're okay.

00:14:59.000 And then there was another school that had a chapel.

00:15:01.000 They prayed.

00:15:02.000 And they said, hey, look, we allow everybody.

00:15:04.000 We're for diversity.

00:15:05.000 We're for all these different things.

00:15:08.000 And they said, well, no, you're, you know, so you've got this bureaucrat sitting in Maine deciding whether you're too religious or not, which is in and of itself problematic.

00:15:16.000 This could have national ramifications.

00:15:18.000 It will.

00:15:19.000 And it'll come down in June and I think have a big impact.

00:15:22.000 So you wrapped up the argument, but First Liberty, you guys have other cases as well that you've won on.

00:15:28.000 And you have this Navy SEAL case.

00:15:29.000 Is that right?

00:15:30.000 Very important case.

00:15:31.000 35 Navy SEALs, over 350 years of combat service.

00:15:36.000 What are they arguing on?

00:15:39.000 They were told they have to take the vaccine.

00:15:41.000 Oh, wow.

00:15:42.000 And they said, we have religious objections.

00:15:45.000 Plus, we don't put things in our body.

00:15:47.000 Okay.

00:15:48.000 What would the virus do to these guys?

00:15:50.000 Nothing.

00:15:50.000 Yeah, exactly.

00:15:51.000 Okay, a lot of them are already immune.

00:15:54.000 But there is a right under the law, including for people in the military, to ask for religious accommodation.

00:16:00.000 And that's what they did.

00:16:03.000 Because they asked, they're now being told they're going to be court-martialed.

00:16:06.000 Are you serious?

00:16:07.000 They're told they're going to take their trident away.

00:16:09.000 They were told that they might have to pay the million dollars for their training when they're thrown out of the military.

00:16:15.000 This is all bullying.

00:16:18.000 It's really an ideological purpose.

00:16:19.000 Of course it is, yes.

00:16:21.000 And of course, there's like 40,000 people in the military that this is happening to, but these are our best.

00:16:26.000 These are our elite warriors.

00:16:28.000 I think there's even more that haven't taken the vaccine though.

00:16:30.000 So this could impact everybody.

00:16:30.000 Oh, yeah.

00:16:32.000 It will set a precedent, I think, because what we're asking for is an injunction against the Department of Defense.

00:16:37.000 That's a big assistant. 0.97

00:16:38.000 You can't do this.

00:16:39.000 But they're violating the law.

00:16:39.000 It is.

00:16:42.000 There is federal law that says you have to accommodate the religious beliefs of your employees, including in the military.

00:16:50.000 And if we ever get to a point where the military thinks it doesn't have to follow the laws, we're in trouble.

00:16:57.000 So this is really important.

00:16:59.000 If they want to follow the law and see if they can accommodate, but they're just flaunting it.

00:17:04.000 They've acknowledged that they have granted no exemptions over the past few years for religious accommodation, despite the fact the law requires it.

00:17:14.000 It's really just kind of an arrogance and an abusiveness that they think they can get away with.

00:17:20.000 So where does this one stand?

00:17:22.000 We filed in federal court.

00:17:24.000 We're in federal court in Fort Worth.

00:17:27.000 We'll be before a federal judge next Monday, the 20th of December.

00:17:33.000 We're going to ask for an injunction.

00:17:35.000 I hope we'll get a decision by the end of the year.

00:17:37.000 And I hope that by the end of the year, we will have an injunction against the Department of Defense that not only protects these 35 CEOs, these, I mean, think of the idea of throwing these guys out of the military.

00:17:49.000 These are our best.

00:17:50.000 Over what?

00:17:52.000 I mean, over something that won't affect them that most of them have already had.

00:17:56.000 And just because they ask a religious question.

00:17:59.000 Meanwhile, they're the ones that are dodging bullets and like holding their breath for six months.

00:18:03.000 Some of them have PTSD.

00:18:03.000 Yes.

00:18:04.000 Yes.

00:18:05.000 They have all kinds of issues that they've suffered for us.

00:18:08.000 So, but not only will this, if we get the injunction, not only will it do a great thing for them, the 35 of them, but it will really impact all these other people who are right now being bullied.

00:18:20.000 They're being told they're going to be dishonorably discharged.

00:18:23.000 They've been told they're going to lose their pension.

00:18:25.000 Like example, our lawyer on staff, top military lawyer in the country, Mike Berry.

00:18:32.000 Mike has been told, he's in three years, his pension best.

00:18:36.000 He is still in the reserves.

00:18:37.000 He was a Marine, still is a Marine.

00:18:39.000 He's a Marine and still serves in reserve.

00:18:41.000 They're going to take away his pension.

00:18:43.000 They're going to kick him out.

00:18:44.000 They're going to do all this stuff.

00:18:45.000 Why?

00:18:46.000 He's had it.

00:18:47.000 He's immune.

00:18:47.000 Wow.

00:18:48.000 The guy's the healthiest guy you've ever seen.

00:18:51.000 His doctor told him, do not take the vaccine in light of your scenario.

00:18:55.000 And yet that's the kind of guy you can see the kind of bullying that's happening to, I mean, 40,000 people in our military right now.

00:19:03.000 This will affect all of them.

00:19:05.000 So what other cases are you guys working through?

00:19:07.000 Probably one of the biggest ones that's sitting at the Supreme Court right now or waiting to decide if they take or not is the Coach Kennedy case.

00:19:13.000 Is that the one from Washington?

00:19:14.000 Yeah, Washington.

00:19:15.000 Is that the one who prayed that Neil that 50-yard line or something?

00:19:19.000 That's right.

00:19:19.000 He was a Marine for 20 years, saw this movie, Facing the Giants, before he went to work, which is about Christians and coaching.

00:19:26.000 And it just convicted him that after every game, I'm going to go to the center of the field by myself, say a 20-second silent prayer, and just thank God for the privilege of coaching these young men.

00:19:36.000 And that's what he did for seven years until they came to him and said, if you go to a knee again, we're going to fire you.

00:19:43.000 And he's a Marine, and he's like, what kind of example am I going to be for these kids?

00:19:46.000 So he went to a knee.

00:19:48.000 And they fired him.

00:19:48.000 Wow.

00:19:50.000 And unfortunately for him, he lives in the Ninth Circuit, which is out of San Francisco.

00:19:55.000 And they said coaches are not allowed to pray in public if anybody can see them.

00:20:00.000 And so we went to the Supreme Court.

00:20:02.000 Supreme Court, it was really interesting.

00:20:05.000 They didn't take it.

00:20:06.000 They said, send it back down.

00:20:07.000 There's some more facts we want to develop.

00:20:09.000 But the four conservatives at the time, this is before Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a very unusual statement.

00:20:15.000 Usually you don't respond to what's called a CERT request.

00:20:19.000 They said, we find this very disturbing.

00:20:22.000 And they kind of flagged it, saying when this comes back up, we were going to watch this.

00:20:28.000 It went back down, back up.

00:20:30.000 The Ninth Circuit made it worse.

00:20:32.000 Not only did they say, yes, we're not going to allow coaches to pray in public, but the guy who wrote the majority opinion for the liberals, and by the way, there were 11 dissents.

00:20:42.000 So we had a lot of judges on our side.

00:20:46.000 He ended the opinion by saying that his religion, the judge's religion, was that you shouldn't pray in public.

00:20:53.000 And then he castigated Coach Kennedy for doing so.

00:20:56.000 I'm like, now, what is that?

00:20:58.000 That's bizarre.

00:20:59.000 Since when does a federal judge say, you don't have my religion, and so I'm going to discriminate against you?

00:21:04.000 Did he really say that?

00:21:05.000 He did.

00:21:05.000 So his religion was not a religion or something?

00:21:08.000 His, yeah, that Coach Kennedy was doing wrong.

00:21:10.000 The two things that I thought were so incredible that were added to already what was going on was that, was that, well, you really should pray in public if you're a religious person and then trying to put his religious beliefs on Coach Kennedy.

00:21:22.000 But the other was they said that Coach Kennedy was, quote, pugilistic, meaning a fighter, that somehow it's inappropriate when you're fired to bring a lawsuit because that shows you're kind of a troublemaker.

00:21:34.000 Oh, that's the ninth.

00:21:36.000 That's the Ninth Circuit's argument.

00:21:37.000 So I'm sure our founders are so enlightened that if you actually assert your constitutional right Luther King, you should somehow have them taken away if you assert that. 0.61

00:21:46.000 That's the ninth argument.

00:21:48.000 Anyone who files lawsuits doesn't deserve a fair hearing.

00:21:52.000 And so update now, we filed our brief in the Supreme Court asking them to take it.

00:21:57.000 So Gorsuch Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, they're keeping an eye on it.

00:22:01.000 And all they need is four, right?

00:22:03.000 They take it.

00:22:04.000 The other side, the school district, has now hired outside counsel.

00:22:08.000 Guess who they've hired?

00:22:09.000 Perkins Cooey.

00:22:10.000 No.

00:22:11.000 The Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a left-wing atheist organization to represent the school district against Coach Kennedy.

00:22:19.000 Wow.

00:22:20.000 And so this is becoming quite an interesting.

00:22:23.000 But let's walk through this, Kelly.

00:22:25.000 So nowhere in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

00:22:28.000 Nope.

00:22:29.000 It was a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1803 to the Danbury Baptist Convention.

00:22:33.000 Yes.

00:22:33.000 And that's even taken out of context.

00:22:35.000 But this idea of separation, church, and state first really started to come in either the Warren Court or the Burger Court.

00:22:40.000 That's right.

00:22:41.000 Talk a little bit about the case called the Lemon case that really sort of put this in into the law.

00:22:50.000 What the Constitution says is Congress, this is the First Amendment.

00:22:54.000 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 0.51

00:23:00.000 We didn't want there to be an established national church like in England. 0.65

00:23:04.000 And so that's why they put that in there.

00:23:05.000 But in 1971, the Warren Court said, oh, no, no, no.

00:23:10.000 It means more than that.

00:23:12.000 Separation of church and state. 0.89

00:23:13.000 It means separation of church and state.

00:23:15.000 So for the last time they quoted that from Jefferson.

00:23:17.000 Yes.

00:23:18.000 Who didn't even write the U.S. Constitution.

00:23:19.000 Right.

00:23:20.000 He was out of the country when they were writing the First Amendment.

00:23:23.000 Enjoying wine and doing all sorts of things.

00:23:25.000 So it was just something they threw out there, but it became what they used to really create a hostility to religion by the government.

00:23:34.000 So our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes that have a menorah before Hanukkah, A Ten Commandments monument, a religious symbol.

00:23:47.000 Why?

00:23:48.000 Because the founders would have had any problem with those things?

00:23:51.000 No.

00:23:52.000 Because they had abused the establishment clause and created this hostility to religion.

00:23:56.000 So what we did two years ago is we had that Bladensburg cross case. 0.50

00:24:00.000 Yeah, that was a big one.

00:24:01.000 And this is a cross that was put up 100 years ago by mothers who lost their sons in World War I and the American Legion.

00:24:08.000 And they said at the Court of Appeals, Federal Court of Appeals, two Obama judges said unconstitutional after 100 years.

00:24:14.000 To have the cross at the National Cemetery?

00:24:16.000 No, it was outside of D.C. in Bladensburg, Maryland.

00:24:20.000 Was it federal property or something?

00:24:22.000 It was originally American Legion property, but because they built roads around it, the state of Maryland took over the land just for safety.

00:24:29.000 And then they said we have to tear it down.

00:24:31.000 And they're like, we don't tear down veterans' memorials.

00:24:34.000 I mean, if we're going to do this, we're going to have to go in the tomb of the unknown soldiers and erase known but to God off the tomb.

00:24:41.000 We're going to have to take down all kinds of crosses.

00:24:43.000 Oh, the atheists will do that next. 1.00

00:24:45.000 They would. 1.00

00:24:46.000 And so we said, this is not right.

00:24:49.000 So we went to the Supreme Court.

00:24:50.000 And by now, we were at the Supreme Court.

00:24:52.000 We looked.

00:24:53.000 Kavanaugh was there.

00:24:54.000 Gorsuch was there.

00:24:56.000 We said, you know, we might have five votes to get rid of this old Lemon case.

00:25:00.000 And so we argued, you know, not only preserve the memorial, it's time to get rid of Lemon, this hostility to religion.

00:25:07.000 So where does that stand?

00:25:08.000 We won.

00:25:09.000 You got rid of Lemon?

00:25:10.000 We won the case 7-2.

00:25:12.000 5-4, the justices said we're not following Lemon, which was huge.

00:25:17.000 So for 50 years, we've gone in this hostility.

00:25:20.000 So when was all this?

00:25:21.000 That was two years ago, two years ago, June.

00:25:23.000 So it has, so is Lemon now in question?

00:25:27.000 All the lower courts say, quote, Lemon is dead because of this opinion.

00:25:31.000 And it's changing all the presumptions in the lower court decisions.

00:25:35.000 I'm seeing a theme here, which is the court reconsidering Roe versus Wade, court reconsidering Lemon.

00:25:40.000 There were some super radical decisions made by a bunch of postmodern, secular, progressive, John Dewey types in the 60s and 70s that are now getting a fresh constitutional look.

00:25:53.000 Is that right?

00:25:53.000 That's right.

00:25:55.000 The way I put it is, it's kind of like the Continental Divide.

00:25:57.000 It was raining on this side.

00:25:59.000 It just changed, and it's now raining on the other side.

00:26:02.000 Yes.

00:26:03.000 That might not look very big, but that water is going to a very different place.

00:26:08.000 Wow.

00:26:08.000 When you put originalists in there, and look, you might disagree with a lot of their opinions, but this is the first time in 80 years we've had a majority of justices who think their job is to look to the original meaning of the text.

00:26:21.000 Yes.

00:26:22.000 The Constitution, the statute.

00:26:24.000 It's not what we feel is best.

00:26:26.000 It's not the evolving Constitution.

00:26:28.000 It's what is the original meaning?

00:26:30.000 The Anthony Kennedy thing.

00:26:31.000 Yes.

00:26:32.000 What is the original meaning?

00:26:33.000 Well, there is no Roe v. Wade in the Constitution.

00:26:36.000 There's nothing about abortion in the Constitution.

00:26:39.000 There is nothing about separation of church and state and this hostility to religion approach.

00:26:44.000 So they're going away from what people feel or what they said about what they feel to what does the Constitution say?

00:26:51.000 And this is because of political victories.

00:26:54.000 Let's make no mistake, right? 0.66

00:26:55.000 I know that you're a C3.

00:26:56.000 We're a C3, but also just looking at it as it is, not taking a position, if it wasn't for the surprise election of Donald Trump.

00:27:03.000 No doubt.

00:27:04.000 There's no way you could connect those two together.

00:27:06.000 He's the first candidate who has ever run for office on the issue of judges.

00:27:11.000 Yes.

00:27:11.000 And did so successfully and fulfilled them.

00:27:14.000 Totally.

00:27:15.000 He said, this is what I'm going to do.

00:27:17.000 I'm going to appoint these kind of.

00:27:19.000 I was at the meeting, a thousand evangelical and other leaders in New York meeting Donald Trump, and six of us got to ask questions.

00:27:27.000 I asked the question about judges.

00:27:29.000 I said, you say you're going to put people like Thomas and Scalia on the court, but there's hundreds of these.

00:27:36.000 How are you going to know?

00:27:38.000 How are you going to make sure and do that?

00:27:40.000 And he said, I'm going to listen to groups like yours, the Federal Society.

00:27:43.000 Leo did a great job.

00:27:44.000 Heritage, and I'm going to put, and he did it.

00:27:48.000 He put originalists, not politicians, not people who were conservative politically or whatever.

00:27:54.000 People who said, you know, that's not my job.

00:27:57.000 My job is not to be a politician.

00:27:58.000 My job is to follow what is the original meaning of the text.

00:28:03.000 And that's a huge difference between conservatives and liberals.

00:28:07.000 Liberals want to use the court for their political.

00:28:09.000 As a means to the end, yes.

00:28:10.000 Whereas conservatives, like a Justice Thomas, will say, as he did, I don't understand this anti-homosexual law.

00:28:20.000 But you know what?

00:28:21.000 My job is not to say what the public policy is.

00:28:24.000 My job is to look at the Constitution.

00:28:26.000 That's what you want: judges who won't push their politics.

00:28:29.000 They will just say, here's what the text says.

00:28:32.000 What's so interesting, Kelly, is that as the country was probably more conservative in the 60s or 70s, the court was more liberal.

00:28:32.000 Here's what it means.

00:28:39.000 And now, as the country has become a little bit more liberal or left-wing, and I think that's undeniable versus the culture of the 60s and 70s, the court has become more conservative.

00:28:48.000 Why is that?

00:28:49.000 Well, I mean, I think for a long time, the conservatives didn't pay attention to the court.

00:28:54.000 I think that's right.

00:28:55.000 And for years of my life, the Republican approach was pick somebody without a track record so they won't see how conservative they really are.

00:29:04.000 Bork kind of freaked a lot of people out, right?

00:29:07.000 Because Bork, first time he had the televised hearings of it, I think that it was Reagan that appointed Bork, right?

00:29:13.000 Is I'm not mistaken?

00:29:14.000 Yes.

00:29:14.000 I think he preemptively pulled his nomination, even though the Senate screwed up on it.

00:29:19.000 Can you talk a little bit about that?

00:29:20.000 Because Bork was a really, he was a Scalia-type scholar, wasn't he?

00:29:24.000 Yeah.

00:29:25.000 Brilliant guy, but very intellectual and looked a little creepy because he had the weird Jack Welch look, right?

00:29:32.000 Yeah, but he had facial hair going from the top all the way around.

00:29:35.000 He had this whole kind of, you know, it surprised people because it's the first time.

00:29:41.000 It was televised.

00:29:42.000 And it's the first time we ever politicized it.

00:29:45.000 Thank you, Ted Kennedy.

00:29:45.000 Yeah.

00:29:46.000 Yeah.

00:29:46.000 The judiciary.

00:29:47.000 Because what we had done before is, whether you're Democrat or Republican, you just looked at, is the person bright?

00:29:54.000 Do they have a judicial temperament where they'll be fair?

00:29:57.000 And then you just said, I know we have different philosophy.

00:30:00.000 We'll let your guy through as long as they're not crazy.

00:30:02.000 This is the first time.

00:30:03.000 But Scalia was almost unanimous through the Senate.

00:30:06.000 Yeah.

00:30:07.000 And then you had Bork, and then you had Thomas.

00:30:10.000 And we won on Thomas.

00:30:11.000 They lost on Bork.

00:30:12.000 And it was horrible what they did to Thomas.

00:30:14.000 It was all lies still to this day.

00:30:17.000 And the whole thing was so.

00:30:19.000 I just want to say something.

00:30:20.000 We have a lot of younger listeners that aren't.

00:30:22.000 I encourage all of you to research and watch the documentary on Clarence Thomas.

00:30:27.000 If you want to talk about cancel culture, Me Too, before, I'm very critical of George H.W. Bush, but he deserves credit for standing by Clarence Thomas.

00:30:36.000 Absolutely.

00:30:36.000 He could have pulled that nomination.

00:30:37.000 And it was very similar.

00:30:39.000 It was like a replay to watch Kavanaugh.

00:30:41.000 Cabino, I think, was even more unfair.

00:30:41.000 Yeah, it really was.

00:30:43.000 But that's that, I mean.

00:30:45.000 And so that's what changed there.

00:30:47.000 That's what changed.

00:30:48.000 And so as a result of that, though, with Bork, the Republicans' lesson that they learned was pick people that don't have a really clear record that we know are conservative.

00:30:57.000 Like the link in the nod.

00:30:58.000 Yeah.

00:30:59.000 Yep.

00:30:59.000 Souter.

00:31:00.000 Didn't turn out to be so familiar.

00:31:02.000 And so Alito was the change of that.

00:31:02.000 Right.

00:31:05.000 Yeah.

00:31:06.000 Bush.

00:31:06.000 Roberts was before Alito, if I'm not mistaken.

00:31:08.000 And then Bush picked Harriet Myers, his friend, and people pushed back.

00:31:08.000 Yes.

00:31:14.000 And they said, no, we want people with a strong judicial record.

00:31:18.000 So he gave up on her and he put, okay, I'll put Alito, who had one of the most extensive conservative records.

00:31:24.000 Who's been phenomenal, by the way.

00:31:26.000 And he got through.

00:31:27.000 And they went, oh, my gosh, we can actually pick somebody with the right philosophy.

00:31:32.000 And that's what really changed things at that point.

00:31:34.000 Then Obama put Sodomayor and Kagan.

00:31:36.000 Yes.

00:31:37.000 And he only, but then he wanted Merrick Garland, who's now on a revenge campaign against the American people.

00:31:37.000 Right.

00:31:42.000 And to McConnell's credit, he said, let's wait for the American people to speak.

00:31:47.000 And then we got Gorsuch, we got Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, which they never would have expected.

00:31:52.000 Three in one term.

00:31:53.000 That was a lot.

00:31:54.000 No, that was a God thing.

00:31:56.000 It was a rebalancing, like, I'm going to give you another shot type thing almost.

00:32:00.000 And so coming back to your whole point, you know, take my area of religious freedom.

00:32:07.000 I believe this really, and I've been saying this in speeches around the country.

00:32:11.000 Every American is about to have more religious freedom than they've ever had in their lifetime.

00:32:15.000 It's amazing.

00:32:16.000 And it's simply because the justices are going back to the words in the Constitution.

00:32:21.000 And the founders built this country on religious freedom.

00:32:25.000 So that in this time of darkness and attack on religion and attack on basic principles of right and wrong, it's so odd that at the same time, it's going to be a time of some of the greatest religious freedom we've seen.

00:32:39.000 And it's just the, and I do want to give credit, the conservative movement did do a good job of holding the line and focusing on judges.

00:32:48.000 Not the only thing, but it's very important.

00:32:49.000 Let me ask you about Roe versus Wade as much as you can comment on this.

00:32:53.000 Sure.

00:32:54.000 So Roe v. Wade, a reckless, unconstitutional, corrupt, I think, drive-by shooting of the Constitution that happened, which set a precedent that abortion is legal, but it was never passed by Congress.

00:33:10.000 It was never voted on by the people.

00:33:12.000 Talk a little bit about that, kind of the unconstitutional nature of it, and what exactly is being now discussed in the Dobbs v. Mississippi.

00:33:20.000 Is that right, Dobbs v. Mississippi?

00:33:21.000 That's right.

00:33:23.000 I think that's going to be a case that's as well known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

00:33:26.000 So, because that's the second chapter of Roe versus what happened with Roe is really a misuse of our system.

00:33:33.000 The way our system is supposed to work is that legislative or public policy issues are decided by the people through their representatives, the Congress, your state legislature, your federal legislature, your local officials.

00:33:48.000 They decide the moral questions that the Constitution doesn't address.

00:33:52.000 And if you don't like it, you throw them out of office and you change the law.

00:33:57.000 But what happened in Roe is five justices essentially, or six, decided what our public policy was in a backroom.

00:34:04.000 That's not how.

00:34:05.000 This is super corrupt.

00:34:07.000 It's not, everybody knows who's honest.

00:34:09.000 Read the Constitution. 0.87

00:34:10.000 There's nothing in there about abortion. 0.98

00:34:12.000 Okay.

00:34:13.000 As a result, that's an issue for the people to battle out.

00:34:17.000 And so they took this out of the hands of the people.

00:34:20.000 And they shouldn't do that.

00:34:21.000 That's not the job of justices.

00:34:23.000 That is now coming to a head, I think.

00:34:26.000 Well, it did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, right?

00:34:29.000 And then our friend Kennedy wrote the most bizarre opinion about the imaginative clause or something.

00:34:35.000 The mystery of life.

00:34:36.000 Who knows what life really is?

00:34:38.000 It's defying your own existence.

00:34:39.000 Can you talk a little bit about that?

00:34:41.000 It was one of the most bizarre.

00:34:42.000 It was this, I'm going to go be like kind of this Eastern Buddhist philosopher, if I'm not mistaken, right?

00:34:48.000 It wasn't about the Constitution.

00:34:50.000 It was, you know, he got.

00:34:52.000 I would like to say that you're not going to be able to do it.

00:34:53.000 He got to the ledge and he walked back.

00:34:56.000 Yes, he really did.

00:34:57.000 Right.

00:34:57.000 And he did the typical Kennedy style, though.

00:35:00.000 Because this was the Catholic conservative guy that's supposed to be really, really.

00:35:04.000 Who was confirmed like 92-0 or something or 97-0.

00:35:07.000 And so that's why having 6-3 now is so important.

00:35:13.000 When you're 5'4, somebody starts to lose their courage.

00:35:16.000 But when it's 6'3, it's a lot harder.

00:35:19.000 So the Dobbs case, and if people don't know what the Dobbs case is about, the Roe case just out of whole cloth, just out of nowhere, created a trimester system under the law for when the government could do.

00:35:33.000 Before the technology was even that good, by the way.

00:35:35.000 Yeah.

00:35:36.000 I mean, before we could even see the baby in the womb, basically.

00:35:39.000 And this case out of Mississippi says, no, no, you can't touch, you know, you can't touch the baby way earlier than that.

00:35:50.000 And so it was really a challenge to Roe.

00:35:52.000 And most experts who have been following this case say, really, if you uphold the law in Mississippi, you overturn Roe.

00:36:03.000 I mean, just you can't.

00:36:04.000 It doesn't mean it outlaws abortion, though.

00:36:06.000 No, but you overturn Roe.

00:36:08.000 And so most people think it's one of two things that's going to happen here.

00:36:14.000 Either the justices are going to overturn Roe, but do it in a more soft way, right?

00:36:22.000 They'll say, we're upholding the law.

00:36:24.000 Here's our new standard.

00:36:26.000 Okay.

00:36:27.000 Or they're going to say, Roe v. Wade is overturned.

00:36:31.000 And that is the question.

00:36:34.000 But what does that mean?

00:36:35.000 That means just have that.

00:36:37.000 It means it's now back to the states if they do that.

00:36:40.000 It's now every state passes whatever law they want to pass on that.

00:36:44.000 I think it's going to happen.

00:36:45.000 Do you think that's the most plausible or likely I think after the argument, what happens is, by the way, we didn't talk about this earlier.

00:36:54.000 You have an argument on Wednesday, just like our argument was last Wednesday.

00:36:58.000 Friday, they go into a room by themselves, the justices, and they.

00:37:02.000 No clerks.

00:37:03.000 No clerks.

00:37:04.000 Nine of them vote.

00:37:06.000 Whoever the majority is starts writing their opinion.

00:37:08.000 Whoever the descendant is.

00:37:10.000 And then they share those things back and forth over the next month to convince people to change their vote.

00:37:14.000 But they can change their vote, right?

00:37:16.000 And all the way until probably the end of June, we'll get a decision.

00:37:20.000 If you forced them to write a decision the day after the argument, I think it would have been five justices saying Roe v. Wade is overturned.

00:37:30.000 Chief Justice Roberts saying, let's do it more subtly.

00:37:34.000 Yeah.

00:37:35.000 And then the three saying abortion is abortion is great, right?

00:37:40.000 But the question is, will Roberts, who's a very politically savvy guy, be able to convince somebody between now and June to join his more moderate way to do this?

00:37:52.000 You mean pick off like Kavanaugh or Barrett or somebody?

00:37:57.000 And I think that's his only chance.

00:37:59.000 They get the three on the other side.

00:38:00.000 Yeah, but I think it's going to be, I just can't see them not.

00:38:05.000 Well, I don't think those three are not going to budge either.

00:38:07.000 I think those three are going to move.

00:38:08.000 I think it's going to be three, three, and then the other three, where do they go?

00:38:13.000 Kavanaugh, Barrett.

00:38:15.000 Thomas isn't moving.

00:38:17.000 No, Thomas isn't moving.

00:38:18.000 Alito is not moving.

00:38:19.000 Gorsuch is not moving.

00:38:21.000 And so the question is, right now, there's Barrett and Kavanaugh, I think, are with them.

00:38:25.000 I think you're right.

00:38:26.000 And can Roberts pick one off and you end up with this sort of 3-3-3 decision or four?

00:38:32.000 So what you're really articulating, Kelly, is the unknown of Amy Coney Barrett.

00:38:36.000 Yeah, and Kavanaugh.

00:38:39.000 I mean, I think you know a lot about Kavanaugh, for instance, on religious freedom.

00:38:44.000 Same with Gorsuch.

00:38:46.000 But when it comes to this, this is new.

00:38:50.000 You haven't seen a lot of opinions here.

00:38:52.000 But I think if you watched what was going on in the argument, Kavanaugh and Barrett are really strong.

00:38:58.000 And if you'll remember, Kavanaugh made the point in the argument to say, hey, look, if we overrule Roe, all we're doing is being neutral by letting everybody else decide.

00:39:08.000 Boy, is that a move of the Overton window, though?

00:39:10.000 That's a big, I mean, that's a strong situation.

00:39:12.000 To say that out loud as a Supreme Court justice, I mean, all of a sudden you have the National, you had Nate Rawl and Planned Parenthood and the reproductive.

00:39:19.000 They said, how have we lost this over the last 50 years?

00:39:22.000 You know what I mean?

00:39:24.000 For one Supreme Court justice to say that is a big deal, let alone that to become a majority.

00:39:31.000 That goes to show the work you're doing, Kelly, and the conservative legal work has been one of the untold successes, I think, of the last 30 years.

00:39:39.000 I really believe that.

00:39:41.000 It hasn't obviously been enough, but without it, I don't know where we'd be.

00:39:45.000 I would say what's really fun for me, I've been doing this for 32 years, and religious freedom, we're just at the beginning of a new renaissance, right?

00:39:53.000 Yeah.

00:39:54.000 I mean, it's so exciting.

00:39:55.000 But I will say this behind all of this, part of the reason this is all happening is because younger people are more pro-life.

00:40:03.000 Yes, I agree with that.

00:40:04.000 I mean, we were losing the battle back in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.

00:40:09.000 But what's happened is politically, I totally agree.

00:40:13.000 We're a pro-life country now.

00:40:14.000 So look at the Yunkin race where they ran a ton of ads against him for being pro-life. 0.77

00:40:20.000 No one cared.

00:40:21.000 Most people didn't care.

00:40:22.000 And those who did were pro-life.

00:40:25.000 That's right.

00:40:26.000 So it's not, I think when that politics is underneath, it makes it easier for you.

00:40:31.000 Yeah, Hamilton predicted this, that the judges are human beings.

00:40:35.000 Yes.

00:40:36.000 And they are going to go the way of pressure. 0.90

00:40:38.000 And you saw that in the gay marriage thing. 0.91

00:40:40.000 Yes.

00:40:41.000 That 90% of the country was not upset with the gay marriage decision. 0.57

00:40:46.000 Now, they should have been considering what it did with the state's rights component of it, but they use the same playbook from Roe. 0.70

00:40:52.000 FirstLiberty.org, is that right?

00:40:54.000 FirstLiberty.org.

00:40:55.000 How could people help you?

00:40:55.000 What else do you have coming up?

00:40:56.000 You're doing such amazing work, Kelly.

00:40:58.000 I can talk to you all day long.

00:40:59.000 That was a lot of fun.

00:41:00.000 We have endless cases, so we can go on.

00:41:03.000 The best thing they can do is just get the weekly update.

00:41:07.000 That could be one of our insider updates.

00:41:09.000 So firstliberty.org.org, and they can sign up there.

00:41:12.000 And that way, when the SEALs case comes down, they can tell other people, because most people don't know about all these victories we're doing.

00:41:20.000 So let's say right now we have a lot of people listening.

00:41:22.000 Let's say that they are a Marine or they're working in the Army.

00:41:25.000 That SEALs case could impact them.

00:41:27.000 It's huge.

00:41:28.000 It's huge.

00:41:28.000 And let's say they know somebody about to lose their job because of the vaccine mail.

00:41:33.000 We have plenty of listeners.

00:41:34.000 Well, you go to our website at firstliberty.org.

00:41:37.000 There's a kit that lays out, here's what the law is, whatever your situation.

00:41:41.000 Here's an example exemption form.

00:41:43.000 90% of the people that just follow that, they get exempt.

00:41:47.000 They keep their job, their career is safe.

00:41:49.000 But a lot of people just don't know.

00:41:51.000 So maybe the person watching this isn't that person, but I bet they know somebody.

00:41:56.000 So just First Liberty has all those kinds of resources for people to let them know what their rights are because people aren't bold when they don't know their rights and they don't know we're winning.

00:42:06.000 But when they see that, and that's why I would tell your folks, be the Paul or Paula Revere to like encourage other people to be bold, to speak out, to stand for our freedoms.

00:42:17.000 Our cases will, I think, help people do that.

00:42:19.000 Do a great job.

00:42:21.000 Firstliberty.org.

00:42:22.000 Thanks, Kelly.

00:42:23.000 Thank you.

00:42:23.000 Appreciate it.

00:42:26.000 Thanks so much for listening, everybody.

00:42:27.000 Email us your thoughts.

00:42:28.000 Freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:42:30.000 See you at AmericaFest and Fest.com.

00:42:32.000 God bless you guys.

00:42:33.000 See you soon.

00:42:36.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - December 18, 2021

A 21st Century Renaissance of Religious Liberty with Kelly Shackelford

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript