The Constitution is constant. There's not one elected official who has the power to change it. There is a way to amend the Constitution, and the Constitution spells out the procedures that must be taken to change it. Presidents cannot. Now, I know this is gonna shock many of you in the low-information community.

Remember back in the nineties, a bunch of Democrats decided to tax luxury items, including yachts? They figured it was not fair that some people could afford yachts, and so since they could, they said, "We're gonna tax the hell out of yachts at the point of sale, 'cause it's not fair. We need to collect revenue from all this!" What happened was that the people who actually build the yachts lost their jobs because people stopped buying them.

My point, they [Trump's followers] still don't care. They're going to stick with him no matter what.

What [Donald] Trump is saying is the pope will pray for Trump as president because Trump is gonna be the only guy trying to stop ISIS, which wants to take out the Vatican. It is. It is quite a curious thing.

Back in 1980, the conservative movement was all-in for Ronald Reagan. Once Reagan won, they all wanted to be on the team. It was a landslide. Everybody wants to bask in that glow. And then as the Reagan years began, then the Republicans, certain members of the party began to individually fall out and start talking about problems they had, secretly telling the media they thought Reagan was a dunce and a danger to world peace, adopting the Democrat line that Reagan's finger on the nuclear button couldn't be trusted.

The United States, in people's perverted minds, is responsible for all the destitution and all the poverty and all the victimization around the world and it is our responsibility to let all of these people in precisely because it's our fault they exist as they do.

You are the antithesis of a racist if you're white and you want to be black and you go out and do everything you can to identify as black, how in the world can they condemn that? That's not fraud. That's good intentions. And as we know, as we've learned, we are supposed to examine the good intentions and not the nature of the evidence.