All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 3, 2020 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:15
How We Got Here and What Happens Next with Speaker New Gingrich
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Newt Gingrich Joins The Show 00:02:08
Thank you for listening to this podcast one production.
Now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast One, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcast.
Hey, everybody.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we are joined by the Speaker of the House, the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest, wisest people in the country and in the conservative movement.
Newt Gingrich joins us to talk about Trump, America, and so much more.
Please consider supporting our program at charliekirk.com/slash support, charliekirk.com/slash support.
If you guys want to get behind the work that we are doing here on the Charlie Kirk Show, two podcasts every weekday, one every weekend, CharlieKirk.com/slash support.
Newt Gingrich is here, everybody.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
We are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
But I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job.
We are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
Hey, everybody.
Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
I am so thrilled and thankful to be joined by someone that I have learned so much from throughout the years, Speaker Newt Gingrich.
And Mr. Gingrich, thank you so much for joining the Charlie Kirk Show.
You have a new book called Trump and the American Future: Solving the Great Problems of Our Time.
Please tell us why you wrote this book.
And also, I think it's pretty timely considering the upcoming election.
Well, yeah, it occurred to me late last year that the way the Democrats were moving to the left, this would be the biggest choice since Lincoln in 1864 ran for reelection against somebody who was willing to surrender to the South, break up the Union, and preserve slavery.
And when I look at where Trump is trying to take the country in terms of jobs and free enterprise and conservative judges and a strong pro-American trade and defense policy, and then I look at where a Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer team would take the country, I just think it's the biggest gap we've seen, certainly in the last 160 years.
Democrats Split Over Welfare Reform 00:03:32
So I wanted to write a book that sort of armed our side and said, here are the facts, here's the context, here's what you can say to people who aren't sure.
And I think Trump and the American Future really lays out the big issues, some of them, frankly, a little scary.
I mean, we finished the book in March, and we have a section in there on the Democrats' willingness to support crime and oppose the police.
And that chapter now is coming alive every evening.
So I look at stuff like that, and I think we sort of caught the big underlying river that's coming down our way in terms of left-wingism and the world they would create if they could.
So in the 1990s, you balanced the budget and worked with Bill Clinton and the Democrats to accomplish serious reforms that helped our country.
It seems as if today it's no longer that we can cooperate with Democrats.
We have no choice but to defeat them and to basically repudiate their awful ideas.
Can you give us some idea of what happened since the 1990s to now with the Democrat Party?
I think Ronald Reagan in the 80s created a national consensus.
And people have forgotten, but Bill Clinton helped organize a centrist group of Democrats and really ran as a centrist Democrat, much as Tony Blair would do with the Labor Party in Great Britain.
So basically, I mean, one of the key themes of the Clinton campaign was ending welfare as we know it.
Now, it was worded cleverly.
So if you're a liberal, you thought that meant more money.
If you're a conservative, you thought it meant less.
But nonetheless, it was indicating people were tired of things.
In the 90s, we were a period, for example, where out of sheer desperation with crime, New Yorkers turned to Rudy Giuliani.
And in the most successful reform crime that I know of in history, within two years, he begun to bring the murder rate down dramatically.
So I think what happened was we existed at a moment when for about half the Democratic Party, and when we did welfare reform, we split the Democratic Party 101 to 101 in the House, literally half.
For about half the Democratic Party plus the Democratic president, there was a common ground that had been created by Reagan that they could negotiate with us on.
For the other half of the Democratic Party, who came to hate Clinton because they saw him as a total sellout, they were rapidly opposed to us, deeply, bitterly, but they weren't the president and they weren't big enough to stop us.
I think what happened was the Gore-Bush election of 2000 left a lot of liberals thinking that Gore had really won because he had a plurality of the vote, but did not win the Electoral College, almost like 2016.
And then Bush ran a very brass knuckles campaign against Kerry in 2004.
And that left a bad taste among Democrats.
And they nominated somebody who on the surface was very reasonable.
And this was one of the things where I think all of us just frankly made a big mistake.
Barack Obama was a neighborhood organizer, which we joked about.
But in fact, in the language of the left, the neighborhood organizer is the radical who is organizing, much like Antifa or Black Lives Matter.
I mean, it's really part of a Marxist construct.
Obama As A Neighborhood Organizer 00:03:27
And the only person in 2008 who really understood this was Sean Hannity because he'd read all the key books.
He knew where Obama was coming from.
So what has happened is Obama carried the Democrats further and further to the left.
And then on election night 2016, which I know you remember vividly, at 8 o'clock in the evening, the Democrats were icing the champagne.
They were going to break the glass ceiling.
They were going to elect a woman president.
And two hours later, they suddenly realized that Donald Trump was going to be president.
Those two hours were the equivalent of an IED in Iraq.
The left suddenly had the equivalent of PTSD.
And every morning when they would get awake, Trump would tweet to remind them that he had won.
And it just drove them crazy.
So you're now dealing with basically a crazy people.
Watch Pelosi for a while.
I mean, Schumer's not exactly crazy.
He's too laid back, and he's a New York machine politician.
But Pelosi really represents San Francisco, just as Kamala Harris really represents San Francisco.
And if you watch Pelosi at Times, she's just Looney Tunes.
I mean, she represents a different planet.
I don't know if you did this.
I watched Mayor Wheeler, Portland, the other night.
And I just wrote a newsletter at Ganglish 360 entitled The Democrats are the Lion King Party.
Because if you watch them, whether it's in foreign policy or it's at home, they don't believe predators exist.
They think lions and zebras and warthogs are supposed to get along together and sing together and dance together.
And if you watch Wheeler, after 94 consecutive days of violence, having had a Trump supporter killed in cold blood, and the strongest he can do is pathetically appeal to people, please don't be violent.
And I watched and I thought, this is sort of the end of the left as the defender of Western civilization.
So, Mr. Speaker, in 2012, when you were running for the presidency, I was a senior in high school and I was watching C-SPAN, and you said something repeatedly.
You said Barack Obama is an Alinskyite.
And you said it, and you might remember it made a lot of news because it really bothered the mainstream media because you were unafraid to call him out for what he was.
I'd never heard the term before, but then I looked up Saul Linsky and I ended up reading Rules for Radicals.
You were one of the few people that introduced this idea of Alinskyite tactics into the mainstream of conservative thinking.
I think that's been a really significant contribution because when I visit Tea Party groups or Republican groups, almost everyone has an understanding of Saul Linsky.
My question, though, is: do you think that because of how individuals like Mayor Wheeler and Nancy Pelosi are no longer hiding their radicalism?
Do you think that Alinskyite tactics are now being put by the wayside?
Because the Saul Linsky way of approaching things would not being say, he would never say get rid of Mount Rushmore.
He'd never say get rid of the American flag.
He would say, disguise yourself as something as who you're not, slick back your hair, take over the institutions, and then you can do those things.
Do you think that there's some tension right now between the radicalism that's revealing itself and the prior Alinskyite tactics that was more of a camouflage for communism?
Alinskyite Tactics In Politics 00:07:40
Well, I mean, first of all, I do want to go back and repeat.
I got it from Sean Hannity, who was the first person.
And when he first said it, I thought it was nuts.
And he kept going on and on about the relationship that Obama had with Bill Ayers, who'd been a weatherman, who had set bombs and tried to kill people, who actually on 9-11 was quoted as saying his only regret was he hadn't set more bombs.
I mean, so Sean really got the rhythm of this thing.
And I went about exploring it some more.
And I'd known about Alinsky for many years.
And by the way, Hillary Clinton's senior paper was on Alinsky, and she was a very close personal friend of Alinsky.
So it's easy to forget how deep the radicalism of the Chicago left was.
I think two things have happened.
I think among the senior Democrats, there's a kind of desperation that four more years of Trump will come very close to ending their world.
I mean, four more years.
He's already got almost 300 federal judges.
So four more years of judges, four more years of tax cuts, four more years of a pro-American trade and defense policy.
Trump in the second term will be much more aggressively pro-American in terms of history and cleaning up the universities.
And I think they sense all this.
So at the older level, they're desperate.
I think at the younger level, they have victory disease.
What's happened to them is, you know, you're a 20 to 35-year-old radical.
You can run all over Seattle, and the mayor says it's going to be a summer of love.
You run all over Portland, and the mayor begs you to be nice while you're running over people and destroying their places.
Huge shock just three days ago, the police in Kenosha picked up three vehicles from Seattle that had driven to Kenosha.
They were actually at a gas station filling up containers of gasoline so they could go out that night and start fires all over the city.
And they arrested all of them.
They were all Antifa.
And in fact, of the people who've been arrested so far in Kenosha, I think 44 different states are represented.
And so what you're seeing is a younger generation of very hardline, almost like the young Nazis or young communists in the 30s, who are willfully out there trying to destroy things.
These are the people who were trying to attack Senator Rand Paul the other night.
I mean, these are people who, frankly, are stunningly dangerous physically.
And then there's the older crowd who really, this is their last stand, and they also don't have any choice.
I mean, you couldn't go in.
The Democrats for life tried to have a caucus meeting at the convention and were told no.
I mean, if you went and said, I'd like to have a pro-police caucus at the Democratic National Convention, they'd have just said, you know, you're in the wrong party.
Why are you bothering us?
Go join the Republicans.
And what you're putting so well is the lack of discipline amongst some of the younger revolutionaries and some of the last stand of the Schumer-Pelosi kind of wing of the party, where you are correct that if Trump does win four more years, people are predicting endless violence.
I think that there might be some unrest immediately, but I'm of the opinion that it actually might be a deathblow to the left, the likes of which we haven't seen in quite some time, because they've so overextended themselves on a referendum of the president politically that another four years, I think that it will really deflate them and cause a Democrat civil war that is long overdue, which is what I want to ask you about.
What do you make about these kind of coalition of Democrat groups that quite honestly have very little in common with each other, such as the corporate wing of the Democrat Party that is playing nice with the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Casio-Cortez wing of the party?
I'm of the opinion the sooner we can get them to have them fight amongst themselves, it's actually going to be much healthier for our country.
One of the few reasons as to why the president, I think, has a more difficult road to reelection than he should is because of how unified the entire left has been towards defeating him, when in reality, the Democrat Party is really more ideologically fractured than the Republican Party.
Do you think there's something we make of that?
I mean, first of all, I think you're right.
I think it's a coalition with very, very different interests.
I also think that it's essentially the anti-Trump Party.
I mean, you saw this happen with Andrew Jackson in the 1820s and 1830s, where he was such a disruptive and such a polarizing figure that everybody who didn't like him joined the Whigs.
And the Whigs grew up actually in response to Jackson and then disappeared in the 1850s.
So I think that what you have is a party currently being held together by Donald Trump, ironically.
And I think that they will break up a lot.
If Trump gets re-elected, especially if, as a consequence of that re-election, Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker and we pick up a couple seats in the Senate, which I think is very likely.
At that point, I think for sort of the corporate types and for the more traditional politicians, reality will set in and they'll try to find some way to accommodate the president.
I mean, Trump coming into a second term, understanding Washington dramatically better than he did in 2016, with a cabinet already in place, with a senior staff at the White House already in place, he will be very formidable.
And these guys are mostly timid and cowards.
I mean, money, there's an old story that money is a coward and will always flee when threatened.
And so I think you'll suddenly see all these corporate CEOs try to find a way to get along with Trump.
I think, on the other hand, a Trump victory would derange the younger radicals.
I mean, if you remember, the day after his inaugural, you ended up with Madonna saying that she dreams of seeing the White House blown up.
Now, you know, I can't quite imagine what they'll say if they wake up the morning at the election and Trump has been re-elected.
But for the hardline radicals, I suspect they'll take to the streets and they'll go down fighting.
This has been a continuation of the Occupy Wall Street.
There's been a long cycle here that people tend to forget.
And I think that they would almost be beside themselves.
It would resemble the Samurai charges of 1868, where they preferred dying to giving up their swords.
And I think these people would all go into the street and have a great last stand for left-wing radicalism.
And so in your book, you devote a lot of chapters, a couple of chapters, and a lot of space to healthcare.
And I think this is something the Republican Party has gotten so, I don't want to say wrong.
I just think that they're either contradictory or they don't understand the issue very well.
I'm just going to give you one personal frustration.
One of the reasons why you were able to win back the House in the 90s is you ran on very specific promises to the American people of a contract with America.
Why House Republicans don't do that now is beyond me.
A lot of people think in terms of lists.
Maybe you can offer some insight or some wisdom.
I tell them every time I see the leadership in the Republican Party, I say, did you not learn anything in the 90s?
Fighting Pro-Market Health Reforms 00:14:45
Can you just comment on that and then segue into the healthcare portion of your book?
Yeah, I mean, the answer to that's no.
Parties are large cultural institutions and they don't change very fast.
Reagan came along, showed them how to do it, and they promptly forgot.
I came along and showed them how to do it again, and they promptly forgot.
And Trump has come along, and they've split into those who bitterly resent him and those who follow him but don't necessarily understand why they're applauding.
But that's the nature of big institutions like this.
It takes a long time to shift them.
Look, I believe we should be for a patient-centered, customer-style, market-oriented health system.
And we ought to say it bluntly, directly, aggressively, which means one of the things I'm most passionate about is transparency of cost.
You have every right to know what your back operation is going to cost as you do to walk into Walmart and know what a TV is going to cost.
And if we had a system where you went all the way through Walmart and not knowing any prices and you didn't learn the price until you checked out and you couldn't, by the way, return anything, people would think it was insane.
But you have a conspiracy between doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, medical technology companies to block the individual from knowing accurately what it's going to cost them.
We believe that one change, allowing you to know what your health care is going to cost, probably would take 40% out of the system.
You think it's that big a deal.
And Cynthia Fisher is someone I've been working with on the price transparency.
I know that you know her.
What's been really interesting, though, Mr. Speaker, and I'd love to have your opinion on this, and you kind of touched on it, is the forces that are fighting against this very common sense pro-market reform.
I'm a Milton Friedman guy, but one thing that Milton Friedman talked about is the need for a price system.
If you don't know prices, a market is not truly a market.
Everyone's just flying blind, and there's a lack of information there.
What do you have to say to some of the people that are saying that some of the reforms you're proposing are anti-free market?
It's more government interference.
I don't hold that view, but that is something that some of the strict libertarians say towards us when we're trying to put forth these transparency reforms.
Well, I think they're crazy.
I mean, how can you argue that having contracts which guarantee secrecy is in any way in the public interest?
And they can say, well, the market would work.
No, that's the whole point.
This is an anti-market system of oligopolies, huge hospitals, huge insurance companies, huge medical technology companies.
You know, the medical technology company signs a contract with a hospital that insists that the price is secret.
Now, why should I mean, that's not libertarianism.
That is a, you know, Adam Smith said at one point: anytime a group of businessmen get together, it's a conspiracy against the consumer.
I am a consumer-oriented free market guy.
I am not a producer-oriented free market guy.
I want the consumer to have the widest range of choices, and then the producer's got to go out there and work hard and invent in order to earn the participation of the consumer.
And I think it's very important for us to understand the difference of the two.
You have every right to know, and frankly, the same thing goes for surprise billing, where you think everything's paid for, but oh, they didn't tell you this is a true story.
They didn't tell you the anesthesiologist wasn't part of the package.
Here's a $6,000 bill.
You know, well, the president's been pretty good about this.
They haven't put it together into a really easy-to-communicate strategy.
And I would say that Cynthia Fisher is one of the people who has moved the ball further than almost anybody else on this topic.
And I think when you ask the American people, it's like 88% of the country thinks they ought to have the right to know.
I totally agree with that.
And so, some people, and I think there's a divide happening, and I think this population is very small, and it's mostly focused in Washington, D.C., at very well-funded think tanks that probably have financial relationships with these companies that are pushing for it.
Because I can't really find any sort of public interest or consumer advocacy argument to say that when someone walks into the emergency room, I've had this experience recently, there are no posted prices.
I travel quite a lot, so I'm out of network, and then I get some sort of a bill a couple weeks later.
As you said, that is so extreme that you almost are less likely to go into a hospital, and you're less likely to even go into the healthcare network.
And you probably got a bill you couldn't read.
That's correct.
Which has so much.
I needed to hire a lawyer to help me understand that.
Right.
Exactly.
No, look, and I think this has been part of, I've done a lot on healthcare since 1974 when I first ran for Congress.
I wrote a book called Saving Lives and Saving Money.
I founded the Center for Health Transformation.
And I absolutely believe, I was shocked when I left the speakership.
I decided I would focus on national security and on health because they're both life and death and they're both very big and complex.
I was shocked after the first two years to realize that the biggest impediment to health reform is the health system.
And that it's a whole range of different things, but that who you're ultimately really fighting with are the people who have a pretty good deal.
The multi-million dollar hospital administrator.
That's right.
I mean, anybody, I had Betsy McCoy on my podcast a couple of weeks ago, former Lieutenant Governor of New York, brilliant woman.
And she was commenting on the impact of the New York Hospital Association lobbyist on Governor Cuomo's decision to put senior citizens in nursing homes who were already infected, which probably killed between 6,000 and 12,000 senior citizens.
She said it was entirely corrupt.
It was basically taking care of the hospital association who has the highest paid lobbyists in New York.
And so I would say to my libertarian friends: you know, in the real world, the fact is the game is currently rigged by the big boys against the average American in health.
And the left's answer is to add a layer of bureaucracy.
And the rights answer ought to be to give you the power for you to know what you're going to get and what you're going to pay.
I totally agree with that.
And I think it also resonates with younger voters as well.
When I talk about health care, I think it's a much better option, obviously, than socialized Medicare for all.
And so here's my question, Mr. Speaker, is as we're talking about these issues to challenge kind of the corporate interests on behalf of the consumer and being able to effectuate that change, something we run into is how much power these corporations have in being able to influence politicians and bureaucrats.
For example, the president signs an executive order for price transparency within a moment's notice.
The hospital is suing him and putting him into the courts.
Would you advocate at all in any sort of campaign finance reform or being able to have at least some sort of changes in how our politicians' elections are funded?
And I only say this because some of these very simple ideas seem to be nearly impossible to put forth legislatively because of how much the capital flow from these special interests towards the legislative process.
I think this is an area where the cure is continuously worse than the disease, because you have to set up some kind of a rig system, which you then have to have the government enforce.
And then you have smart people who figure out how to get around the system.
I've always said, for example, that the easiest election reform is to allow anyone to accept any amount of personal or corporate money under the Citizens United rule directly into your campaign, as long as you report it that night.
I totally agree.
So on the internet, and my reasoning is middle-class candidates could raise the money to defeat rich people, but they can't do it if they're limited to $2,500 or $2,700 a donation.
And the rich person can write a $20 million, or in the case of Bloomberg, $200 million check.
On the other hand, Bloomberg is a great, excuse me, is a great case study, but money is not enough.
You know, if you're a big enough jerk, the country figures it out no matter how many ads you buy.
That's such a good point.
I ask because there's a big movement for campaign finance reform, and I think that sort of reform makes a lot of sense because it actually trusts the people to look within 24 hours.
I think the issue is the dark money packs that are not disclosed, that do things on behalf of a candidate with almost an unspoken quid pro quo.
I think that's where the relationship really breaks down.
And so, Mr. Speaker, that has to be.
I don't see any reason for us to have dark money, which is why I think that contribution ought to be reported online every night.
I totally agree.
And that's transparency, and it's also when it comes to freedom of speech.
So, your book is Trump and the American Future, Solving the Great Problems of Our Time.
Mr. Speaker, can you give us an analysis of where you think the race stands today?
There's a lot of differing opinions.
I think it's widely accepted based on Joe Biden now being flushed out of his shelter-in-place strategy to win the White House and actually trying to do his version of campaigning.
The polls are truly tightening.
Don Lemon kind of signaled the fire alarm last week when he said that not that they care about the rioting and the looting for people's livelihoods being destroyed, but it's showing up in the focus groups, Mr. Speaker.
That's the reason to start caring about it.
Where does this race stand, and what does Trump need to do?
What are two or three things he needs to do to win?
Well, I always try to remind people that races are not Polaroid shots.
They're moving pictures.
And by that, I mean all these, anytime somebody runs in with the next poll, that's a Polaroid.
That's as of this morning under these circumstances.
And in the case of Trump, it is almost certainly going to understate his support by somewhere between 5 and 15 points.
I mean, we know that.
And the people at Trafalgar, who were the most accurate people in both 2016 and 2018, will tell you that they routinely assume that Trump is at a minimum seven points stronger than the polls.
And people just won't tell you.
And they believe, for example, right now, he is probably carrying Minnesota, carrying Wisconsin, carrying Michigan, and carrying Pennsylvania, which will not show up in the traditional polls.
There's a great video.
I might toot my own horn for a second.
About two weeks before the election, I did Megan Kelly.
And this is somewhere on YouTube.
And we got into how was the race going?
And I said, oh, Trump wins.
And she said, what do you mean Trump wins?
I said, well, he wins.
He's going to win.
She said, well, the polls show him losing Pennsylvania.
I said, yes.
I said, and in your world, he will lose Pennsylvania.
In my world, he will win Pennsylvania.
She says, well, I mean, they show him losing Wisconsin.
I said, yes, in your world.
And I went through all the key swing states.
And I was right about every one of them.
She got so frustrated.
So it was fun to watch.
And in fact, we got off on a whole thing because she brought up the sports tape about Trump.
And I just stopped and I said, why are you fixated on sex?
I don't understand your fascination with sex.
I thought we were talking about the election.
And she got totally flustered.
But anyway, my point is, I said back in January, Trump will win probably by a surprisingly big margin.
They'll probably pick up two Senate seats.
And there's a fair 50-50 chance that McCarthy will be the Speaker of the House.
And people said, yeah, but tell me what you really think is going to happen.
Well, I think Trump's going to win by a surprisingly big margin.
We're going to pick up several U.S. Senate seats, and McCarthy has a 50-50 chance of being Speaker of the House.
The reason I say that is the Democrats went out of their way to nominate the weirdest ticket since George McGovern.
I mean, I just tell people, close your eyes and imagine the American president negotiating with General Secretary Xi Jinping, who is a really tough dictator in China.
Now, would you rather have a tough guy who's a little rough around the edges, or would you like to have a commander-in-chief who falls asleep halfway through the meeting?
You know, and I just think as people come to grips with realities, we move away from the summer, you know, what did the news media tell you you should think?
And then, second, and I've written on this in my newsletters at Gingrich 360.
I'm about to do another one where, and I'm also going to do a podcast where I'm taking all of Kamala Harris's really stupidest phrases, which is a lot.
I mean, we have amazing stuff from her, including people are going to keep demonstrating and rioting all the way up to Election Day.
Just get used to it, which in the context of what's now going on sounds really bad.
It is really bad.
So, I think that she is an absolute disaster.
Remember, she was at 15% in July and was at 4% when she dropped out of the race.
She was actually running fourth among African Americans.
Biden had eight times as many black voters as she did.
Why they picked her, I assume it's for Hollywood and Silicon Valley money.
But I think by the time we get to the middle of October, this race will be a shambles and the Democrats will be in the process of collapsing.
There's a growing movement in this country to embrace the president.
I'm from northern Illinois.
I spent a lot of time in southern Wisconsin.
It has been a 30-point swing, I can tell you, in people that used to be Democrats and Trump supporters.
Support Charlie Kirk And TPU 00:01:40
When you start to see neighborhoods you grew up in burned to the ground, all of a sudden you go to the pro-police law and order safety party.
The book is Trump in the American Future, Solving the Great Problems of Our Time.
Any closing thoughts, Mr. Speaker?
And thank you for joining and being so generous with you.
Well, I want to say, first of all, Charlie, I've been watching you.
I've been watching your growth.
I've been watching your effectiveness.
You're doing an amazing job.
You're clearly going to emerge as one of the great leaders of the next generation.
And I'm delighted that you have the courage and the energy and the drive to stay out there and do all you can to help save the country.
And I would just say to all of our listeners and viewers, this is all real.
Right now, for the next 60 days, you have a chance to shape American history in a way that your children and grandchildren will thank you for.
And I hope everybody who's listening will take seriously this opportunity to have a positive citizenship to offset those who would destroy and tear up things.
I totally agree.
Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for joining and Trump in the American future.
Talk to you soon.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Get involved with Turning Point USA.
Take out your phone and go to tpusa.com.
That's tpusa.com to get involved in the fight for the next generation on college and high school campuses across the country, tpusa.com.
Email us as always at freedom at charliekirk.com, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Type in Charlie Kirk Show to your podcast provider.
Hit subscribe.
Give us a five-star review.
Screenshot and email us at freedomatcharikirk.com if you guys want to win a signed copy of the New York Times bestseller, the MAGA Doctrine.
Thank you guys so much for listening.
Please consider supporting us at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Thanks so much.
God bless.
Export Selection