Charlie is joined by Turning Point USA Contributor Isabel Brown to uncover the truth amid a web of uncertainty & outright lies surrounding the maelstrom of chaos that swept through Washington DC on January 6th. They go hour by hour & minute by minute to understand the timeline of the riots, aided by surprisingly accurate reporting by a major activist media outlet. They also preview Nancy Pelosi's insane impeachment and how that could play out in the final days of Donald Trump's term.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
And this episode is brought to you by our friends who can protect your data and anonymize your activity at expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
E-X-P-R-E-S-S V-P-N.com slash Charlie.
Protect yourself against big tech and big brother unpacking what happened last week.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
A little bit happening in the news cycle today.
House Democrats are introducing officially articles of impeachment into the House of Representatives.
I'm going to start with a story from the New York Times.
And it's actually a pretty good investigation.
I have to give credit where credit's due.
When the New York Times really decides to get into something, just imagine if the New York Times decided to investigate Peter Strzok or Lisa Page or any of that.
They really did a good job here.
Lauren Leatherby, Ariel Ray, Anjali Singhval, Christian Tribert, Derek Watkins, and Haley Willis.
And again, bear with me here.
The title is not my favorite, but the actual substance of this article is actually very helpful.
It says how a presidential rally turned into a capital rampage.
But you actually look at what they talked about in the article.
It's not that simple.
It's not that clear.
So it goes piece by piece.
This is the front page of the New York Times website.
But it starts by this.
The most interesting part of the entire piece is how it starts.
At 11.50 a.m., the east side of the Capitol already had people congregating.
At 11.50, well before the President of the United States ever took the stage, well before the president gave any sort of remarks, there were already people that were congregating on the east side of the Capitol.
So that is not the West side where a lot of the imagery was coming from.
So it's actually a really helpful picture from the New York Times.
It's a little bit oversimplified because it acts as if all this stuff was happening simultaneously.
But you look at the east side, which is on the right side.
And if you just look at the orientation of the map with North being up, the kind of area that is in yellow on the right side, people were already lining up there well before the president started speaking.
So there were groups here that were, to be honest, it looks like those groups were more in the agitator category.
These people were not necessarily attendees of the rally, the speech, which was happening two miles to the west.
And so as we talked about yesterday, this entire unfortunate event necessitates nuance and it necessitates detail and facts.
And trying to loop everyone that went into the president's speech at the Washington Monument and the ellipse into people that were already there before the speech even concluded is just not right.
So then it goes late, goes on into the article to show that at 1154, the president of the United States arrived at the ellipse, the Washington Monument, to give his remarks at 12.15 to 12.50.
That's right.
During the president's speech, all of a sudden you started to see crowds grow at the Capitol.
So these people were not even staying for the entire speech of the president.
It goes on to show video footage at 1229 at Constitution Avenue.
People were walking to the Capitol.
And it seems like they're walking peacefully to the Capitol.
At 1249 on the west side of the Capitol grounds is when more crowds start to gather.
Around this time, and this is a very, these facts are super important.
And I think this one fact that was highlighted by the New York Times is actually really helpful.
It says, around this time, a pipe bomb is reported at the Republican National Committee building, just a block away from the Capitol.
Not long after, another device is discovered nearby at the Democrat National Committee headquarters.
So this tells me a couple things.
Number one, we do not know who has planted these bombs.
Is that correct?
We have no arrests, Isabel, yet that arguably needs to happen ASAP.
This is no joking around you plant pipe bombs anywhere.
You got to go to jail.
That is not a joke.
And so that is at both the DNC and the RNC building.
However, that took a fair amount of planning and time.
That sort of weakens the argument that this was all inspired by President Trump and his remarks and incitement, that someone, through an evil way of, you know, evil nature would create pipe bombs and plant them at both major party headquarters.
This also goes to show this was not necessarily partisan in nature, that this was more, this was an instigator or someone that quite honestly wanted to watch the world burn.
And let me be very clear, putting pipe bombs in a political party's building is an act of terrorism.
I don't, I'm not going to mince words with that, okay?
And so then the New York Times admits, not admits, they report, at 1253, the first barriers were breached.
And now, by the way, I know some of you are saying, Charlie, why are you using the New York Times?
They actually did a really thorough job here.
They have, and I think it actually proves a deeper point that is truthful, but it also runs against the very narrative that the New York Times is running with.
That's why I'm doing this.
And so at the northwest side of the Capitol, you started to see some people get a little bit angry with Capitol police.
And we see this video here of barricades starting to get pushed back.
Then it says, what's super interesting, though, is that on the east side, those were the ones that did the majority of the instigating.
Now, I have no evidence in front of me to support this, but I have reason to believe that some people on the east side of the Capitol that was there before any of the people from the ellipse arrived repositioned themselves to the west side of the Capitol, that these instigators that were there for something to go down on the Capitol.
I know this is something that is really hard for some people to recognize or realize, but there are some people in this world that quite honestly want to fight.
They want chaos.
And those people were trying to do everything they possibly could to try and penetrate either the west or the east side of the Capitol.
The west side of the Capitol was then, there is riot gear that started to arrive.
It says this, at this time, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, begins the proceedings to certify the Electoral College count at a joint session of Congress.
And then this is where the New York Times calls it, Trump's call to action.
But it kind of shows, though, if the New York Times was going to make this argument as if this was his major call to action at 112, then why is it they're showing video in that very same article here that the west side of the Capitol already had people and agitators that were spraying things at the police, that this conflict was already beginning?
At 150 on the west side of the Capitol, groups started to congregate.
And then on the east side was the first real assault that we are able to pinpoint.
And I say that the east side, by the way, is not in marching proximity or distance from the ellipse.
Now, I'm sure some people could have walked that way.
However, from the ellipse or the monument where the president gave his remarks, most of those people went to the west side.
Now, as some of our listeners have emailed us, freedom at charliekirk.com, there were a lot of constitutional legal events that were planned outside of the Capitol.
The Capitol is where a lot of these other events were occurring.
And so this shouldn't come as a great surprise that some people wanted to march to the Capitol.
However, to mix in the people that were peacefully marching to the Capitol, and you watch some of these videos, some of these people that are watching, they don't exactly strike you as, you know, like they're just kind of marching with Trump flags, smiling.
But the people that are in full riot gear, that are pushing up against police, that are pushing fences back, that's a different category in itself whatsoever.
And so the east side versus the west side is a very important distinction that I want to continue to build out here because that is something that, quite honestly, the media has been conveniently keeping out a lot of their coverage.
Shake off your winter hibernation with 25% off a Fitbod membership now through the 28th of February.
Whether you're looking to ease into exercising or you're ready to ramp things up, Fitbod creates a truly personalized fitness program that's continually adapting to you.
Get a stronger start to the year with 25% off a Fitbod membership now through February 28th, the end of February.
Fitbod takes the intimidation and guesswork out of finding what works for you by learning your abilities and building a dynamic program that adjusts as you go.
Fitbod understands that the path to achieving your best looks different for everyone.
Fitbod creates a program based on your unique body experience and environment.
Their algorithm uses data and analytics to help build on your last workout to maximize your results.
No equipment, no worries.
Fitbod has body weight routines for those looking to get fit at home or on the go.
Sign up right now through the end of February and you'll get 25% off your membership.
Get your body out of hibernation and start off the year stronger than ever with Fitbod.
Get 25% off a membership when you sign now through the 28th of February, fitbod.me slash kirk.
That's 25% off your membership at fitbod.me slash kirk.
Let's get to the president of the United States who has spoke out publicly for the first time in a couple days.
Let's play tape.
On the impeachment, it's really a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics.
It's ridiculous.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
This impeachment is causing tremendous anger.
And you're doing it.
And it's really a terrible thing that they're doing for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Jumer to continue on this path.
I think it's causing tremendous danger to our country and it's causing tremendous anger.
The president's speaking out against impeachment.
And so it seems as if that the impeachment articles have been submitted.
Yes, they sure have, and they're definitely moving forward with full force.
We heard yesterday that they definitely had enough votes within the House of Representatives from the Democrat majority to impeach the president.
I'm unsure the likelihood of how much that would move forward to a Senate trial, especially given the limited time President Trump has left in office.
But anything could happen if the last week has taught us anything.
So, based on thousands of emails that we have received at freedom at charliekirk.com, people that I know that were nearby but not involved, and us sending students to the president's speech and getting them out of there, I have come to an opinion of what really happened last week in Washington, D.C.
This is also based on a new Washington Post report that has come out that shows that the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to certain what they call right-wing extremists and were trying to almost convince them not to go to Washington, D.C. next week.
I believe that this was a perfect storm in the worst possible way.
I think that the people that were coming for trouble, the people that were coming that were up to no good, were mostly positioned on the east side of the Capitol building.
I think that is where most of the FBI's intelligence was pointing towards.
I think that is where most of the information was showing.
Those people might have had plans to do some things that were very, very, let's say, illegal and criminal in nature.
Then, with that, those people started to push back against the fence and against the barricade.
And because certain people decided then to watch March to the Capitol, I think some people regrettably got caught up in this.
And so you had people that came there that posted pipe bombs and doing all these sorts of things, and other people that were, I think, on their own admission, did not wake up that morning with any sort of intention to want to storm the Capitol building.
Now, that does not mean what they did was legal.
I'm just saying the point is that to loop all of them into a category that there was this aforementioned plan is just not true.
However, there might have been that amongst some people that were mostly positioned on the east side of the Capitol, supporters that were already at the Capitol.
And the struggles at the Capitol between police and some of these agitators was already starting.
That was already starting at 1253.
The people started to congregate on the east side of the Capitol at 11.50.
And if you just kind of look at how some of them are dressed, again, I'm not going to try to stereotype based on how certain people are dressed, but they are used a lot differently, let's say, than they're dressed a lot differently, if you look at this, Isabel, than just people that are going to regular Trump rallies.
They are wearing looks-as-if tactical gear.
They have helmets on.
They're doing symbology that is a lot different than that of what I would see, just kind of signals than I would say than a regular Trump supporter.
Now, let me be clear: if any of these people were aware or involved in planting pipe bombs, then yes, the words of terrorism, insurrection, I think are all appropriate.
And Isabel, can you help build that out how they are using these words almost all together?
Yeah, it seems that they are placing this blanket label with the most hyperbolic language possible on all 300,000 people that were in the zip code of Washington, D.C.
And we touched a little bit on that yesterday, how that's now starting to balloon out to anyone who's ever worn a red MAGA hat or posted anything in support of the president online.
Insurrection is a very specific legal word talking about a violent overthrowing of the United States government to suggest that everyone who was peacefully attending a rally to hear from a politician that they supported is somehow involved in this attempt to violently overthrow the government honestly is not just misleading.
It's just a lie, is what it is.
And that's not to say that certain people there were not involved in that category.
In fact, it looks as if the evidence is pointing to that they actually were.
The most powerful United States senator in the country is Joe Manchin with a 50-50 tie coming into the United States Senate.
He's basically going to be able to get whatever he wants done done.
He had an interview with Brett Baer where he said he does not believe that the Senate has enough votes for impeachment.
Play tape.
Is there any scenario where you see that the U.S. Senate would try and convict President Trump?
I don't see that.
And I think the House should know that also.
We've been trying to send that message over.
They know the votes aren't there.
You would think that they would do that.
I think this is so ill-advised for Joe Biden to be coming in trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all the people when we're going to be so divided and fighting again.
And so I kind of agree with Joe Manchin here.
And I mean, he's, again, he's going to be, you know, the most powerful United States senator for a variety of reasons.
So there's a lot of conversation around incitement.
There's a lot of conversation around: did people call for specific action that resulted in the illegal acts and the criminal acts of last week?
But let's take a step back and ask ourselves the question: has the media been covering for violent action in recent time?
The answer is absolutely yes.
From GQ magazine, why violent protests work?
Now, let me be very clear.
I don't share these views.
We've talked about the difference between civil discord and civil disobedience.
We've talked about how once you go to violence, you lose public opinion and you destroy other people's stuff and you could kill people, and that is not moral.
However, this article by Laura Bessett goes through piece by piece why she believes violent protests work.
And you can go back to a flashback where Chris Cuomo cut three, where he says, Please show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
Let's go to cut three.
Now, too many see the protests as the problem.
No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets.
Persistent and poisonous inequities and injustice.
And please show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
So now they're going out of their way to call it an insurrection.
However, back then they said, show me where it has to show polite and peaceful.
In this article where it says why violent protests work, it says, Alicia Garza, co-founder of BLM Incorporated, said, quote, it's a familiar pattern to call for peace and calm, but direct it in the wrong places.
Quote, why are we having this conversation about protest and property when a man's life was extinguished before our eyes?
We don't have time to finger wag at protesters about property.
That can be rebuilt.
Target will reopen.
The stores will reopen.
That's assured.
What is not assured is our safety and real justice.
This is from GQ.
Now, could you imagine if I read you the following quote, which I don't know exists or not, not exactly well-versed in this segment of literature.
But what if all of a sudden I said, the co-founder of Proud Boys said, quote, why are we having this conversation about protest and property?
We don't have time to finger wag about protests or about property.
That can be rebuilt.
Target will reopen, or Congress will reopen.
The stores will reopen, that's assured.
Now, mind you, I don't share that view.
The point is that this was platformed and glamorized in the top levels of American journalism for months.
Inciting, justifying, protecting?
Maybe.
Column from Chicago Tribune by Steve Chapman.
If this is not incitement, I don't know what is.
Column, if riots are not the answer, what is?
It says here: the president of the United States doesn't get this.
With his usual viciousness, Donald Trump posted a tweet calling the writers thugs, seemed to suggest that they should be gunned down.
Quote, when the looting starts, the shooting starts, he said.
Later, he didn't mean it the way he said it.
Well, Joe Biden called the people that stormed the Capitol last week thugs.
And I've said, if you assault a police officer, you are a thug.
And it continues on by justifying rioting and looting.
If riots are not the answer, what is?
And I also want to say, we are still waiting for more information as to why Ashley Babbitt was killed.
Whether she should have gone into the Capitol Rotunda or not is a discussion for a different time.
Whether that warrants a kind of street justice execution style, if it turns out that the police officer acted incorrectly, we will find out.
From Vox.com, riots are destructive, dangerous, and scary, but can lead to serious social reforms.
It says, quote, riots are caused by genuine anger, not solely opportunists looking to loot.
Goes on to glamorize the history of rioting and looting.
And it closes by saying that by not rioting and looting, their communities are far worse off.
Remember this story back over the summer by Natalie Escobar?
Your taxpayer funding went behind this story at National Public Radio.
One author's controversial view, quote, in defense of looting.
Vicki Osterweil wrote the book In Defense of Looting.
Osterweil is a self-described writer, editor, and agitator.
She says, quote, when I use the word looting, I mean the mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of an upheaval or riot.
That's the thing I'm defending.
I'm not defending any situation in which property is stolen by force.
Excuse me?
It's not a home invasion either.
And it's about a certain kind of action that's taken during protests and riots.
And it actually, NPR updated this story.
It said September 1st.
The original version of the story, which is an interview with an author, which holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed.
Totally platforming one author's controversial view in defense of looting.
The Vox article also said, quote, historians and experts argue that these types of riots aren't solely random acts of violence or people taking advantage of dire circumstances to steal and destroy property.
They are.
Instead, a serious attempt at forcing change after years of neglect by politicians, media, and the general public.
And some people are saying, well, this is different because this was a, this is the capital.
This is the top of democracy.
Or it's our symbol of democracy or our republic.
Well, then that means when BLM Incorporated injured 67 Secret Service agents over the summer to try to get into the White House and President Trump was transported to the bunker where he was met with ridicule and mockery because he had to be transported to the bunker because of the group of people that were outside.
That was never called an attack on our democracy.
From Time magazine, when rioting is the answer, America was founded on riots.
From as far back as the days of tar and feathering British tax collectors, citizens have resisted power by fighting back, using fists when their voices weren't heard.
I think we've already done a significant amount of historical clarity on that.
But it goes on.
Time magazine.
This is Time magazine.
Rioters do what's necessary is what it says.
Society was shaken.
Lines got drawn.
Where this goes is on us.
When rioting is the answer from Time magazine.
And remember when Nicole Hanna-Jones, cut five, said that destroying property, which can be replaced is not violence?
Let's play cut five.
Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence.
And to put those things, to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think really it's not moral to do that.
So that's not moral to do that, to conflate rioting and looting and destruction.
But the rioting, looting, and destruction is perfectly moral, according to Nicole Hannah Jones.
Now, Nicole Hanna-Jones was never called to task for her quote-unquote incitement or using her freedom of speech to do that.
And so we go back through this for a very specific reason because what you have here is 300,000 to 400,000 Trump supporters that went to the Washington Monument, a fraction that went to the Capitol.
Now, a lot of people that were going to the Capitol did not know that they were going to intersect with people that were on the east side of the Capitol that were almost being there professionally agitating.
And Isabel, you know some people that went last week.
I do.
And they went peacefully.
They absolutely did.
You know, demonstrating at the Capitol in a peaceful and patriotic way is part of our nation's history.
It's how people make their voices heard.
And we've seen that repeatedly on the left, especially in the last few years when people have protested the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, again, protesting the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, several pieces of legislation and the tax cuts and everything.
I mean, we can go on and on.
That is a clear pattern of behavior in American history where people feel that that's a venue that they can make their voice heard.
That's not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing.
Where it crosses the line, obviously, is when laws are broken, when property is destroyed, when violence is incited.
And that's never okay.
And we've been very clear about that.
And so there were some people that went to the Capitol with great intentions.
We, alongside our group, Turning Point Action, alongside many other groups, just planned to be for the president's speech and kind of get out of town.
And that was fine.
And there were other people that wanted to go hear from Congresswoman Laura Boebert.
And they were stunned when they actually came to the Capitol, where they got near the Capitol.
And there were some people that I think regrettably got involved in pushing back barricades because the tensions were running very, very high.
But there's many different pieces and parts that played into all of this.
And the media is not interested at all whatsoever into trying to have any form of detail or accuracy.
Now, the New York Times article here was written very carefully, as you can see, because they're probably worried against potential lawsuits.
But just the essence of it, though, it does, a lot of the detail and nuance, you really have to kind of read into it, where you realize that on the east side is where a lot of those barricades were originally breached.
Now, what is still unclear to me is why were all the calls for the National Guard denied?
If the FBI knew about this, why were these calls to federal law enforcement rejected?
Not exactly, you know, positive on that.
And so there's a lot of answers that are needed here.
But I think the more that this gets looked into, the more that we're going to realize that there were some people with very bad intentions, some agitators that were trying to get into this.
Call them whatever you want.
But then the mass majority of people that were accompanying them were people that quite honestly got caught up into it and deeply and deeply regret it, as they should.
49% of Americans say their top New Year's resolution is to save money in the next year.
Well, let's check that box right now.
When your family switches to PeerTalk from AT ⁇ T Verizon or T-Mobile, you could save over $800 a year.
That's real money every single month right back in your pocket.
And you don't have to sacrifice coverage.
Peer Talk is on the same network as one of those big carriers, but they charge you half.
That's right.
No gimmicks, no fluff added to your bills, which is why PeerTalk is the top-rated wireless company by Consumer Affairs.
Right now, get unlimited talk, text, and two gigs of data for just 20 bucks a month.
And if you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it.
Grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, and say Charlie Kirk.
When you do, you'll say 50% off your first month.
Again, dial pound 250.
Say the keyword Charlie Kirk.
Peer Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Isabel, you know what's one of the things that has been frustrating me the most, and I want to take this head on, is how people are acting as if last week was the first time ever in the history of politics the word fight was ever used.
Have you noticed this?
I have absolutely noticed this.
And all of a sudden, fight is literally meaning to incite a fist fight or violence.
Let's go through this.
I have here at secure.jobiden.com, you can become a contributor to the Biden Fight Fund.
Did you know that?
Fight fund.
That if Joe Biden was inciting violence by having the Joe Biden fight fund.
How about on plannedparenthood.com, the fight for birth control?
We must fight back against.
It was a win, but the fight's not over.
It says you might not have known your birth control coverage was under attack, and that's just how the administration wants it.
Fight back.
How about here?
Fight for Obamacare.
I have link after link after link.
How about this?
MoveOn.org.
MoveOn members have spent the last four years fighting back against relentless attacks and broad public.
What am I saying here?
I'm not actually insinuating any of them were trying to incite violence.
The term fight has been meta, it's metaphorically baked into the English political lexicon, okay, as a way to stand up for your beliefs and push back against it.
So people are going back through tweets and said, you said fight for Trump.
Hold on a second.
There is so much.
It is a term that it's gaslighting is what it is.
It is a term that means very simply stand up for your beliefs peacefully and otherwise.
Okay.
And Democrats do it.
Republicans do it.
And there's not even a question about it, right?
Right, Isabelle?
It's never been questioned.
It's never needed to be questioned because it's just part of, even beyond politics, the English language.
We fight for things we believe in.
We fight for our relationships.
We fight for our faith.
We fight for our family.
And all of a sudden, now that's directly inciting violence.
That's right.
And so you could say, I'm going to fight for my church.
I'm going to fight for my beliefs.
And now they say that is inciting violence.
And, you know, there is a great article.
I think we had it here yesterday from Shapiro, not Ben Shapiro, the former Washington Attorney General, where he said, a lot of this incitement talk is perfectly protected under the First Amendment, which is exactly right.
And the issue here is that the left and the Democrats are trying to intentionally misrepresent things that have been said and were done because they see an opportunity here.
And we've talked about gaslighting before, and this is what gaslighting is.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or group convertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment.
And they've done this many times, Isabel.
They're doing it right before our eyes today, too, by making sure that January 6th and the events that happened because of a few hundred people all of a sudden completely wash out the legacy of the last year.
74 million president.
That's right.
And, you know, I can tell you right now, I'm really upset.
I'm upset that the actions of those people that went in and assaulted police officers, that went in and destroyed windows, really set back the amazing accomplishments of this president, where these last couple weeks should have been a celebration of this presidency and all that has been accomplished.
We're now having to go through East Barricade and West Barricade and all this.
And look, we're not complaining, but it does sadden me because this president fought so hard for so many people and was able to accomplish so much for our country.
And so that's something that I think is really, really important.
I'm disappointed to see all of the incredible accomplishments this administration has completed in the last four years completely disappear from our nation's memory.
Obviously, we know humanity has a very short attention and memory span.
So I figured some of that would happen.
But I don't want people to forget about the world peace that was achieved through record-breaking peace deals and negotiations and agreements around the world through summits that were held by protecting the unborn, by protecting the gay community for the first time from the presidency.
There's so much we could talk about and remember that should be celebrated, and now it won't be.
Yeah, and I'm not trying to say that that is the greatest tragedy.
People died last week, and I'm not just saying that only property was broken, but people died as a result of this.
And that's important just to reiterate that it's a tragedy.
And there's no other really way to put it.
And these are police officers that have passed away because of the events that happened there.
But then also to try to say, like, oh, you know, Mike Lindell said he wants to go fight for the president in Washington, D.C.
I mean, come on.
Let's be very clear here and honest here.
We all know exactly what that word fight means.
And, you know, the next time the Democrats are going to use it, I mean, Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House, okay?
I don't know if she had a visit from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, right?
Likely not.
Eric Holder said when they're down, we kick them.
I could go on.
Maxine Waters said, get in their face, so on and so forth.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war.
And if you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com slash support.