All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 7, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
34:03
Exporting Atheism & Exploiting Women: The Biden Regime EXPOSED—with Darren Beattie and Rep. Jim Banks
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Exporting Atheism Globally 00:11:15
Hey, everybody.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Congressman Jim Banks joins us to talk about how the Biden regime wants to export atheism worldwide.
Darren Beattie also joins us to talk about a new Title IX announcement, as well as the vaccination of children inexplicably.
We touch briefly on the psychiatric drug crisis plaguing a nation's children as well.
Seems to be a theme.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
I hope you will join us at our Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, tpusa.com/slash SAS.
That is tpusa.com slash S-A-S.
Biggest speakers you can imagine: Kaylee McEnany, Ted Cruz, Laura Ingram, Josh Hawley, Greg Gutfeld, and more.
We'll also, Turning Point Action, will be hosting Donald Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis.
tpusa.com slash sas that is tpusa.com slash s-a-s.
As always, email us freedom at charliekirk.com and support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com slash support.
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.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandodd.com.
This is an extraordinary story that I want to unpack with you.
Biden's global initiative to replace Christianity with atheism faces GOP backlash.
The 2021 federal grant program is designed to promote atheism and humanism overseas and encourage, quote, dissent from religious belief.
Joe Biden, of course, the Catholic that I put in quotes, wants to spread atheism.
I always laugh when I hear this, which is, if atheism was true and you believed it, why would you want others to also believe it?
You're an evangelistic atheist.
That's really dark.
To help us unpack this is the courageous Congressman Jim Banks, who's pushing back against it.
Congressman, welcome to the program.
Be with you.
Thanks for having me.
So this is hard to believe.
Walk us through the specifics of this in some detail.
The Biden administration's Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, they have a Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights.
They're promoting atheism and humanism worldwide.
Walk us through this.
Yeah, this is really crazy.
So in April of 2021, the Biden State Department under Secretary Blinken announced a competitive process that would award grants of up to a half a million dollars to organizations that are committed to the practice of spreading atheism or humanism, especially in South and Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa.
So my letter to the administration demands to know who benefited from these grants.
Who did they give these grants away to?
And what are the specific countries where we are funding atheism?
I've got to believe there's more than meets the eye here.
It's crazy that we would do this to begin with, but what are the reasons why that the administration has to support?
Yeah, I got to ask, can you just fill me in?
How do you fund atheism exactly?
Is there like the international clerical body of atheism?
I mean, how do you fund atheism?
Yeah, we want to know, right?
I mean, I'm demanding to know as a congressman, as a representative, using the authority that I have to demand answers from the administration.
Explain it to us.
Show us the grants that you awarded to spread atheism in foreign countries.
Now, you and I both know at the same time, Charlie, the double standard here is very rich to me.
If we were funding grants to spread Christianity around the world, the left would be howling about it.
Yep.
They would call it a violation of the First Amendment if we did that at home or abroad.
So, what is the justification to award these grants to begin with?
Who did they give them away to?
I want to see the RFPs from the organizations that provided, that they provided the State Department that warranted giving them a half a million dollars to spread atheism.
Well, it's so sick because South American and Central American countries are actually very religious and very Catholic.
So, they're going into religious countries with almost missionary fervor to go and try to make these countries less religious.
And again, there is no separation of church and state.
It's a fabrication.
It's a fiction.
It's not in the Constitution.
It's made up by secular humanists.
It's derived from a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Convention.
Of course, we should have church and state mixed together.
Our founding fathers believed in that.
We can go through the details of that.
They established literally a church in Congress.
Anyway, separate issue.
The point, though, is that this is acting like a religion, though, isn't it?
If we live by their own false premise of separation of church and state, then why on earth and how on earth would they want to go bring this belief to other countries?
I mean, they're almost kind of as if it was the 1400s and they're sending missionaries to the new world filled with despotic, nihilistic atheism and humanism.
I mean, what's the thought process behind this?
Well, you're right about the Catholic populations of these countries.
There are also Muslims in these countries.
So, what other groups does the Biden administration want to convert?
I mean, why not Catholics in Ireland?
Why not Buddhists and Tibet Christians in China?
It seems to me that when we find stories like this, examples like these from the Biden administration, we always seem to learn and find out more that they're always perfectly aligned with our biggest enemy, our greatest adversary, and that being China.
And that's what, among many other things, is what bothers me the most with this administration and supporting grants like this to spread humanism and atheism in some of these countries where China is going to benefit the most.
Yeah, and I mean, China kind of has built a whole regime around secular humanism and atheism, right?
Where there's nothing but power.
And I suppose that would make South American and Central American countries easier to control.
I mean, I'm trying to understand the thought process of this.
If I was really Machiavellian, if you were trying to export atheism, what would the potential kind of motive be here?
Besides the point that they believe in it as a centralized belief system, which again is so twisted and sick, which is let's go get more people to believe in nothing as if that's going to make the world a better place.
They really believe that.
But I guess if they can deconstruct kind of Catholic infrastructure in South America and Central America, is it conceivable that will make them easier to be compliant colonies for China?
I think you're onto something.
And I think the more layers that we peel back on this, that's probably what we're going to learn and find.
And at the same time, the Biden administration learns that these tactics work at home at the same time.
I mean, this is what we've come to expect from the left in our own country.
And when it comes to the State Department, we see so many examples of them echoing and repeating the tactics of the left right here at home, whether it's putting a Black Lives Matter flag up at the German embassy or a gay pride flag at the Vatican.
A special representative for racial equity and justice that they created at the State Department.
They're always working to remove restrictions on abortion around the globe.
So you see The State Department using these tactics that the left uses so effectively right here in the United States of America.
And this is the most important point when it comes to American foreign policy and American State Department policy, which is they want to spread their beliefs with kind of neoliberal enthusiasm to others.
It's not enough that they've just trying to wreck America.
They want every embassy to have a BLM flag, every embassy to have a gay pride flag.
They have to make other countries agree with them.
It's not enough that they believe it and they control 95% of San Francisco.
They need to make sure Alabama, Algeria, and Chile are also equally as secular and humanist and atheistic.
So, Congressman, I want to ask you in the couple minutes we have remaining, about a minute and a half remaining, a lot happening in Washington, D.C. What are the biggest legislative fights ahead of us, or is it just kind of going to be stalled heading into the fall?
What's on your radar?
What should our viewers know about that's really concerning you or motivating you towards action?
Well, for the Democrats, it's always a tactic of trying to distract you from what's really the focus of the American people.
And that's the show trials, the January 6th committee, and what they're trying to do.
I'm back in Northeast Indiana this week on a recess from Washington, which is always healthy.
And my constituents are desperate for leadership in Washington and focus on what they're focused on, which is higher gas prices and inflation, the drug epidemic.
I keep meeting moms who have lost a child to a drug overdose.
These are the issues that the American people care about, and yet Washington is obsessively focused on the January 6th show trials.
So I think we're going to keep seeing that leading up to the midterm.
But on Election Day, on that midterm election day, it's going to be a backlash against the lack of leadership and focus in Washington, probably unlike anything we've ever seen before, certainly in our lifetime.
I think you're right.
Congressman, thanks to the leadership.
Come back anytime.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Thank you.
It's an important point.
If you believe in nothing and you believe there is no God, why do you have to spread that to other countries?
Maybe because it makes people easier to control.
Maybe because if you deconstruct Catholic infrastructure in Central and South America, it makes them more willing to worship government and not God.
And it makes the CCP job of making South and Central America into a CCP client state that much easier.
Something to think about.
They've done it in this country very successfully.
They have made certain states less religious than more religious.
It hasn't happened everywhere yet, thankfully.
Look, over the years, you've probably tried different investments in stocks and mutual funds.
So now you know they could be up or down or all over the place.
But with inflation running at 8.5%, probably even higher than that, the highest rate for 40 years, do you need uncertainty?
Being able to sleep at night knowing your investments aren't about to crash, it's worth its weight in gold.
And speaking of gold, if you've been jumping from one investment idea to the next, a gold IRA with Noble Gold is perfect.
With gold, you'll shield your gains from taxes.
You'll keep the real value of your wealth.
You'll own a global asset, something tangible, and you'll protect your wealth against an economic crash.
What is not to like?
The Over-Medication Epidemic 00:05:41
And this month, for every cash deal above $20,000, you've got an incredible three-ounce Silver American Virtue Coin completely free as a thank you.
You can't go wrong with Noble Gold.
Call 877-646-5347 now to find out more at noblegoldinvestments.com.
They're a phenomenal company.
I really think highly of them.
NobleGoldInvestments.com.
Own things you can touch at noblegoldinvestments.com.
Seems that we hit, we struck a chord yesterday and totally non-coordinated.
Tucker Carlson said very similar to what we did yesterday, which is we need a nationwide moratorium or just a pause on what the heck is going on on the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs to children.
What is for an eight, nine, and ten-year-old, do they really need to be on Ritalin?
Do they really need to be on Zoloft?
Do they really need to be on benzodiazepans?
A nine-year-old that says they're depressed, really?
And what are the long-term neurological effects and impact and damages that could potentially be done?
And we got an overwhelming amount of emails from you, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Again, and I just want to reiterate this point.
And no one emailed us, not one person that struck this, that got that received this sentiment.
I'm not accusing anybody or making you feel bad or attacking you if you're on these drugs.
It very well might be working for you.
Okay, I'm asking about children, neurological development, and the over-prescription and the misdiagnosis problem.
That's what I'm arguing.
And how children who we know grow out of whatever issues they're having at that particular age, why would we push these interventions that have black box warnings on them, by the way?
You could read them yourself.
And so if maybe you want to say, hey, I want to, you know, have my children go on SSRIs, which is basically a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which increases serotonin, which is used for depressive disorders and anxiety disorders.
How many doctors or pharmacists are also saying that, hey, did you know in 2004 the FDA placed a black box warning on SSRIs indicating that they might have suicidal or homicidal ideation and violence?
That's on the drugs themselves, a black box warning.
And there might be a relationship between SSRIs and homicidal and suicidal ideation.
In fact, there's been clinical data to show it might increase it in some people.
In some people, it decreases it.
Okay.
And look, we have to stop pressing Adderall and Ritalin on kids just because they're hyper or because they're restless.
Of course they're hyper.
They're 10 years old.
Okay, Tucker Carlson had a beautiful monologue on this, and you just got to hat tip it when the masters hit it perfectly.
Play cut 29.
People aren't themselves?
They're taking drugs that appear to be causing the behavior the drugs are designed to prevent?
Why don't they talk about this on TV?
Oh, let's see.
In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $4.5 billion advertising on national television in this country.
Now, how much is that?
Well, to put it in some context, Pfizer spent more on advertising in 2020 than it did on research and development.
Oh, it's all brought to you by Pfizer.
No, why is that?
Because TV channels don't prescribe drugs.
Doctors do.
So why would Pfizer, a drug company, be advertising on television?
We are an over-medicated nation.
For years, I've struggled with this when I was more puritanically free market.
When I said, oh, yeah, drug companies should be able to advertise on TV.
Let's think deeply about this.
Why do drug companies need to advertise on TV?
If you need them, then wouldn't your doctor know about it and administer it to you?
Why do you need those kind of weird, generic commercials of people running through a meadow saying you can be yourself?
You ever pause those commercials and read the bottom of them?
Could cause heart attacks, swelling, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, blurring of vision, constipation, internal bleeding, menstrual cycle disruption.
Oh, really, you put it that way.
The commercials for prescription drugs, by the way, they don't exist in Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, Mexico, or Australia.
Only in the United States and New Zealand are they able to advertise on television.
And look, I'm sure some of you listening have been blessed to have certain pharmaceutical interventions.
I know for certain when it comes to diabetes or Lyme disease and multiple other things.
That's not an exhaustive list.
That's not my point.
My point is that largely we are over-medicated.
And I know from my own personal experience and in my circle of family and friends, what sometimes can be solved by healthy living, diet changes, sleep change, spiritual alignment getting figured out, and homeopathic or naturopathic interventions, 90% of what otherwise would just be pill-pushed could be solved to those other things.
Now, of course, there's the blood pressure medication.
There's all sorts of things that you might need, you know, the brilliant pharmaceutical interventions for, of course.
But are we over medicated?
Title IX Implementation Chaos 00:10:32
Yes.
And what is the consequence of that?
It's severe.
And especially when it comes to our children.
That's my main focus.
When you have millions of kids on psychiatric drugs, that's bad for society, period.
I would love to hear one Republican say that.
How many years have I been telling you about Relief Factor?
Producer Andrew's right here doing an Iron Man thanks to Relief Factor.
And truth is, I know there are millions of people.
In fact, some say over 100 million people struggling with some kind of pain, maybe from exercise or just getting older.
That can do it, getting older, which is why I'm so impressed with the people at relieffactor.com.
They are on a mission.
You rarely see this kind of focus and commitment.
They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and want to literally double their total number of happy customers in the next year.
And I believe they'll do it.
So here's the deal: if you're struggling with back pain, neck pain, shoulder, hip, or knee pain, even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start, still discounted, only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now.
ReliefFactor.com.
You should order the three-week quick start too.
Discount only $19.95.
See if it will work for you.
I think it possibly could.
Give your body what it needs to heal itself.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now.
Darren Beattie joins us from Revolver.news.
It's a website all of you should bookmark and maybe make your homepage, revolver.news.
Darren, welcome back to the program.
You have some news to share of some reporting you've been doing on Title IX.
Walk us through that.
Yes, we've got a big piece coming up shortly by this afternoon, no later than eight o'clock.
And it's on Title IX, which many of the audience might remember.
Obama kind of made it famous, or shall we say, infamous.
What it is, technically, is a law is a regulation going back to the 70s, which effectively bans sex discrimination on college campuses and attaches that to federal funding.
But just like most things pertaining to civil rights, it's gone way beyond the original contours of any kind of rational understanding of what that could mean.
And in fact, the Title IX interpretation and implementation has been behind many of the most shocking and abhorrent cases of discrimination against men on college campuses for alleged sexual offenses.
All of the stories you hear about these Kafka-esque, really Orwellian type kangaroo courts set up within universities to address alleged sexual assault by men.
You can thank Title IX for that.
Now, Trump nobly and admirably got rid of that particular implementation of Title IX.
But now Biden is set to re-implement Title IX plus.
And some of the additional party favors that Biden is going to offer young college students is that now misgendering will be considered a Title IX violation, among other things.
And so the Revolver.news report that's going to come up later this afternoon will give a bit of more comprehensive background on Title IX and its implementation and go through some of the most infamous and egregious cases of Title IX going back to the Obama administration just to give people a concrete and contextual sense of how these abuses are put into action.
That's extraordinary.
And this is happening largely in the background and in the shadows, if I'm not mistaken, right?
Yes, yes, in a quite literal sense.
Among the conditions attached to the Title IX provisions is that if you're a man, you're accused of some kind of, say, sexual assault, sexual harassment, you're not even able to look directly at the evidence against you.
There's a third party who will give you a kind of redacted version of the evidence against you.
You're not allowed to really defend yourself in any capacity.
It's a real kangaroo court kind of situation.
And of course, the standard of proof, the burden of evidence called the preponderance of evidence standards.
So if there's a 50.0001 chance that you might be guilty, according to these activist administrators at the universities who have funding on the line for these decisions, if they determine that you're 50.0001% likely to have done whatever it is that your accuser that you don't even have the right to face accuses you of, you're done.
And not only you're done at the university, but in many cases, your life is over.
The stigma attached to being an offender in that capacity, because in any reasonable person's interpretation, it's a horrible thing to be guilty of such offenses.
But the definition is stretched to the point where basically any ordinary man could get caught up in a false accusation and have his life ruined.
And there have been many cases of this happening.
Yes.
So here's my question, though.
How does this combine with the alphabet mafia that can't tell you what a woman is?
How can you have Title IX while also having a transient definition, an undefinable definition of what a woman actually is?
How do those two things possibly coexist?
That's a great question.
And there's a bit of a kind of Schrodinger element of it.
You don't know there's a state of kind of quantum suspension with respect to what the gender is or when or when these nuances become relevant or not.
And you see it in the abortion debate too.
People who are in one side of their mouth saying, oh, we don't know what a woman is in the context of the abortion and they say, oh, abortion is a woman's right.
And so it's one of these things that is just an effect of probably psychological compartmentalization.
And it seems inconsistent when you leave out the fact that it's always going against certain, it's always who, whom, us, them.
And the dividing line is, I think, pretty clearly delineated when you look at it in terms of these polarized camps.
But it's a very important distinction to be made because in some of the cases that we cover in the Revolver.news piece, you have cases where the man and the woman are both drunk and they have consensual relations, both being inebriated, and the man is found guilty of sexual assault for that and kicked out of college with the scarlet letter on his forehead.
And so, you know, I suppose the only available defense to a man in that situation is to identify as a woman.
I just don't know.
But the whole thing is not only ridiculous, but very dangerous for young men attending college these days.
Yeah, I mean, if we were ever to get an opportunity, and this is something that Marsha Blackburn, I think, stumbled into, and Matt Walsh did a whole film on it.
Let's ask the head of the Department of Education, whatever his name is.
Is it Becerra?
I can never remember.
I got all the thugs confused.
What is a woman?
And so it's kind of very fundamental to the whole idea of Title IX, right?
Which is this is a woman and this is a man.
So they're trying to reinstitute this while also not being able to say definitions.
They say, Gretchen Whitmer, Miguel Cardona.
Thank you.
That's the head of the Department of Education.
Gretchen Whitmer had that extraordinary clip a couple of weeks ago where she did everything she possibly could not to say the word woman, right?
She said birthing people or menstruating individuals.
And so I just find it so interesting because when Title IX was created in 1972 as an amendment of the Higher Education Act and as an education amendment, there was at least an agreement of what a woman was, right?
I mean, at least there was some understanding of sex differences.
Now it's just all up for grabs.
Right.
I mean, certainly the transgender craze certainly throws a wrench into it and perhaps complicates certain applications of Title IX because it sort of restructures the hierarchy of victimhood, according to which, you know, under Obama, when the transgender stuff wasn't really into high gear to the point that it is now,
most of the egregious cases associated with Title IX were along the lines that I've described of men being falsely accused by women and having their lives ruined.
Now, the very fact that the man and woman are sort of complicated categories, supposedly, who knows what kind of innovations might stem from that.
But I think we can be fairly confident that whatever those are, they will simply further serve to imiserate and undermine the position of healthy, normal, and well-functioning people on college campuses.
And in fact, the few cases we identified in which women were targeted by Title IX were cases in which the women dared to point out the misapplication and the abuses behind sexual harassment trials on college campuses.
So I want to shift gears here, Darren, for a second.
You have the story all over Revolver.news.
It's just extraordinary that the Wall Street Journal wrote this, and it should be the number one story, I think, for parents across the country.
It's so incredibly important.
And it's a Wall Street Journal piece that says, why the rush for toddler vaccines?
And it goes to say that, quote, this is from the Wall Street Journal piece, that most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated.
Accumulating Political Ammunition 00:06:32
And it said that vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer's trial were more likely to get severely ill with COVID than those who received the placebo.
Talk about this, Darren.
We'll talk about it also after the break, about a minute remaining.
Yeah, it's really remarkable.
You know, I'm not a medical professional, so I can't fully speak to the details, but just my intuitive sense is the risk profile of a potentially unnecessary vaccine for toddlers that hasn't been robustly tested and that doesn't even seem to provide the protection that would be worth it.
It would be one thing if it provided protection.
It would be another thing if actually toddlers were suffering and dying from COVID in appreciable numbers.
But none of these things seem to be the case.
And so they're just expecting parents to subject their toddlers to this experiment that shows no sign of being worth it, shows no sign of really meeting up to any kind of sensible cost-benefit analysis.
So it's very disturbing, but it's encouraging to see that there's genuine pushback to this.
And it doesn't seem like the whole vaccinating toddlers for COVID push has been really that successful.
I want to talk about this story.
Why is the IRS armed to the teeth?
I know you've been covering this story.
Why is it that our federal bureaucracies are buying up so much ammunition?
You know, that's a remarkable question.
And, you know, it's hard to answer.
It's an extremely bizarre thing.
And the great Congressman Gates is trying to get to the bottom of this and actually put a stop to it, which I commend him.
But it's one of these things.
The IRS is also, for good reason, probably one of the most feared government agencies.
They have special powers, special authorities.
And for them to be accumulating this much ammunition is, well, it's disconcerting to say that.
What is the explanation that they give?
You know, I don't know.
I don't know what possible explanation they can have.
I suppose some of these agencies have armed divisions that they can use that most of the public don't know about, but I'm not sure what the official explanation is for accumulating this much ammunition.
I'm not suggesting anything diabolical or conspiratorial.
My sense is it's just a case of government hoarding.
They buy it up because they can and they have unlimited budgets.
And why wouldn't they?
So, Darren, this is an interesting one.
By the way, for those of you that haven't gone to revolver.news, it is kind of like what Drudge Report used to be.
And please take that as a compliment, Darren, where it's just the kind of an aggregation, but also original reporting.
So it's different in that sense.
What is so the rise of the far right, Latina?
Who did this reporting?
Was this the Associated Press story or is this?
I believe so.
It's been making the rounds.
And it's just covering a very special phenomenon that we've seen in recent elections.
And there's been this big push to broaden the tent within the right.
And the big kind of counterintuitive aspect of this is that you broaden the tent just by doubling down on solid, kind of conservative right-wing principles that everyone else likes.
It doesn't even require special pandering.
And it's so easy to be sensible and appealing these days just because, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't take, it's not a hard sell to say, okay, we don't buy into this weird transgender stuff.
It's not a hard sell to say that we don't support movements like Black Lives Matter that are, you know, destroying cities.
It's not a hard sell to say that we'd like to keep cities under control and get crime under control or a wide range of things.
It's just these appeal to sensible people across religious lines, across ethnic lines, and so forth.
And you're seeing a big surge in this amongst certain Latino populations.
You see it in Texas, which is the subject of this particular article, but you also see it in a especially pronounced way, I think, in Florida.
And so it's one of those kind of special counterintuitive phenomena that you see that's concurrent with the Trump phenomenon.
You know, Trump, the person that everyone said, oh, it's this immigrant hater and hated Hispanics, whatever.
He's actually surprisingly popular with Hispanics because again, it's not an issue of pandering.
It's simply an issue of things that any sensible person who is in America would want.
You want safe streets.
You don't want your children to be protected from weird sexual perversions being foisted on them for various reasons.
And so I think that sell is starting to really drive home in certain demographics.
And this is a product of that.
Yeah.
And it's really interesting how the white liberal journalists find this to be such a far-right phenomenon that people might believe in God, family, country, two genders, borders, and own guns.
And I'll tell you that I think the Hispanic community is going to surprise people totally and completely.
I think it's going to become a far, a solidly conservative voting bloc.
And the more they write these articles, the more it only kind of proves that entire point.
Darren, thank you so much for joining us, Revolver.news.
Darren, thanks so much.
Thank you, Charlie.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com/slash support.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection