Why Everyone’s Coming Out of the Woodwork Against Erika Kirk
|
Time
Text
Whenever the occasional commenter or commentator or questioner comes along and says, what is the big deal about Erica Kirk?
Why is she so important?
Who cares whether she lied or she exaggerated or whether she came out too soon after the assassination of her husband.
What is with you people?
Why are you so mean?
Why are you so petty?
What difference does it make?
You know what I say?
Interesting.
And I move on.
Because if you don't see this, if you don't get it, if you truly don't understand this, I don't want to know you.
You're obviously somebody who lives in a world of, I don't know, unicorns and cotton candy and I leave it to Beaver or something.
Because whenever we find there to be hypocrisy, especially from people who stood on some moralistic Mount Olympus, like, you know, the Falwells and the Jimmy Swaggers, I have sinned.
And Jim Baker and Tammy Faye Baker.
And a lot of them are evangelicals, but that's kind of what this is.
An evangelical who loves to hellfire and brimstone you and point to what's right and wrong and then come up with this storyline, this narrative of where they came from and where, and you find out it's all nonsense.
There's just something in this because we, as Americans in particular, hate hypocrisy.
And we're not going to explain to somebody why it bothers us when we see first the assassination of someone that many of you loved, a person, Charlie, who changed your life.
Young people gave them a sense of focus.
He was the pole star of a new way of thinking.
And they shot him down like a dog.
And nobody's asking any questions.
Least of which his widow.
Now, if you don't think that's weird, if you honest to God say, that's odd, I don't understand.
Where is if you don't find that odd, if you don't see all of the jackals and the vultures and the usual suspects flying over TPUSA like vultures ready to swoop down and pick apart what's left, if you don't see that, I can't help you.
And if you don't understand how and listen and listen good, we are at the beginning of a change of a worldview where Candace Owens is,
work with me on this, this is difficult for people to grasp, but many people have had their eyes opened.
They're awakened, not woke.
They're not, they're like it's a new, I don't know, MAGA spirit or something.
There's no name.
There is no name.
It is sui generous, one of a kind.
There is no political taxonomy or label that you can put to this.
It doesn't have any classification because everybody always likes this left-right business.
And Candace Owens, out of nowhere, I don't say out of nowhere.
Been around for a long time, but just like Alex had his moment and still does, of course, but where he was like this lightning bolt.
It's like, who's this?
It's like the Beatles or Grunge or something, some new form, something that said, I like this.
They don't care what it's called.
They don't know what it's called.
It doesn't matter what it's called.
It doesn't matter anything in terms of the fascination that people have for this.
So, what I'm telling you is that all of the people watching and all of the people who can't get enough of this, all of the people who wait for the next Candace Owens either drop or video or the next fool who weighs in and decides to take her on head-on, who get who ends up getting eviscerated.
Whatever you call that, it is happening now.
But the GOP in particular can't do this because they're fighting among themselves.
They've got people yelling anti-Semites.
You've got all of these people.
Just think about this.
Alex Jones, who I will say I'm an unabashed fan of his.
And I give him because of my respect.
Alex, whatever you say, my friend, but I don't necessarily agree or jump on board.
But listen, we all have our things, okay?
So don't expect some kind of a hatchet job against Alex.
Not from me.
Sorry.
I'm not a two-faced.
I hate people who love somebody for years and all of a sudden they say something wrong and you abandon them.
Sorry, I don't do that with friends, family.
I ain't going to do that with him.
Alex, you also have these incredible Candace, of course.
Ben Shapiro, who found out he just got clobbered and doesn't realize it.
He's in there.
Mark Levin, who is going after Ian Carroll, who goes after, I mean, there's this scrum.
There's this pile on, this riot of everyone.
You had Tim Poole who came in, who just was beaten to a pulp and tossed aside.
You've got other people who don't really know what to say.
They feel like, well, I've got to get involved in this.
Megan Kelly to an extent and others.
Tucker Carlson.
But at the very top, at the very top, the pinnacle of this is Candace.
And the more, you remember that Chinese, what's the thing called?
Remember the Chinese, you put your fingers in it and you pull, and the more you pull, it's like a miasma.
It's like, it's like quicksand, whatever the hell it's called.
You pull it, and the more you pull, the tighter it gets.
That's Candace.
The more you hit her, the more you attack her, the tougher she gets.
It's kind of Nietzsche-esque, so to speak.
But still, that's the way we are right now.
So let me go back to what I said.
If you don't understand this, if you're sitting back and saying, oh, are they still talking about this again?
This is bigger than the Somali fraud, which, by the way, all of a sudden people are talking about in 2025 when people mentioned in 2020.
And that particular fraud's a drop in the bucket compared to what.
So I mean, if you listen, there's plenty of people talking about that.
Please, you don't need me to talk about the stuff that everybody's talking about.
And by the way, boringly as it is, but this is a different story.
Next, I am a lawyer, a prosecutor by profession.
I've done, I don't know how many trials.
And I know the rules of evidence inside and out.
And there's something that you never want to hear when you're trying a case, prosecuting, defense, civil criminal, doesn't matter.
When the judge says, well, you've opened the door.
Oh, no.
That means you object to something.
Oh, no, stop, stop.
But you forgot the fact that you brought it up yourself.
And your opponent, opposing counsel, says, well, I'm going to cross-examine your witness now because you brought it up.
You put it into evidence.
You put it into issue.
You did.
You made an issue out of it.
You opened the door.
And when you, as a trial lawyer here, opened the door, you're dead.
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
It's just like sometimes you can, before a case, file a motion in limony or lemonade.
It depends upon where you're from.
And one of the things you can agree on is do not bring up prior criminal record, which has its own rules.
But okay.
All right, so the judge says, right, nobody bring up the prior record.
Okay, good.
Don't bring up any arrest records.
Okay, both sides.
Okay, fine.
Well, you, like an idiot, get up and say, so, you ever been arrested?
And you realize, oh, no, oh, no, oh, no, I brought it up.
I opened the door.
I'm doing a lot of air quotient.
I opened the door.
And then they come in and they go, oh, my God.
That's what Erica did.
She opened the door.
She came across with this virtuous kind of, okay, nobody really cared.
And it was her story because Charlie was the focus.
Well, they killed Charlie.
And she moves right in.
And immediately she takes over.
She's appearing.
She's doing.
And then she starts talking about things.
And then when you go back and you say, now, wait a minute, now that Charlie's gone, let me hear her story again.
Let me hear it.
And then she says to you, don't bring this up.
Excuse me.
You brought this up.
You opened the door.
You told us these stories about you.
We didn't do this.
You did.
And now that there's no Charlie, we got plenty of time.
We being the world.
And now she's telling you, oh, no, no, back off.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
You got plenty of time to attack Candace.
We got time too.
While you attack Candace, we got some questions.
And this is not attack, but this is what social media are saying.
This is what's critical.
This is what's important to understand.
Because there is no shortage of social media commentary that's surrounding Erica Kirk and the way she has presented her life publicly, particularly following the death, the assassination, the cold-blooded murder of her husband.
And that commentary is not unusual.
What is unusual, though, is its intensity, its persistence, and the degree to which it has shifted from emotional reaction to now forensic scrutiny and evaluation.
It's gone from a social science perspective.
This case is less about one individual and more about the conditions that produce this kind of collective response.
You see what I'm saying?
It's in a different plane.
It's changed.
She opened the door.
And online reactions range from mockery, which I do not want to be a part of.
I do not.
I don't want to make fun of how people look or no, no, no, no.
I want to talk about, however, sincerity and authenticity.
Anyway, but they've gone from mockery to sharp criticism with a lot of viewers and analysts.
And by the way, remember, remember what you are right now.
Remember, you're watching me right now.
You know what you are?
You're a juror.
You're a juror, and the case is on trial.
And we're in essence asking you for your verdict.
And the verdict can be a lot of things.
Do you buy it?
Who's right?
Who's wrong?
Has there been enough done?
You're constantly evaluating things as a juror, as a grand juror, as a Lionel Nation conspiratorium grand juror.
Questioning tone, public appearances, and narrative framing.
You see, a lot of you see confidence, but others see performance and act, unbelievable, insincerity, the word that's used a lot, the grift, just like fed slop and ecosystem zoom.
You're hearing grifter a lot.
And that divide alone tells us something important.
In the digital world, my friend, the same behavior can be interpreted as strength or artifice, camouflage, synthetic, depending, of course, entirely on the audience's prior assumptions.
Now, early commentary that we know focused on presentation, highly produced, highly articulated entrances.
I mean fanfare, public spectacle, fireworks at events.
In one, as you know now, widely circulated clip, Erica responds to a question about why she continues to use fireworks by saying simply that she, and this is where she wants to and does not plan to stop.
Okay.
For supporters, this reads as, you know, agency.
I'm taking charge.
But for critics, it reinforces a perception of theatricality, schmaltz, production.
See?
Neither interpretation is provable, of course, but that doesn't mean they're not going away.
Just because I can't prove something doesn't mean I can't make you feel something.
And both are, of course, socially meaningful.
And this is where modern public life becomes unstable.
My friends, everything's changed.
We are no longer responding to private individuals, but to symbols.
Because once someone becomes symbolic, representational of, let's say, a movement or a cause, every action is read not as behavior, but as messaging.
And there has also been a wave of commentary and opinioning, opinionating, or opinion, I should say, targeting her appearance.
And they've looked at facial expressions and presentation and stagecraft and all of the choices.
And much of this content is crude.
It's often juvenile, juvenescent, puerile, sophomoric, mean, and overwhelmingly subjective.
But it's important to note this not to legitimize it, but to contextualize the emotional temperature of the environment in which more substantive and meaningful critiques later emerged.
Let me say that again.
You comment on what is being said to get a feel for their reaction.
Not the right or wrong.
If you walk into a room and everybody's booing you, if everybody's booing you, what does that tell you?
Tells you a lot.
You're not saying whether it's right or wrong or whether there's a valid basis for the book.
It tells you the reaction.
You see, because the focus shifted.
See, more serious criticism now centers on claims that Erica has made about her past.
And all of this is being done now by going through the transcript.
Remember, your story, your narrative, your official story becomes the transcript, like in the deposition.
And you go back and you impeach, you cross-examine with prior inconsistent statements.
On September the 3rd, you said the light was yellow.
And then on September the 5th, you said the light was green.
Were you lying then or are you lying now?
That give and take.
That's what it does.
And there were some brilliant members of the crowd here, who should be lawyers or prosecutors themselves, who have an incredible sense of investigative gotcha-ness, whatever that means.
This is the point, particularly now where we're saying her dating history.
Now, normally you would say, well, somebody's dating history doesn't matter.
No, you're right.
But it depends on what you said your dating history was.
See, you made it an issue.
You opened the door.
You brought it up.
You know how people, you've heard about stolen valor.
Did you ever watch Don Shipley?
You know, stolen valor.
What, Bud?
You were in a bud's class.
What was your Bud's class number?
You know, you said you were a Navy SEAL.
I didn't.
You said you were an Admiral.
I didn't.
Here you are at this church claiming to have received the Medal of Honor.
You said that.
You opened the door.
That's the way this is.
So I'm not saying it's stolen valor, but kind of, sort of, I don't know if it's stolen or misappropriated or misrepresented.
Anywho, all of this marks a transition from the emotional reaction to what you jurors perceive as accountability.
Now, to use the kind of the artsy sociological terms, this is the move from moral judgment to epistemic judgment.
See, people stop asking, do I like this?
And start asking, is this true?
How do you know what you know?
We're going to get to the epistemology and everything later.
But the point is, you're looking at the authenticity.
That's all.
That's all.
Remember, in libel and defamation, a lot of it depends not on whether it's true, but whether it was said.
Keeping in mind, of course, that truth is a defense.
That's all.
You've got to understand the context of this.
And I always want to make sure you understand the framework of this and why this is important.
If Donald Trump said that he was in the military, if Senator Blumenthal, for example, said, I was in Vietnam, if Tim Walz said I was a sergeant major, if they brought this up, they did.
They opened the door.
They made it an issue.
They didn't have to say it.
They did say it.
That's why understatement always works.
It's always great to say, you didn't tell me how great you were.
You lied when you didn't tell me you were a Navy SEAL.
You lied when you didn't tell me you received the Medal of Honor.
Those are good lies.
That's humility.
That's being humble.
This is the opposite.
Now, at this stage, online prosecutors and torquemadas and jurors begin positioning themselves as fact checkers.
I mean, you got no problem with that, right?
Snopes did it, PolitiFact, all these online fact-checking.
We don't want misinformation, disinformation, or that information, right?
Weren't we told that?
Weren't you told that during COVID?
Weren't you told that during whatever the issue is?
We don't want any kind of, you know, misinformation.
Now, in this particular discussion, we are not.
We are not adjudicating truth.
We are examining claims.
Claims circulating online that allege inconsistency between Erica Kirk's public statements and publicly available material.
That's all it is.
These remain claims and interpretations, not verified conclusions.
Please nod if you understand that.
Good.
Good.
Because I want you to understand what I'm saying.
This is not an adjudication of truth or fact.
It's what you said.
You said this, and now you say this.
And the old trick in cross-examination is, were you lying then or are you lying now?
Now, one frequently cited example involves statements that Erica Kirk made describing a multi-year period during which she claims or claimed that she did not date.
Okay, again, is it important?
No.
The fact that she said it is important.
You got that?
Good.
She described observing her roommates' dating life while, in essence, opting out herself, framing and describing her particular preferences around coffee or brunch, you know, rather than drinks and, you know, trying to distance herself from the dating culture during that time.
Okay, great.
Remember, that's your story, right?
Okay.
Now, critics and jurors and observers argue the issue is not the preference, but that timeline.
You see, based on her statements, those carefully looking at this infer a five-year window prior to her relationship with her husband, Charlie, roughly spanning 2013 to 2018.
They then compare that claim to archived and available social media interactions and the like, and interviews and lifestyle magazine features that appear to place her in multiple relationships during that same period.
There's an old expression, you don't have to worry about the facts if you don't lie.
You know, if you tell the truth, you don't have to worry about lying.
I want to change that.
You have to tell the truth.
But what gets you into trouble is when you're inconsistent and you don't care about it.
You feel like you're not a good liar.
You don't understand.
People remember everything.
It's almost like you're just kind of going with the flow.
I don't think it's some kind of maliciousness or some pathological liar mendacity.
But you're sloppy.
You don't understand.
On the internet, they tear this stuff apart.
Now, from a methodological standpoint, what we are seeing is kind of a retrospective narrative collision.
Stories told at one point in time are now being cross-examined and cross-referenced against digital traces and digital evidence left earlier.
And the internet does not forget it.
It does not contextualize it.
It simply presents artifacts, evidence side by side.
Now, according to many online, not many, but some, a number of those who are far more pay far more attention to this, attended, if you will, far more assiduously than I am, Erica Kirk apparently was romantically linked to a basketball player during the early part of the period in question, with, this is what they're saying,
with third-party comments and posts from 2012 through early 2014 describing them as a couple.
Okay, now these folks, these observers or critics, cite congratulatory messages and photos published by sports organizations that seem to frame her in relational terms.
Okay.
Now, following that, commenters point to a different relationship described in interviews between 2014 and 2015.
You notice what I'm doing?
The dates, the timelines.
Oh, they're, oh, they're critical.
That's what always kills you.
Including, by the way, repeated appearances in lifestyle media and at least one interview, according to these folks, in which she referred to the individual as her boyfriend.
Okay.
Does that matter?
No.
Why is that important?
Because of what she said.
Additional social media content and reference from that period shows shared, what would you say, domestic and recreational activities.
Now, some folks argue this contradicts the narrative of non-dating.
Okay.
And later still, they identify another relationship that appears to overlap the same claimed non-dating window.
Think of it as kind of the Overton window, so to speak, citing photos and captions from 2017 and 2018.
At this point, it's worth pausing.
Listen to me, the core criticism is not that Erica dated before her husband.
That fact in itself is socially unremarkable.
What matters is that people believe she presented a story that implied she did not.
And that belief has triggered a verification response.
Now, this is a classic example of narrative authority loss or loss of credibility or loss of veracity.
You frame it your way.
Once an audience believes a storyteller has omitted or simplified parts of their story, they begin reinterpreting everything, everything through a lens of suspicion.
Do you understand what I just said?
If I doubt you here, then I say, well, what else are you misrepresenting or misremembering?
Now, some folks now describe her statements as incompatible with reality.
And that phrase circulates widely because it signals a shift.
And listen to what I'm saying, from disagreement to delegitimization.
Whoa.
Whoa.
Now we're into the, ooh, this is scary.
Do you think she's aware of that?
Do you think Barry Weiss is aware of that or TPUSA?
I don't think so.
It applies not just error, but unreliability.
And from there, speculation broadens.
You know, some online figures are asking the questions, well, how these relationships, what would you say, intersect socially or professionally or personally with individuals later connected to her husband's professional world?
Do you get that?
Get what I said?
Good.
Others suggest overlap or coordination.
These claims, my friend, remain, of course, speculative and unproven.
But that's not the point.
Their existence is sociologically significant.
Why?
Because I say it again, ambiguity invites pattern making.
When timelines appear unclear, people tend to fill gaps with meaning.
Another recurring topic involves tattoos.
Now, remember, let me stop and say this.
I didn't bring this up.
You didn't bring this up.
She opened the door.
This is a comment on what was said, okay?
Commentators, those individuals, these on-air or online Sherlock Holmeses, they highlight white ink hand tattoos, visible in some images and barely visible in others.
I was unaware of white ink.
Okay, anyway.
Because these appear around the time of one of the documented relationships, there has been speculation emerging about symbolism or shared meaning.
No definitive explanation exists.
No evidence confirms any interpretation.
Yet, interestingly enough, the discussion persists.
This tells us something, something very important about digital culture.
Listen to me.
And if you're a member of the conspiratorium, you know what I'm talking about.
Symbolism, symbology, semiotics.
All of this become a canvas, a screen for projection.
Okay?
And the absence of explanation is not neutral.
It becomes an invitation.
How many times have you seen when all of a sudden a number of actors do some weird kind of, you know, they do these signals or something?
And people say, why are they doing that?
What does this mean?
Why do they wear this particular symbol?
Why do they make this hand gesture?
And because nothing is ever said to address it, the momentum starts.
The scrum begins.
And then it turns into something, maybe something that it shouldn't.
But this is the currency of the digital world that we live in.
This is what happens.
I'm not explaining it or justifying it.
I'm telling you, this is the way it is.
You see, because the commentary intensifies further when some online figure links symbolism with some broader political or, dare I say, conspiratorial narrative.
And these claims, by the way, these claims are allegations only, I keep saying, and they're often rejected within the same online spaces.
They are included here solely, solely to illustrate how quickly interpretive escalation can occur.
You have to understand something.
How many times have you heard, for example, the story of Joe Biden has a double, Melania has a double, Saddam Hussein had a double.
And once it starts, it's wildfire.
Doesn't matter whether it's true or not.
Because what happens is, I don't want to bring up that, oh my God, that horrible telephone tag analogy, but this is different.
This is not I say something and you say something, because we all get to hear the original statement that was a part of the telephone tag.
This is a different story.
This is something completely different.
We get to see what was said, but we all want to outdo our reaction to it.
And by the way, another line of criticism centers on Erica's public descriptions of her family background.
And particularly her use of, some people say, Swedish familial terms when referring to grandparents.
Have you seen this one?
I mean, nothing is missed.
This is another example.
You say anything.
And somebody's going to say, wait a minute, that's not Swedish or that's not Serbo-Croatian.
You know, some folks, some analysts argue she used terms associated with maternal lineage when, in fact, the relatives appear to be paternal.
What does that mean?
Well, they interpret this as misleading.
Others argue it may simply reflect the linguistic confusion or repetition of an early mistake.
Who knows, maybe?
No evidence, no evidence whatsoever demonstrates any intent to deceive.
What exists, I'm telling you again, are discrepancies noticed by viewers familiar with language conventions.
Remember, the internet is a jury of millions, if not billions in some cases, of experts in every range of expertise you can imagine.
In a similar vein, variations in how her mother's name appears publicly have been noted.
While name variation is certainly common, those who are particularly critical interpret it as a part of a broader pattern.
See how this is?
This is how pattern coherence operates.
See, once suspicion forms for anything, neutral, innocent inconsistencies are reclassified as signals.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
That's why you've got to be very careful with what you say.
Another unresolved issue involves a series of social, I guess you call it, social media posts that appear to function as a countdown prior to some major event.
And the meaning was never publicly explained.
One video shows, I think, an elderly woman kissing Erica's hand with some kind of caption that apparently suggested shared information.
Now, what does that mean?
Some viewers assume the woman was a living grandmother.
Others later pointed out that both grandmothers had passed away years earlier, raising, again, questions about whether the video was in somehow archival.
Again, no clarification.
has been offered publicly.
Let me give you another historical antecedent.
The Abbey Road album.
Following Paul was barefoot.
That meant he was dead.
Years ago, Paul became fall and the notion of the replaced beetle, you don't know where they went with that one.
Where they went.
Do you remember that?
Just Paul barefoot.
Something that turned into a movement.
So this didn't start with Erica Kirk.
Now, at this stage, it is essential to state clearly that none, none, absolutely none of this establishes in any way criminal behavior or malicious intent or coordinated deception.
I am telling you as your resident lawyer.
What it demonstrates, however, is how a carefully curated public persona becomes vulnerable.
Whenever it collides with archived and recorded reality and history, the internet does not judge linearly.
It judges cumulatively.
So when someone builds influence around authenticity, faith, moral clarity, they're opening the door, so to speak.
I mean, their invitation.
Their margin for narrative, let's call it compression or alteration, shrinks drastically.
Simplified stories that might pass in offline settings become serious liabilities online.
And some folks, some analysts and commentators, go even further.
They suggest that Erica Kirk functions as some kind of an orchestrated political figure.
Or I don't want to use words, but they've said things like honeypot, because that's a phrase via the Epsom.
I haven't made any Epstein.
I'm not making any connection, but you've heard that lately because once a word gets into the currency, you hear it all the time.
Fed slop.
Are you hearing that a lot?
Now, all of these claims remain pure, absolute, 100% speculation.
They belong to the realm of opinion and alleged conspiracies and the like and should be treated accordingly.
Now again, dear friend, I repeat, this is to the point of this expatiation is a peroration in essence.
What is empirically observable is that Erica Kirk has become, whether she wants it or not, a polarizing figure.
Supporters see a composed, faith-driven woman trying to navigate grief under the most extraordinary of scrutiny.
Critics, however, see an image that's curated, performative, choreographed, whose Little fractures and seams become visible under examination.
Both groups, by the way, are responding not only to actions, but to what she symbolizes in a fractured media environment.
Remember, it's not just about who she is, it's what she represents.
And this is not unique to her.
It is a feature of our moment of what is happening right now.
In an era, in an epoch or an epoch, as some say, where identity is content, where a person's grief is public and made available, and when memory is permanent, you can't memory hold this stuff, the line between storytelling and self-mythology is very thin.
So my friends, the takeaway here is not certainty, but caution.
Caution ten quidau.
Or tenguirao, as we say in West Hamp.
But the caution is not accepting polished narratives, you know, without context.
There must be caution.
Caution always about interring or inferring some kind of intent from inconsistency.
That's all.
Remember, perjury in some respects, under the law, is a prior inconsistent statement.
But there has to be an intent to deceive.
See, that's what a lie is.
A lie is a misrepresentation of fact.
This is how one court decided to define it.
A lie is a misrepresentation of fact, but with the intent to deceive.
It's not that I said something wrong.
I could say something inadvertently.
My intention wasn't to deceive you.
And even that gets muddy because if somebody says, how do I look at this?
Oh, you look great.
I want to deceive you.
I want you to make you think it looks great.
But that's kind of like a benign deceit.
I don't want to get into the gradations of the etymology of perjury.
But caution.
Caution should be taken about how quickly crowds move.
And this is Gustave Le Bon.
This is occlaquasy.
These are cloud murmuring.
You've seen birds like starlings move in these patterns.
That's called a murmuration.
That's what this is.
This is crowd behavior.
So what this is, I'm telling you right now, doesn't in any way signify or distinguish her as some kind of a liar.
But what I wanted to do was, perhaps being a little more thorough than usual, is to explain to you something that's very, very critical.
I am an observer of what's happening right now.
And without evidence, it means nothing.
But I love to look at the behavior that crowds exhibit, as I do with other situations as well.
So let me stop right there.
Let me thank you for allowing for taking so much of your time.
I apologize.
They get very involved in this because I'm fascinated by this.
Because I'm telling you, there's something very, there's something big happening, very, very big.
And it's not about being mean.
It's about a new group of people who have been awakened, who are coming out of the woodwork.
Say, wait a minute, what else are they lying about?
If they're lying about Charlie, if they're lying about Erica, if they're lying about Candace, or they're lying about whatever, what else is there?
And that is why it is so important to take these people and say, wait a minute, let's sit down and try to assuage your fears, to act as an emollient, as a salve to your worries.
Thank you for this.
Thank you for your kind comments.
Please follow us on Lionel Nation.
Thank you for also following Lynn's Warriors and the work that my wife is doing.
Remember, her work is over here.
I'm over here.
But I'm telling you, if you want to get to the truth, what is far more important than anything involving Erica Kirk or Candace or anything is the subjugation and the predation that is being leveled against our children through human trafficking, online.
predation and the like and Lynn's Warriors is devoted to that.
Please follow her on YouTube Nothing is more important than that.
Please like this video.
Please subscribe to the channel.
Please hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And by the way, do us a favor as well.
Please, if you could and you would.
I've got some questions for you.
Answer them and be a part of our interplay, as it were.