Antifa's War on Cops and the Brazilification of America with Lee Fang

The US dollar has lost 85% of its value since the 70s, when the dollar decoupled from gold, and the government seems bent on continuing the tradition.

Charlie Kirk here. From now until after the elections, the government can print as much money as they want. The last time they did that, inflation went up 9%. Gold is the only asset that has proven to withstand inflation. Invest in gold with Noble Gold Investments. You will get a 24-carat, one-fourth of an ounce gold standard coin for free.

Just use promo code KIRK. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. That's noblegoldinvestments.com, the only gold company I trust. Hey, everybody. Today on The Charlie Kirk Show, Lee Fang joins us to talk about radicals versus Atlanta, the global left's violent rage over a police academy, that, and so much more. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast and get involved with Turning Point USA today at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. 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 the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd.com. Welcome back, everybody. Email us, freedom at charliekirk.com.

Really excited for our guests this hour. Lee Fang joins us, who has been doing some great reporting and honestly has a super interesting story. I want to get into his background later, though. I want to first lead with his excellent story here.

That is radicals versus Atlanta, the global left's violent rage over a police academy meant to prevent killings. You guys can find it at leefang.com. That's L-E-E-F-A-N-G dot com. Lee, excellent piece. I want to explore this with you. Welcome to the program. Tell us about it.

Hey, Charlie, thanks for having me. You know, this piece looks at a couple of different issues. You know, in America, we have a crisis of police training. Police are not very don't. They don't have a very large training requirement, especially compared to other wealthy industrialized countries. You know, it takes a minimum of about three months to four months of training to become a police officer in many jurisdictions in the United States.

Compare that to Finland, Germany, Denmark and other countries where it takes at least three years. Stressed out cops, cops without proper training or more likely to injure civilians and themselves, more likely to escalate violent situations. There's just so much social science, criminology and other research that shows better trained police are better at preventing crime, are better at de-escalating and dealing with mental health emergencies, better at policing in general. Yet despite this kind of clear fact of the matter, the new cause du jour on the far left, the radical left, is going after police training. There's a view that any type of training, any type of investment in preparing police is some kind of violation of defund the police, abolish the police principles that somehow dangerous for society. And we're seeing protests all over the country of various police training centers. But the biggest kind of rallying cry is a proposed police training center in Atlanta that will be primarily for Atlanta police, but for Georgia police overall. Police in Atlanta are, you know, they're forced to train in a very decrepit building where the roof is literally caving in. Firefighters will also use the same training center.

They're using an ancient abandoned elementary school. This is something that the unions, that community leaders, that the entire city council, that community leaders have demanded for decades. Now it's finally happening. And the global left, I mean, people are flying in from France, from the UK, from Canada to protest the center, to engage in violence, to attempt to burn it down and attack it. It's kind of the rallying cry for protesters around the world in San Francisco and Brooklyn and Paris and other places. You see Stop Cop City. They've kind of branded it as a supposed supposed cop city and made it their rallying cry. And it's it's kind of led to these escalating violent tensions in Atlanta. That is very unusual for the city. This is a city with a long history of nonviolent civil rights protests, very kind of gradual, moderate reform. It's not known as a hotbed of radicalism. Yet Antifa and anarchists from around the country are swarming to the city and then camping and attacking construction workers and police officers as they attempt to build this training center.

So I have several thoughts. I think you've pinpointed the first perfectly, which is for years, as I do these campus events, I'm told by anti-police BLM activists, the key is training, that we need to train police better, that we need to make sure they're better equipped, that they're not overwhelmed, that when they get in a situation, for example, they don't mistake their taser for their firearm, right, which is a situation we saw recently that ended tragically. Now, that seems to just be an excuse, right, that that doesn't seem to be legitimate, maybe by some people it is. But this activist base is going after the actual training centers themselves. Now, our audience probably remembers and I want you to correct me if I'm in error here, but this felt like a coordinated attack. It felt like as if there was communication channels, time, date, place and manner to go after this construction site of well over, it seemed to be between 50 to 100 people is my estimation. Walk us through that day that went viral where these Antifa folks gathered with, I guess you could say weapons or I don't know if it was Molotov cocktails.

Tell us the details of when they decided to actually try to damage the training center in Georgia. Well, you know, to your first point, there's been a great division within the criminal justice reform movement. There are many well-meaning people, well-intentioned people who see police abuses, who see issues between police and civilians as an opportunity for reform, for greater investments in body cameras and civilian oversight and better training and working closer with police and violence interrupters to deal with all the kind of issues that we have in this country when it comes to crime and policing. But there's another side that's overwhelmingly kind of dominated by upper class activists, by foundation funded activists, by kind of highly educated left wing anarchists, for lack of a better term, who see this opportunity, see these kind of moments of police misconduct or viral moments you see in the news around policing as an opportunity to burn it all down, to kind of confront police, to engage in rioting and violence.

And that's what we've really seen with this public safety training center in Atlanta. Back in December, you had a number of activists, almost all of whom who were at least arrested, were from out of state. Once you look at the arrest records in one of these confrontations where protesters brought weapons, knives, Molotov cocktails, even firearms. In one case, 27, I believe, were arrested.

Only two were from Georgia. In another case where there's another violent confrontation, every single individual was from outside of the state. You know, there's sometimes kind of a cliche that, you know, any of these violent protests are outside agitators.

And, you know, I think you should always view some of these claims with skepticism. But the proof is right there. I mean, these violent protesters were bringing weapons into Georgia and to this training center.

The arrest records show that they don't live from the state. I mean, it's become a global rallying cry. So people are flying in. And you listen to the last city council hearing on this training center from earlier this summer, people at least identified themselves.

They said, look, I flew in from Los Angeles, I flew in from New York, and I'm just so opposed to police training that I use my own resources and my time to come protest. It's become very fashionable. It's kind of the bandwagon effect.

It's the mimetic power of the Internet. When people see these kind of very emotional causes, they get so invested. And if they have the time and resources, they will literally fly to a place like Atlanta and engage in these protests.

And it hasn't been meaningful back and forth. You know, there are you know, there's there's there are claims that this is a militarization center, that this is going to be used for training alongside Israeli special forces to terrorize minorities. There's no proof of that. But you can understand if you did believe that that might be kind of a galvanizing reason to go in and protest. But there's just been such a big separation between those who are very eager to jump on a bandwagon and those who are actually dealing with the facts of the matter for this training center. How much damage did they do to the construction site? And do you think this training center will actually get to completion? Well, they've destroyed multiple bulldozers and construction materials. They went to the Alabama home of one of the construction executives and attempted to intimidate him. They just destroyed and burned several police motorcycles at the center. They've attacked AT&T workers who are setting up some of the telecom equipment.

I don't think there's been a full kind of exhaustive list of all the damage they've done, but they keep attacking the workers and the police and destroying all the equipment as they come in and develop the center. And will it happen? I don't know.

This is now there's a fight. There's lots of kind of far left money flowing into the city to put the issue to referendum. So there'll be a yes or no vote in Atlanta that has not qualified yet. They're still gathering signatures, but it's still TBD. You know, there's a lot of money coming in and this is an off year election.

So, you know, for an off year election, if it qualifies for this November, truly, you know, for those types of elections, the most eager and enthusiastic voters can have a lot of sway. I just want everyone to just take a second here. This is is this in Fulton County, Lee? Is that correct? I think it is.

Yeah, I believe so. So you have the Fulton County DA who's about to indict a former president because of a phone call. And then you simultaneously have a taxpayer funded police training center of people flying in from all over the world, attacking it.

Something here doesn't fit. Listen, as students begin heading back to school, do you think they'll be learning about the founding principles that made America the freest, most prosperous nation in history? Will they learn that our unalienable rights are God given and not granted by government?

Will they be given a full and honest account of our nation's history? The answer to all these questions is yes for students at Hillsdale College. And these days, in addition to teaching college students, Hillsdale has extended its teaching to K through 12 students and lifelong learners like you and me. If you're not doing so already, one of the best ways to start learning from my friends at Hillsdale is through in Primus, Hillsdale's free digest of liberty. My listeners can sign up for free at the special website, which is available for a limited time. It's at charlie4hillsdale.com. I look forward to in Primus each month and you can too. It's interesting, useful and free. The best and smartest in conservative constitutionalist thought. Find out more about Hillsdale and in Primus at charlie4hillsdale.com.

They're an excellent college, America's greatest college, charlie4hillsdale.com. So, Lee, you mentioned that this is funded by nonprofits or other groups. Can you can you add some detail to that, please?

Sure. You know, I've been doing a little bit of writing on this one kind of billionaire backed foundation called Solidair. They're funded by many different kind of wealthy heirs and tech executives. Even Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, is given quite a bit of money to Solidair. This is a group that's, you know, a main funder of several of the activist groups in the kind of Atlanta area. They're engaged in this public safety training center that including one of the groups that is movement builders.

That's kind of spearheading the push to stop this project. This foundation is one of several different kind of Silicon Valley based groups, back groups. Another one is the Schmidt Foundation, the former CEO of Google. They've provided a significant amount of money.

And there's an heir to a billionaire fortune, the Cox Media Enterprises, James Fergie Chambers. He's promised six hundred thousand dollars to this effort to stop the police training center. So it's a lot of billionaire money, a lot of tech money, a lot of California money flowing to this effort. Well, so Lee, just for the kind of everyday listener in our audience, help them understand why a plutocrat oligarch like Mark Zuckerberg, who factually does spend three to four million dollars on private security a year. That's a fact.

OK, every time. Oh, it's more than that. Oh, it's 10 million.

OK, every time he goes jogging in Rome or London, he has buff veterans jogging alongside of him. Right. So what what is the motivation, if you were to speculate a little bit, Lee, why someone like Mark Zuckerberg, who does not have a moment without armed security to fund the destruction and or the challenging, let's just be fair, challenging of a police training center? I think there are a couple of explanations. One is that some billionaires, I've done some reporting on this, like a Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay. He's a big funder of abolish and defund the police groups.

He is also an investor in private security startups, including a company that's like an Uber. Now, that's right. That is that is more cynical than I expected.

I thought it would be an ideological answer. That's just that's awful. Well, I think I think it's mostly ideology.

I want to square that away. That's that's one conflict of interest that is interesting. And I think there are a few others in that regard. But overall, why do these billionaires in California and New York on these abolish the police, defund the police efforts? It's a lot about social signaling. It's about, you know, employee relations. You know, some of these workplaces in Silicon Valley are very left wing.

It's about kind of showing, you know, a heck of a better term, virtue signaling and showing that they have all the right bona fides in terms of being the good graces of progressives. But it's deeply ironic and cynical in another way, because look at Mark Zuckerberg's foundation. He's providing money to the group that sponsors DefundPolice.org. He's providing money to Solid Air, which is providing training for activists to fight to abolish police and fight this police training center. But look at another donation from the Zuckerberg Foundation. He's providing money to the Redwood City Police Foundation.

So he's defunding police all over the country, except for the police department near the Facebook headquarters. So it's it's it's for me, but not for the that type of thing. Yeah, I just that's an unbelievably accurate yet simple talking point I hear so often. And it's also, I think, unbelievably evil to say that I'm OK with protecting myself. But I have to be lectured by Zuckerberg types about marginalized communities where violent crime is going up.

I mean, it's going up in D.C., it's going up in most urban areas, at least over the last couple of years. And I mean, I'm just visiting this website, Lee, right now. By the way, I just have to comment. There are so many left wing 501C3, 501C4 social welfare NGO groups.

I lose track of them. It's hundreds that of different URLs. So defund the police dot org, a one stop shop for organizers and advocates looking for tools, resources and trainings to divest from policing and to build safer communities. And it has legislative resources, budgeting tools, organizing resources, trainings and events. And so you're telling me Mark Zuckerberg is funding this organization.

He funds the sponsor of that organization. And look, even though this is draped in egalitarian language about helping all of society, the actual net effect is the Brazilification of America, more inequality, that the rich will have private security, gated communities, the poor won't have anyone to call when there's crime. Yeah, and if you want to be extremely cynical, then politically you're able to control the masses permanently because the middle class is in disarray and criminality is widespread.

That's only if you're super cynical, which I reject wholeheartedly. Do you know the average American spends about 20 years in retirement? That's a long time to live without a steady income, and we want to make sure you enjoy every moment of it and don't outlive your money. Retirement is about more than just investments. It's about living your best life.

Let's not retire. Let's pivot. My friends at Pax Financial, who I use for my wealth management future, develop a course for the sole purpose of helping you pivot. If you want your own free guide to pivoting into the new chapter of life with purpose, visit paxfg.com slash Charlie.

That is paxfg.com slash Charlie, paxfg.com slash Charlie. So, Lee, I want to ask just about your background to further introduce you to our audience. I find it super interesting. First of all, you're reporting this first class and you're intellectually honest, which is very hard to find. But you're liberal by background.

You ran the Maryland College Democrats. Tell us your story. I think I think it's fascinating.

Sure. You know, I'm a millennial. Growing up in the D.C. area, I grew up kind of east in the suburbs east of D.C. And I was very motivated and shaped and influenced by the war on terror, the war in Iraq. You know, I watched as smoke billowed out of the Pentagon just to kind of see the rush to war, the rush to kind of separate everyone between the Manichaean worldview, between good and evil. I was kind of alarmed by efforts to privatize Social Security. And I saw tax cuts that seemed very unfair, that seemed weighted towards the upper income side of the equation. And it kind of galvanized me.

You know, we live in a winner take all system. So we basically have a two party system. And it pushed me towards the Democrats early in life. Did a lot of activism in college on the war. Joined college Democrats and like engaged in a lot of primary stuff, getting out, you know, perceived as conservative pro-corporate Democrats out of the party, engaging a lot of those primary fights. Joined a think tank tied to Obama and the Obama White House, the Center for American Progress, did a lot of investigative reporting and journalism that was, you know, I'm proud of most of that work. But, you know, having a little bit of a partisan edge, kind of supporting certainly more Democrats.

I became a little bit jaded, though. You know, I saw a lot of the corrupt deals in the Obama administration that were very pro-corporate, the kind of dirty deal with Google to like, you know, refuse to enforce any of the antitrust or privacy regulations on this company because it became so close to the Obama administration. You know, the refusal to get out of Afghanistan.

You know, instead, Obama surged the number of troops there and breaking his promise. You know, just kind of as I grew older, maturing and seeing the realities of politics. You know, you can't be wedded to one partisan side or even one ideology. People are tribalistic. You know, if you want to be an independent journalist, if you want to understand the way the world works, you can't be connected to any team. You know, you've got to view everyone with skepticism.

You've got to view everyone with some degree of scrutiny. And as I moved a little bit to the more progressive left, you know, I worked for a number of different magazines. I ran my own anti-corruption website. Eventually, I worked at The Intercept, this billionaire-funded, left-wing investigative site.

You know, I did a lot of journalism there that I'm incredibly proud of and there are still some good reporters there. But, you know, it has some of the different trappings of ideology and partisanship that, you know, when it comes to just seeing the world as it is on policing, on identity and, you know, being fair-minded around these issues, it's impossible for the kind of radical left. You know, they see these issues in their own kind of Manichean good versus evil, just as the Bush administration saw the war on terror in a similar way. You know, you're either with us or you're against us.

And if you do anything that's perceived as against us, we're going to destroy you personally. I come from, you know, a more old-school view on identity. I want to view people on their, judge people on their character, on what's in their heart, not their skin color or their race. And that's not popular anymore on the radical left. In fact, if you view the world through that lens, you're seen as a racist, you're seen as a bigot. And, you know, that's a fundamental disconnect I have with sites like The Intercept and other kind of progressive movements and protests and, you know, media kind of academic.

There's a whole kind of sphere of the radical left where identity politics reigns supreme over every other issue. And it's made me uncomfortable. How have your relationships been since you've, let's just say, dissented from the party line?

As you say, hey, maybe it's not a good thing that we riot or maybe we shouldn't, you know, have black-only dormitories. I don't know, like how have your relationships and friendships been just on a personal level? I'm curious.

That's a good question. You know, it's certainly harmed several personal and professional relationships. That being said, it's also opened the door to exponentially more relationships. When you tie yourself too deeply to an extremist ideology, which really at the end of the day, it is. You know, even though it's the dominant ideology, this kind of far left identity politics is dominant in certain spheres of the media and academia, regular people are not down for it. You know, people who work nine to five regular jobs, whether that's in tech or the service sector, they're driving a bus or driving Uber or working in a hospital, you know, they don't share these views around violence. They don't cheer riots. They don't say, hey, we've got to segregate people by their skin color and put them in different HR trainings and say you're inherently an oppressor or inherently a victim based on the pigment of your skin.

That's actually not normal. You know, once you reject that ideology, you realize that, look, you can actually have more common cause with ordinary Americans. Yes, it will harm some of your relationships in the elite with, you know, these billionaire foundations, with a lot of journalists and activists. But look, those people don't speak for most Americans. So it certainly has kind of disconnecting from that world, has harmed a few relationships, but it's also opened me to many new relationships.

I think that's beautiful the way you put that. And the divide in America is both ideological and class. And so it tends to be that the wealthiest of the wealthy have these, they're subsidizing, but also they might not believe it.

But that's why I want to ask you some of this stuff. I mean, I'm looking at Pierre Omidar as example, right, French born Iranian American billionaire, technology entrepreneur, helped start, you know, obviously started eBay. And some people call him the next George Soros and Sergey Brin or Larry Page and Laureen Powell Jobs and Mackenzie Bezos. There's a community of plutocrats that are wealthier than anything that we could comprehend, right?

Multiples of multiples wealthier than the ordinary person. Yet they are the driving force. And Lee, what I find fascinating about what we are living through is we think of, let's just say, radical revolutions usually as being bottom up, as being the workers revolting against the capital class, right? This is different. This feels like a top down revolution that is driven by Aspen and Sun Valley and Martha's Vineyard and Kenny Bunkport.

Help me make sense of that. Well, I mean, I would disagree just slightly about the nature of revolutions. We've seen all throughout history, radical movements are often elites galvanizing the working class for their own interests. You know, the communists were elites who galvanized the working class. Fascists were elites who galvanized the working class. And we see that kind of similar dynamic happening in America where we have a very elite class of people at major corporations who have inherited incredible amounts of wealth for hoping to galvanize the working class for their own pet ideology. And in many cases, this is essentially class war, but not in the sense, not in the kind of like standard left wing way of viewing the world.

In many cases, it's creating, you know, an ideology, a value system that gives the perception of doing good for society, but really entrenches a very rigid class system. And we see that certainly with public safety issues where, you know, as we just discussed, the only people who benefit from a completely divided system where only the people with private security and gated communities can live safely are the very, very wealthy. And the people who are suffering from these policies are the working class, the middle class who can't afford this type of security, who can't just flee their community because they're grounded in something real. You know, they work at a storefront.

They work at a place where they can't just go on their laptop and hide in their house all day. If you have to commute to work, if you actually have to go into the streets, you aren't afforded the luxury of an abolish the police ideology. Yet we see where does the money come from from this movement? It comes from the very upper echelons of society. I have no idea how you're going to answer this question, but I'm genuinely curious as a free thinker and someone that probably hears one side is extreme, other side is extreme.

What do you think currently and today is a greater threat to American liberty, like the MAGA base or let's just say the prevailing dogma of the American Democrat Party? That's a really hard question to respond to because it's I think just this general dynamic where we have these two warring tribes that can't see each other and understand their commonality. You know, I think essentially if you just wipe away the labels, the social media hate, you know, people basically want the same thing. They want good jobs. They want good housing. They want a good education. They want to retire with dignity.

They want to live in safe communities and, you know, breathe in clean air and drink clean water. You know, like these aren't radical ideas. You know, we might have different ideas of paths to get there, but there's not that much that separates us in terms of what we want at the end of the day. And, you know, I think it's dangerous that the prevailing norm now in the Democratic Party is valorizing everything the FBI does and having the government crack down on public debate and speech. You know, I think that's dangerous. And, you know, I think we disagree here. I think it's also dangerous that we're such a weaponized country that everyone's getting guns and arming themselves for some potential conflict down the road. I think that's creepy, too. You know, I can see a very negative consequence of that as well.

And, you know, like I think we all just need to kind of tone down the temperature and understand and respect each other. So, Lee, the issue of war just riff a little bit. There is mass kind of political confusion. Some people on the right, I mean, the majority of the people on the right are against what's happening in Ukraine. But prior, it was the other way around. Republicans were the biggest neocons and cheerleaders. Just add your thoughts or some clarity to are we seeing a realignment when it comes to foreign policy? We are seeing a realignment.

Look at some of the latest votes. You know, every two years, the budget for the Pentagon has to be reauthorized. That's an opportunity for Congress to kind of tinker with some of the provisions and shape foreign policy kind of from the sidelines. You know, the president has incredible power, but this is the one check that Congress has really on shaping military foreign policy.

Look at the last few votes when they were happening in July. It was actually the far left, a lot of the squad members and the Freedom Caucus coming together to say, hey, we've got to actually have a special inspector general to oversee the one hundred and seventeen billion dollars Congress has allocated to Ukraine. You know, we have no special inspector general, the special inspector general for TARP, for the bank bailouts, for Afghanistan, for Iraq.

But no one kind of no special I.G. for Ukraine. It's kind of crazy. A check on cluster bombs on a better oversight on how casualties are reported. Now, these were interesting votes where it didn't cut between Democrats and Republicans. It was establishment versus populace where you saw Freedom Caucus and squad members coming together, even members who I think truly hate each other. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Cori Bush famously kind of yelling at each other, hated each other. They were voting for each other's bills, which I give both of them credit for, you know, reflecting on our earlier conversation.

This is one of my kind of mea culpa's maybe black pill moment. You know, growing up in the shadow of the Iraq war, I obsessively hated the mainstream media. I thought this is a, you know, an institution that worked with the Pentagon, worked with political leaders to manufacture consent for the war. They were fundamentally lying to us.

They got us into the war without asking the right questions about weapons of mass destruction and other claims that the Bush administration was making. And then we needed an independent and especially social media. The Internet would give us freedom. The Internet would give us the ability to criticize our leaders, our policymakers, the war planners.

And look where we are today with Ukraine. We have more access to the Internet than ever. We have more people using social media than ever.

I think we actually have less questions today about the war than we did back in 2003, 2004. Why do you think, you know, the Internet has not helped? So the Internet has actually made us more obedient.

Yes, it has. I think it gives the illusion of freedom. You know, it's great for a few outsiders like me and potentially you and a few other content creators.

You know, we're able to make things work. But most people, you know, for lack of a better term, the masses, you know, they're logging into Facebook, they're logging in to Twitter. You know, these are platforms that have drained the ad revenue from quality media outlets. So you have like less you have less reporters doing their job. You know, Baltimore Sun, you know, I grew up in Maryland. The Baltimore Sun used to have foreign correspondents all over the world. Now they barely have enough reporters to cover what's going on in Baltimore.

You know, so you have less of these less legacy talent. You have more social control centralized at the social media platforms that are working with the government to curtail speech. You know, these disinformation debates, you know, the government is very clearly working with the big platforms to shape the type of content we see.

What discussions are allowed, what's shadow banned, what's banned. And at the end of the day, because of these factors and others, there's less scrutiny. There's less of a public debate about the war in Ukraine. In fact, there are these propaganda accounts that are constantly cheering on NATO and exaggerating. I mean, look at what all of these pro-NATO accounts were saying earlier this year that Ukraine had this huge opportunity to seize Crimea and make gigantic gains in the war.

It's just been a meat grinder. You know, this has not been the case. But, you know, we have this very powerful war propaganda that's actually amplified through social media and the Internet. And, you know, again, like I'm wrong, I hope for a completely different dynamic with the rise of Internet back in 2004. If anything, it's gotten worse.

Yeah. And it also makes you wonder, this is a topic for a different time, how talented the intel agencies are at actually manipulating our algorithms and puppeteering our tech companies, because they are actively involved in the propaganda networks. And it's no different. The same way that they used to tell CNN, hey, we need more eyeballs to support the surge. They just do it differently.

They just use Google's SEO. I'm convinced of it. Lee, great job. Thank you so much.

We'll have you on. Again, thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your thoughts. As always, freedom at CharlieKirk.com. Thank you so much for listening and God bless. Conservative minds like Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Sebastian Gorka and more. Find truth. Watch 24 seven on SNC TV and on Local Now, Channel 525.