Tucker Carlson's Official Response to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Hey, I'm Tucker Carlson. Last week, within just really minutes after Charlie Kirk was shot at that event in Utah, a kind of proxy war broke out over his memory. Who gets to own it? Who gets to use it? While the rest of us were still reeling in shock trying to figure out what happened, a ton of people appeared online, not just in this country, to tell you exactly what happened, exactly what it meant, and exactly what we should do next. And you can see why.

With this level of emotion, rage, and grief in the air, it's pretty wise to leverage that much energy. It's almost like nuclear power. It can be used for good or bad. And a lot of people wanted to use it. There's no question about that.

So they begin telling you, Charlie died for this, he lived for this and he died for that. So the crazier reaches of the left, it was, Charlie was a Nazi, and the lesson is, Nazis get killed, it makes sense. He was a bad guy who got what he deserved, and a lot of them said that out loud. Certain parts of the right immediately told you that actually this was about something completely different.

You know, Charlie died for Israel. Many began to say the prime minister of Israel said that, and so did a lot of other people. Charlie was a defender of Israel, which he was, by the way, and therefore he died for that cause. But none of these explanations, all self-serving, are really satisfactory. They don't capture who Charlie Kirk was, and on some basic basic level they're dishonest. Charlie was not a Nazi. He was not killed because he was

a Nazi. Yes, he was a defender of Israel. He didn't die for Israel, however. Why did he die? What was his life about? What was the sin, the core sin, that Charlie Kirk committed against somebody, power, that got him killed in the end? And the answer is right in front of us, certainly those of us who knew him. Charlie's life committed against somebody, power, that got him killed in the end? And the answer is right in front of us, certainly those of us who knew him. Charlie's life was defined by his Christian faith, not his spirituality, but his belief in Jesus, his

life as a Christian. Everything in his life flowed from those beliefs, everything. Everything he did, said, and believed came from the fact that he was, above all, a Christian. And that is, and was, and in fact has always been deeply provocative and offensive to the rest of the world. And why is that? It's worth thinking about it for just a second.

Christianity doesn't seem like the kind of religion that would provoke people to anger and violence. In fact, it seems just the opposite. It's the world's most profoundly nonviolent religion. Maybe the world's only truly nonviolent religion. A religion based on a man

who Christians believe was also God, who as he was being led away to be tortured to death on made up charges, scolded one of his disciples for fighting back. This is a religion committed to love above all and to living in peace and harmony, truly. It's a universalist religion that believes that every

person has a shot at heaven. It's not exclusionary at all. And so you would think it would make sense that if you're a government or if you're in power that you'd want a lot of Christians living in your country because they're not going to cause massive problems. Not a lot of sincere Christians are fomenting insurrection at any given moment. Pretty much none, most of the time. They're tidy, they get married, they love their children, they pay their taxes, they're commanded to pay their taxes. So why wouldn't you want a nation full of Christians? Why wouldn't you encourage this religious belief, even if it wasn't yours? Why would you hate it? Well, there are a couple of reasons. There are a couple of things about

Christianity, and these were evident throughout Charlie's public life, that are deeply provocative to the people in power. And the first is the insistence that Christianity comes with inherently that you are not God. You are not God, and neither are your leaders. God is God, and all of us stand before him in the end to be judged, and all of us will be found lacking.

Christians believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus, that's the only way, but all of us, whether we believe in Jesus or not, are fallen. We are sinners, we are less than we ought to be. We are not gods, and neither are the people who lead us. And this has a lot of implications, the first being, if you're not God, you don't get to

do whatever you want. There are limits, there are rules that you didn't write that you have to abide by. That's not a judgment, that's a statement of fact. Some call it natural law. It's been the basis of every functioning society since the beginning of time. But the basis of our society

is the Christian understanding of justice, which flows from that belief. You are not God, God is. He writes the most basic rules, you abide by them, period. That's the basis of our law. That's the basis of Western law.

And that is a threat, a challenge, to people who would ignore the limits on their behavior, very much including our leaders, and very much including the most powerful people in our society, whether they're elected or not. Nobody wants to be told you're not allowed to do something.

And Christianity inherently tells people that. Doesn't judge them, it just states it clearly. No, you do not have the power to kill except possibly in self-defense, but you can't just go killing people. And you can't go killing people because,

and this is the second thing about Christianity that tends to set the teeth of the powerful on edge, Christianity insists that every human being is created by God, every single one. And that means that every human being is created by God, every single one, and that means that every human being has a soul, a distinct, unique soul created by God.

It is, once again, the only true universalist faith there is. And the New Testament is the story of this, an under-read collection of books that is not the story of the Old Testament, it's very much the story of the New Testament. In the New Testament, all people are God's chosen, every single one, and the story itself makes that point. The founder of most Christian churches

in the early Near East was a former Pharisee, a Jew who was in charge of killing Christians until he famously met Jesus on the road to Damascus. His name was Saul, he became Paul, and he is the most prolific author in the New Testament on the basis of a lot of Christian theology.

And his life tells the story. People can change, no matter what they look like, no matter what they previously believed, no matter where they're from, no matter what language they speak, because they are created by God, and every person, every single person, whether you like them or their relatives or the way they look or not, has that chance because all were created by God and all were loved by God. That is the basis of Christianity.

That's the Christian story. And so a sincere Christian proceeds with that belief. There is no tribalism in Christianity. There is no identity politics. It's the opposite. You may prefer to be with people who look like you, that's fine.

But God doesn't prefer to be with people who look like you. God prefers to be with all people because he created all people. He's the God of the universe, not just of the people you like. And that, again, has massive implications for the way that sincere Christians live and for the way that Charlie Kirk lived his life. And the first is, if other people have souls, if they, like you, were created by God, then

they have freedom of conscience. You can tell them what they ought to think, but you can't make them. You can tell them what they ought to say, but you can't force them. Christianity does not convert by the sword. It can't. It requires free will, and it requires free will because it respects the individual conscience emanating from the distinct soul of every human being. And that is why in the West, which is

based on Christianity, our civilization is a Christian civilization, tattered though it currently is, collective punishment, hurting people for the sins of their relatives, is unthinkable. It's a crime, because each person will stand alone as he was made before God, and every person is equal before God, fundamentally. Doesn't mean each person is equal in his ability, it doesn't mean each person is equal in the choices he makes, of course not.

But it means that every person is a human being with a divine spark inside. That is the core assumption of Christianity. And it was obvious when you watch Charlie Kirk that he believed that. Charlie's been famously quoted for the last couple of days saying he abhors antisemitism. That is absolutely right. And he did. He said that in public and he said it very often in private.

He meant it too. But he abhorred racism and bigotry on the basis of genetics of all kinds because he was a Christian and he believed that God created each person. Now, why is this a problem for temporal authorities? Why is it a problem for the people in power? Because once again, it circumscribes what they can do. It sets a limit on their powers. If God created each person, including the infuriating, annoying, disastrously wrong person I'm talking to,

then I can't force him to repeat my creed. I'm not in charge of his conscience. Only he is. And that is a limit. So when Charlie Kirk said, I believe in free speech, he didn't simply believe in free speech because it was in the Bill of Rights. He understood that it was in the Bill of Rights because it's in the New Testament. He understood that's a right that comes from God bestowed on all of us at birth, and he felt his job, his duty, was not simply to protect it, but to live it, to show people what that looks like.

And I just want to play of the many clips we could play of Charlie Kirk on college campus that he spent his whole life worn out most of the time, and as an older man I often said to him, how the hell do you get on plane after plane after plane? But he felt an evangelical duty, small evangelical duty to do it, to get out there and talk to people. Why? Not simply to build a coalition or get this or that person elected,

but because he believed as a Christian that convincing people voluntarily with words, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, so the Gospel of John begins, words are the key to winning people's minds and their souls. And he really meant this.

He wasn't just repeating the words. He meant it, and it was obvious in the way that he interacted with people who disagree with him and people who hated him. Here's one clip that tells part of the story.

Would you want someone who is not necessarily stable or ready to bring a child into this world and provide that child the life it deserves? Would you want them to still bring that child into this world? Without a doubt. Every life has a moral obligation to be able to live. If I can't give that child the life it deserves, why am I bringing it to...

Got it. This will be my last question. I want you to think about it. If a single mom has two two-year-olds, twins, and she wakes up one day and says, I can't do it anymore, I can't give them the life they deserve. But that's just not the circumstance. Hold on. Should she be able to take out a shotgun and kill both those kids? No, of course not. Because you think that would be objectionable. That's why I think it's objectionable to eliminate two babies that are six weeks old because they're morally the same thing.

One just happens to be bigger. One just happens to be older. One just happens to be outside of the womb.

They're both human beings and you have something in you that says no way is it okay to kill a two-year-old. That's called your soul talking. You have something in you that tells you the truth. You can call it instinct if you like, Charlie Kirk referred to it as the soul, but both mean the same thing. You have the spark of the divine, God's spark inside you, and it reacts, it hums, it vibrates like a tuning fork, and you know on a basic animal level, like your dog knows, when something is wrong. You can feel it.

And the whole purpose of modern society, it seems sometime, is to get the rest of us to ignore what we know. That vibration inside us that tells us the truth always, it never lies to us. Charlie did not ignore that.

And you'll notice that in the end he appealed to it with that young woman. He didn't scream, you're a murderer in his face, though he considered abortion murder, which it is. He felt that deeply. This wasn't a performance, he wasn't another non-profit phony in DC feigning outrage about something. He really believed that taking innocent life was wrong in the womb

or in crowded cities, anywhere. He thought it was wrong because his faith tells him it's wrong and because his conscience confirms that belief. And so does yours, and so did hers, so did all of ours. We know when something is wrong. And the people above us shouted us, no, really, there's an explanation for it. That's just your super ego barking at you. No. You know in your heart, deep inside, what every person has known, and that is the murder

of innocence is a crime. It's a moral crime. And that girl knew it. And in the end, that was Charlie's appeal. Listen to that divine spark inside you. Listen to your soul speak to you.

Turn off the music, get off the drugs, push the distractions, which it's hard to believe aren't actually designed to crowd out that humming inside us, and be still for a moment and accept what you already know, what you were born knowing. Listen to that. Only someone who appreciates the person he's speaking to as an actual human being could speak that way.

Notice how rare that is. It's been noted in the past couple of days, Charlie was a free speech champion. Absolutely he was, and I pray that that's his legacy. But I also think it's important to explain why that mattered to him. It was not abstract in any sense. It was central.

It was the core because consider what it means if you don't respect free speech, which is another way of saying free conscience, the right of other people to make up their own minds about the basic questions of what is right or wrong and to express their views on those issues.

If you don't acknowledge the right of other people to do that, and if you take steps to prevent them from doing that, what are you really saying? You're really saying, I don't think you have a soul. I think you're a meat puppet I can control. I think you're an animal, maybe sub-animal. You're a slave. You're a person to whom I can dictate belief. I don't acknowledge that you have the right to come to your own conclusion is another way of saying I don't acknowledge that you're a human being

It's dark. There's nothing darker than that and trust me. They believe it The ones who've thought about it and there are a lot of those but for a lot of people particularly those who are just Repeating what they think they should say or responding to the momentary rage of the moment. They just throw stuff out. And we've got to hope that the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, is in that

category. She said this just yesterday. Watch.

There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.

There's free speech and then there's hate speech. This is the Attorney General of the United States, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, telling you that there's this other category called hate speech. And of course, the implication is that's a crime. There's almost no sentence that Charlie Kirk, and I'm not running the risk of appropriating his memory for my own ends by saying this, it's provable, there's no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected

to more than that. And you've got to think the Attorney General didn't think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate, that she just threw that out there, that she hadn't thought about it. You hope that. You hope that Charlie Kirk's death won't be used by a group we now call bad actors

to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build. You hope that. You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged

to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever, and there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say,

they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human. They don't believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes,

not to hurt other people, but to express his views. And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the attorney general, who's a very nice person, but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay

to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like. Why do they believe that? How did we get here? Is it the video games? Is it the SSRIs? Yeah, probably, but what it really is is 12 and then 16 years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the Attorney General just said. Well, there's free

speech, which of course we all acknowledge is important, so so important, but then there's this thing called hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way. They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence. And we punish violence, don't we?

Of course we do. They've been taught that every year of their lives. And so naturally, most of them believe it. When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a .30-06 on camera. I doubt very many young Americans want to see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband. But they've been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told

them. Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie. And it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them,

there are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under the US code who disagree with their beliefs, any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line because again, when they can do that, what can't they do? And this is something, by the way, that Charlie thought about a lot and that I had occasion to talk to him about a lot and I really really don't wanna make any of this about me

because it has nothing to do with me. But I did have reason to have these conversations with Charlie a lot, many, many times over the past three or four months. And this began at an event that he held in Florida in July, the TPUSA MFest event, Turning Point event.

I often go, I always have the best time. I always see Charlie ahead of time. We have a cup of coffee in a hotel room, talk about what's going on. In addition to being, of course, a conservative advocate, he was also a conservative organizer, a coalition builder,

and he was very involved in politics in a way that I'm not, so it was also a way to learn what young people are thinking about, talking about, because he was on college campuses all the time, and what is the state of a couple of big debates that are happening within the Republican coalition, particularly around foreign policy. And Charlie's views on foreign policy, which I think are fairly well known now, a lot of people lying about them, were evolving, but had really evolved.

And who knows why he reached the conclusions that did, I think his Christian faith informed them mostly. It was also the experience of talking to young people and his views were very much like theirs. He believed that the war on terror had been a net loss for the United States

and it caused incalculable damage, not just economic and physical damage, but spiritual damage to the United States. It was bad, we got nothing out of it. We were only hurt. And he didn't wanna see that again. And he felt very strongly about that.

And of course I agreed. And so before that speech that I gave in July, we had a conversation about this backstage, right before I went on. And I was fulminating and getting all red in the face, like I often do to my shame.

And I was mad thinking about this and thinking about the effort by the neocons in the United States to draw us in to another forever war with Iran. Not a defense of Iran, of course. It's merely an acknowledgment that we've done this before. This happened in Iraq, which we entered

into at the behest of those same foreign policy strategists. This happened in Iraq, which we entered into at the behest of those same foreign policy strategists, and it didn't work. And so I was going on at some length backstage with Charlie, and I said, probably not gonna talk about that. I'm not gonna torture you.

I know your donors hate this when I say that. And also Epstein was in the news, and it was clear to me that Epstein's probably not like a Mossad agent or something, but Epstein clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence, but the only one you're allowed to talk about is Israeli intelligence. But it seemed true to me and I had done some work on

that and I knew a bunch of people pretty close to that story. So I thought that. And I said that to Charlie. And I said, but I'm not going to say that because I don't want to make your donors mad. I know it's just going to be like an endless flurry of text telling you to stop or you're going to lose a bunch of funding.

And he looked at me, I'll never forget it, and said, go all the way, do it, go all the way. I said, man, I, you know, a lot of things I can talk about. I don't need to talk about that. And he said, do it. So I did it. By the way, I think that that conversation hit a mic on

and so did I, probably exists somewhere on somebody's server, but that's, I think a faithful rendition of what he said. for my remarks, you can agree or disagree with those remarks. But I'm saying this only because I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death.

Basically made it all about him and all about his country, immediately trying to take the energy, the sadness, the grief that people felt over Charlie's murder and redirect it towards support for whatever project he's involved in. And by the way, Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same

as the nation of Israel at all. Bibi is despised by many people in Israel. And if you know people who live there, you know that that's true. There are huge divisions within the Israeli government. I mean, there are certain parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things that Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently.

So it's not the same as attacking Israel, attacking Bibi. But I don't think I've ever seen anything lower than his attempt to hijack Charlie's memory and use it for his own political ends, particularly because what he said was completely untrue. Charlie didn't hate Jews, he loved Jews. He had tons of friends who were Jews. He loved the state of Israel, he loved going there.

He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and he said it to people around him many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force. He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza. He was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu

was using the United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, and he resented it. Didn't hate Netanyahu. He wasn't out there with a placard saying that, but he certainly expressed that to me and a lot of other people. And there's

no question that BB's defenders on the internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact and enough text messages exist that I think it can probably be verified in pretty short order. Not that it needs to be, because that is true. Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie and to some extent on me, not that I really noticed, but on him. I have no donors.

He had $100 million worth of donors, and so because he was involved in a different project from just yapping on the internet, which is what I do for a living, he was dependent to a great extent on his donors, of course. It's a non-profit. And they went after him and tormented him. Not all, of course, many were supportive, but the ones who were offended by my speech and there was a small, very intense group who were, tormented Charlie Kirk until the

day he died. Two days before he died, he lost a $2 million donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point conference in December. And he told me over the past couple of months he was losing a lot of donations over that pledge. They put out a flyer basically saying that I was going to be at this event giving a speech. And so he would text me and say, man, I'm really taking a lot of heat for this and people are really mad.

The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie, an anti-Semite and quote, dangerous Charlie Kirk, an anti-Semite. He was not an anti-Semite. He was the opposite and he was not dangerous. He was a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace. He was the opposite.

And he was very stung by that. Those of us who've been called names for a long time are a little bit harder to offend. Charlie was deeply offended by that and expressed some of those feelings on Megyn Kelly's show and in other places. But that did not let up.

The reason I'm telling this story is because he called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic. And I said to him every single time, look, I've got my own way to communicate my views. This is actually not the most important issue to me. There are lots of things I can talk about.

I don't need to come to turning point. I can take a year off, no problem. I hated seeing how much he was suffering, the hassle he was getting from people. And I was being attacked too, by the way. It was a huge effort. I wasn't fully aware of it, actually, because I don't go online that much.

But there was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like. Seth Dillon at the Babylon Bee, for example, someone who had his own problems with free speech, who was famously canceled. I like Seth Dillon.

I had him on a couple of times. I had dinner with him to show support. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak. And if you don't like it,

make a more compelling case that that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about. It's not just about Israel, by the way, at all. The trend is really simple. People with power don't want to hear disagreement. They don't want to be challenged

ever. That's why we have free speech to acknowledge that even those of us or people with less power still have a right to talk because they're human beings. You don't own them. So time after time, Charlie would call me or come to see me and let me know, wow, or show me text messages. These people are really mad that you're speaking. And I would always have the same thought, like, I feel pretty moderate, actually. I've never been an Israel hater. Obviously, I'm not an anti-Semite. I just don't want more wars, and I don't want a foreign country

humiliating my country and telling us what our laws have to be. I mean, this seems like pretty basic America First stuff. And he would say, I totally agree with you, but they want you off the stage. And I would always say, no problem. And he would say, no, it's important. It's a matter of principle. I want you to be there. Great. By the way, I'm not accusing anyone of being involved in that murder.

I'm not trying to mutter darkly or imply anything. There's a lot we don't know about who murdered Charlie and why, but I don't know and I'm not gonna pretend that I do. But I think it's important to say that out loud because it's a fact and there are many liars out there trying, Bibi Netanyahu, number one among them,

shamefully, who are trying to distort the truth, a truth that I know and can prove. And the last thing I'll say about Charlie is that his views were changing on topics that had nothing to do with foreign policy, you know, the famous kind of red line, third rail, can't talk about it. But it's possible that the subject that makes people even matter in Washington, New York,

and LA than having nonconventional foreign policy views is having nonconventional economic views. Men, they really don't like that at all. And Charlie's views on economics and on the way that wealth is distributed in the United States were changing fast, really changing fast and hardening.

Not because he was a socialist, hardly. He was about as much of a socialist as I am, not at all. But because he lived here and he spent a lot of time with young people and he couldn't help but notice because he was an observant and honest person that they're not thriving at all and that the chances they'll have lives comparable to the ones they had growing up

are very small. Most of them won't have houses, they won't own anything, they'll be in debt, and for that reason they won't get married or have children. And so the people who are born here won't continue their legacy in the United States. It's the end of our civilization.

And the root of a lot of this is spiritual, but the root is also economic. And it raises a question, a basic question of fairness. And I tried to address this in the speech that I gave for Charlie in July. I don't think I did a very good job, and it was misinterpreted, but I invoked Bill Ackman.

And the point I was making had nothing to do with Bill Ackman being a criminal or even being an Epstein friend. I mean, I don't really know anything about that. I don't know much about, I'm not accusing Bill Ackman of a crime, and I'm not accusing him of being a sex creep or a massage agent or anything like that. I don't think that, I don't know that

for sure, and I wasn't trying to say it. What I was trying to say is that Bill Ackman is not creative, not particularly intelligent. Bill Ackman is worth $7 billion. You have to ask, like, how? And it seems to me that Bill Ackman is rich for the same reasons that a lot of other people I know are rich, because he's hyper-aggressive and he's well-connected. And my only point was, if you live in a society that awards the spoils to people on the basis of those two qualities, like the most aggressive, the best-connected people get the richest, that's a dysfunctional society.

There should be a reward for creativity and decency and hard work, steadfastness, following the rules. Like, you should have to add to the sum total of your society, you'd think. It's not an argument against the free market, it's the argument against whatever we're living through right now. This is really dark and ugly.

And if people like Bill Ackman are getting the richest, what has Bill Ackman done? Shorted the market or something? Talked down herbal life? I mean, I'm not even saying that should be illegal. All I'm saying is, if that's one of the richest guys in your society, you've got a very sick society. I don't think Bill Ackman's like a drooling idiot or anything, but like when was the last time you heard Bill Ackman say something constructive or creative like never. So it's just bad and it's not just about Bill Ackman of course. I mean he's just a minor player in the life of the world but he's a kind of metaphor for how off track we've gone and that doesn't seem like a socialist point.

Once again I'm hardly a socialist and neither was Charlie Kirk. That seems like a Christian point. Fairness is at the root of the Christian story. People will be judged not by who their parents were or by how they look, but on their hearts, on themselves, on choices that they made. That's fair. So again, fairness is essential to the gospel and it's essential to any working society. In a fair society or a society that its citizens believe is fair,

people will comply voluntarily with the rules because they don't think the game is rigged. But in a society in which Bill Ackman, Bill Ackman, makes seven billion dollars and like the smartest, hardest working, most interesting, creative young people you know can never own a home, in a society like that you're going to get Mamdani as mayor. You're going to get a lot of bad things because people will opt out of the society because they know it's not fair, it's rigged.

That's the only point I was trying to make and Charlie, not surprisingly, made it much more eloquently I thought in an amazing interview, the last interview I did with them late July of this year. Here's part of it.

We know how to create wealth, but we don't know how to create it for the generation that needs it most. If you look at the economic conditions, you would think the other conditions surrounding it are like abject poverty.

These are the problems that like third world nations have. I know. Our young people can't afford stuff and they have to finance their basic necessities. And yet we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world on the planet. We have a $37 trillion GDP. We have the greatest companies and we have all this stuff to brag about. And yet all of our problems would beg the question. And it's like this inherent contradiction. We're super wealthy on one side, like a powerhouse juggernaut, and we are like an economic nightmare on the other side.

How did that happen? So if there is such a thing as the left in the United States, if it still exists, you would think a message like that would at least get a hearing, a respectful hearing. Like, hey, what about wages? What about the ability of young people to just buy a little hearing, like, hey, what about wages? What about the ability of young people

to just buy a little house, the little lawn in some subdivision? Isn't that kind of what they say they want? Empower the most vulnerable, the people who try hard and play by the rules? They called him a Nazi.

They didn't care that Charlie Kirk in real life spent his time trying to stop war, trying to figure out how young people could buy a little house somewhere. Aren't those like left-wing goals? No, they didn't care at all. In fact, they hated that because they're for war, because they're for death, because they're

for the inequality he described, because it leads to a volatile society that empowers them, of course. They're not a check on power, the professional left, the trans community. They're the shock troops of power. Charlie Kirk was a check on power. Charlie Kirk, inspired by his Christian faith, stood up to people fearlessly

to say what he thought was true. to say what he thought was true. And for that, I will always love and admire him.