B (10:59)

I spent thousands of dollars on drones last year and got the guy's license. But if the area lies in the Provo, Utah airspace, I can't fly it. That's a 107B the guy. We can't break the rules. And then you had secondary restrictions, probably due to heavy foot traffic for the school. But I can't go in and break the rules. Anyway, on our way in, we had drone footage of the crowd building and had Charlie had it on his phone. I said, charlie, I don't like this place. There are too many buildings. Charlie just kind of brushed it off because, look, we have a security team and he wasn't going to cancel an event. So we're driving in Megan and his team has drones up looking at the crowd from above and they text him some video and there's thousands of people there an hour before the start. And I said, charlie, I don't like this place. There's too many buildings.

A (12:05)

Your next chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors, and learn about our associate degree in nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington Edu events. For information on program outcomes, visit carrington. Edu Sci. Now again, there, there very much could be a clear reason as to why these statements are conflicting, but you can't be mad at the public for noticing that the statements are conflicting. Also, did anybody actually fact check Brian Harpel's earlier point? Because I did. He says, well, I can't break the rules. You can't fly drones in Provo airspace. Well, I actually spoke to someone regarding that who has good knowledge of the rules regarding Provo airspace. And he said, yeah, you can't fly in Provo airspace, meaning around airports you would have to get clearance. You can't fly near hangers, but you can fly drones in Provo. So his, his whole excuse of why he didn't even bring drones. We should, we should probably take a second glance at. Again, this is according to a pilot who I know who is in charge of drone training. So a lot doesn't seem to be adding up there. You can clarify that, but you can't pretend that someone tried to defame you unless you're Going to go after Frank Turek. Anyway, let's, let's actually pivot to the lawsuit because it is remarkable. Okay. The lawsuit itself is 69 pages. And for some unknown reason, he begins the lawsuit and I'm talking like the first few pages with strong support for Israel. I guess that's mandatory. Candace is anti Semitic. Just even though Brian Harpel is not Jewish. I am not Jewish. Charlie was not Jewish. He mentions this, it just kind of sporadically in a paragraph where he's painting this picture that I'm a conspiracy theorist. They also mention, we can bring this up here on point 19 that I, I don't believe the moon landing. Guilty as charged. Guilty as charged. I think the moon landing was fake. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything if I'm required to believe the moon landing is real. But he just kind of mentions that. And then, you know, you gotta have that random strong support for Israel right at the top, which is why also embedded is the mandatory picture of BB Net and Yahoo. You got to let these people know where you stand on Israel before you even get into the substance of a lawsuit. So I appreciate that. Preamble. That's just called our standard Constitution preamble. You know, he's with Israel. Okay, cool. I'm gonna do that. When I, when I respond, I'm gonna say, I just want you to know I love Israel. Just saying that. I now want to draw your attention to the obscure argument that he is making. So just pages and pages of him just kind of painting a picture of who I am. But he, he comes out and kind of makes this obscure argument that he is a private citizen. Okay, that's 0.29. He's trying to assert that he is a private citizen. Now let's take a look at this. Despite two podcast appearances, Harpole remains a private individual and not a limited purpose public figure. He has social media accounts that he's, he does not use for posting content. He has no public platforms to effectively rebut or counteract statements, and his involvement in the controversy is limited to two defensive appearances. He did not seek publicity or attempt to influence public debate. Huh? I'm sorry, first and foremost, why is he doing that? That's very important. Let's get, let's get to why he is trying to assert that I, I, I know I went on Sean Ryan, but I'm, I'm a private citizen. That's because he doesn't want to have to meet the actual malice standard. Right? You're a public figure. You have to meet the actual malice standard. You, meaning you have to prove that I knowingly published something that was false and that I did it and acted in total disregard to the truth. I knew what the truth was and I said, I don't care. I'm gonna publish this. It's a hard standard to meet. That would be in. In my view, for Brian to. To assert that he's not a public figure here. That would be hard because Brian did actually go and pursue not just any podcast, okay? One of the top podcasts in the world, the Sean Ryan podcast. And he opened himself up. What is the law in the books when you do that? The rule is that private citizens can indeed become public, limited purpose public figures when they voluntarily thrust themselves into the forefront of a particular public controversy to influence its outcome. In such cases, they are considered public figures only for the context of that specific issue and for a limited time. That's exactly what Brian Harpel did. Okay, he went and he's going to argue I did it defensively. You went on a public platform and you gave information about what the security did. All these questions that were being asked and you're. You're going to claim, which he does. This is wild. That the reason he went on Sean Ryan. This is crazy to me. He is saying that the reason he went on Sean Ryan was because of me. That is. That is. That is beyond. Okay, let's look at this point. 28. On November 17, after Owens and other conspiracy theorists had already implicated Harpole and his team in the assassination, Harpole appeared on the Sean Ryan show solely to respond to and to rebut the defamatory statements. I'm sorry, what? That's going to be a tricky one to prove in court considered. I never once mentioned Brian Harpole on my show until after he went on Sean Ryan. Literally. Not once did I mention Brian Harpel's name on my podcast. I mentioned his name two days after he went on Sean Ryan, and it was in direct response to his disastrous appearance on Sean Ryan. His appearance was on November 17. The first time I mentioned him on this show was on November 19th. In other words, you elected yourself as a spokesperson for the security team, thereby making yourself a public figure. And I responded to it. Okay, here's where it gets even crazier, though. Him pretending that I was a part of the early conspiracies against him. I did not believe the early conspiracies against Brian Harpole. Okay? Not only that, I went through great lengths to defend both Brian Harpole and Dan Flood without mentioning their names because I didn't want the public to find them when all the early conspiracies started flying. Specifically, the conspiracies were about hand signals. You remember Frank Turk's doing hand signals. It looks like Dan Flood's doing hand signals. It looks like Brian Harpole is doing hand signals behind his back. And they're all looped in. I didn't believe it. I genuinely didn't believe it was. I didn't believe any of these people had anything to do with anything, because I knew Turning Point. And so I spoke to Andrew Colvett on the phone about how I did not believe any of that. And Andrew asked me if I would be willing to say something publicly on my podcast to that effect because they were getting hammered. And I said, of course I will. These are. These are good guys. Here is the text message that I sent to Andrew Colvett following that discussion on the phone. I said, also, yes, I will say something about the security. I know them well. Which is why I never bought into people saying that he was making signals. And guess what? I did, guys, on that very same day in September, on this podcast, I defended the security team and Dan Flood and said that they were good people. Here are my words. No. There's a lot of conspiracy theories floating in about the security guard and people thinking he was making gestures. I know that security person. He's a good guy. It would shock me. I usually get a vibe about somebody. Not that guy. Not the guy that they say he's, like, rolling up. He tends to do that. Roll up his sleeves. I don't. I don't buy that one. Okay. I don't buy that one. Wow. You're saying you went on. You went on Sean Ryan because of things that I was saying. And that's what I was saying again, it was because of his behavior and what he said on Sean Ryan's show, which I found to be unconvincing, which is he's suing me for saying that that interview was unconvincing, which made me feel weird. And take a second look. This has been a very natural process for me. I did not come into this guns a blazing, so to speak, against Turning Point usa. And to. To get to this bigger part, this really feels to me like one big PR move. Okay. It feels like he's kind of trying to pull the Blake Lively. He wants to make the claim that he's not a public figure. And that's specifically because a large chunk of his claims are pertaining to Mitch Snow, who he is Also suing, by the way. And what is not helpful to his claims to sue me and Mitch Snow is the fact that I reached out to Brian Harpole personally before I featured Mitch Snow on this podcast. Okay, so the story goes that on November 8, I at first mentioned that there was someone who thought that they saw Brian Harpel at Fort Huachuca, that I, you know, examined the person's documents, whatever. I found him to be credible, as in, I believed he said where he was, where he said he was, when. When he said he was. It was a solo episode on December 9th, and if you recall, it caused mass panic. So I was intending to interview Mitch Snow, and then craziness started, right? Erica Kirk did her stop. Just stop to her. She's out there saying, stop, stop. Privately, I was effectively being threatened behind the scenes not to speak to Mitchell. They knew I wanted to interview him, and someone reached out to me, and this was coming through Paramount Tactical and the Valhalla guy. And they were saying, if you do this, if. If you interview Mitch, Mitch wasn't even in the military. He, like, they're running in different directions. He's a complete fraud. He's never been to Fort Wachuca. And if you actually interview Mitch, Brian Harpole, where he's going to sue you. That's what came down the pipeline to me. So before I even got to do the interview, Brian Harpole was telling people to say that if I interview this guy, I'm going to sue you. And I thought that was completely deranged. I said, well, this is crazy. Brian Harle has my number. Why is he sending out these random YouTubers? I. He. He knows who I am. I've defended him, his podcast. So I reached out to him before we hosted Mitchno to get his fuller story and to say, hey, you're welcome to tell me that. You just weren't there. Like, what's up? We don't have to. Like, I don't. I don't want to host this guy. Like, why are you being all weird? I asked him then beyond that, if he wanted to clarify anything. I sent Brian Harpole, I think, a total of four messages. And I also sent Dan Flood a message again from the day before I. Or two days before I interviewed Mitch Snow through to January, trying to get him to just say yes or no. And he actually remarkably embeds these many messages to him in the lawsuit. And that's going to be point 54 to 55. He just embeds these into the lawsuit. Hi, Brian, this is Candace Owens. A lot of people are telling me that you're planting seeds regarding a lawsuit. I wanted to see if you wanted to have an off record discussion with me about anything or if you'd like to simply clarify something that you think that I got wrong. You can see I followed up on December 19th. Hi, Brian. Just again reaching out in case you want to clarify your whereabouts on the morning of September 9th. I'm only interested in the truth. So I would be happy to debunk Mitch if he perhaps is misremembering the faces that he saw. No response. I think they also put a third message in there. I don't know if you can scroll and see that or if that's not attached yet, but we, like I said, multiple messages that I sent him. He just didn't answer. Answer. So why. Why didn't Brian Harle simply respond? Why didn't you send a cease and desist a long time ago? Why did you ask me for a retraction? Here's another one. Hey, Brian. Reaching out again to see if you'd be willing to speak about the morning of the 9th. I'm obviously not trying to do anything other than debunk Mitch so I can pivot and refocus the investigation, but I oddly cannot get you to confirm or deny if you were there. He's acknowledging he received these messages and he chose not to respond. Again. Why? Well, lucky for us, he's going to explain it in a lawsuit. And this is the wildest point of all. It's actually insane. It's an insane reason, in my view. It's insane to assert that this is the reason that you did not respond to my three messages to you. One message to Dan Flood. Is his point number 50. Righty. Sorry. Point number 59. I think it is. Here we go. Owens soon texted Harpole a third time, asking again if he would like to speak about the events that transpired on the morning of September 9th. Owens concluded concluded her text message by stating that she found it odd that she could not get Harpole to confirm or deny his location on the morning of September 9th. Owens already knew why Harpole didn't respond. Her repeated texts to Harpole to get him to respond to the defamatory conspiracy theories that she had been promoting present a cynical attempt to profit from a situation that she had manufactured. By spreading defamatory lies about Harpole and then cajoling him to give her the exclusive content of a response, she stood to profit from increased attention and viewership to her platform at Harpole's Expense. So he didn't reply with a yes or no because he didn't want to give me an exclusive yes or no because then I would have made money on my platform. I didn't ask you for an exclusive. It would have put an end to me covering the story beyond. So actually, by not responding before I hosted Mitch, it didn't allow me, didn't stop me from hosting Mitch. You also could have told Sean Ryan, you could have said, hey, Sean Ryan, I'm going to come on your platform because I don't want Candace to make any money saying yes or no. I don't want to give her this exclusive content. We're supposed to believe that's the reason we born yesterday. That's the reason you didn't want me to make money. So you said, I'm just going to be so stressed out. I'm never going to say anything to her. This is in December. I'm actually going to wait until April, and then in April I'm going to say, I'm not. I'm just filing a lawsuit. I'm just filing a lawsuit. That doesn't, that doesn't seem. That doesn't ring true. That does not ring very true. Now, another interesting point of the lawsuit is he repeatedly claims that he's upset that I described him as having lied. Okay, well, you certainly lied by severe omission by not letting the viewers know that the text messages that you were presenting on Sean Ryan were not between you and the UVU police. Chief Long. Right. Like when people were going, why didn't you secure the rooftops? You presented this text chain as if it was yours. In fact, you explicitly say, I. The implication being that this is the reason I did not secure the rooftops. This text message is the reason to take a listen to what he said

B (27:34)

on Monday before this correspondence went to Chief Long. Hello, Chief Long. We received this message today from the student group. There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley. The Sorenson center has a couple of staircases that go up to walkways on the roofs. He comes back and for edification, the Sorensen center was the building in front of the Lucy Center. And so, and he comes back, he says, you want access to the roof, and came back and said, I was told students have access above us. If this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well if possible. He comes back in his last correspondence was, I got you covered. What else am I to do? When a command level person from an accredited police department says, I've got this area,

A (28:51)

what else am I to do? He is heavily implying that I did what I had to do. I texted him, he said he had it covered. What else am I to do? And then we revealed on the show that he. Those aren't even his messages. Those are Dan Flood's messages. And he admits that finally in this lawsuit that those are Dan Flood's messages. That was not an honest presentation to say, what else am I supposed to do if you are not even on that text chain? So, yeah, I view that to be a lie by severe omission. I think the average person, jury pool will say, yeah, no, that sounds like you were involved in this text chain and your excuse for why you did not secure the rooftops was because of this text chain. You never said, Dan got these messages. Here's what Dan said back. And what is so shocking about this is that throughout this lawsuit, he. He explicitly lies, that the lawyer explicitly lies in this filing by claiming that I asserted over and over again that, that Snow, that Mitch Snow was telling the truth about Harpole, when in fact, no, I went through a great many pains to repeatedly assert publicly that I could not confirm that he saw Harpole. Okay, here is just one of many examples on my podcast. This is actually when I interviewed Mitch Snow where I said, I can't confirm who you saw. Take a listen. And I want to be clear. I can confirm on this podcast live, every step of your story in terms of where you went, what time you were there, that there was this big meeting that happened. I confirmed the location with other people that are. That are on Fort Huachuca currently. I can confirm everything with metadata. I obviously can't confirm that you saw who you say you saw. I obviously can't confirm that you saw who you say you saw. And like I said, I said it repeatedly. And even in this filing, in his own legal filing, Brian's lawyer accuses me of confirming Mitch's claim, while in the very next paragraph he presents proof that I didn't confirm Mitch's claim. This is 0.63. I mean, this lawsuit is a dizzying read. He says on Dec. 23, Owens posted to X Fort Huachuca, confirmed the body of the post, claimed that she had proof that Snow was telling the truth about Harpole, and contained a screenshot of what Owens claims to be the incident report from Snow's visit to Fort Huachuca. Did he read my post? My post right here says, find Your favorite podcaster who joined the psychological operation to convince you that Mitch was lying about having been at Fort Huachuca. Remember, Mitch said he was at first taken outside by Captain Neff and questioned for a long time. When I then recap what happened, I said I always believed Mitch's story of what happened on that morning because he supplied overwhelming evidence with metadata and timestamps. Now we have the incident report. What we cannot confirm as of yet is his memory of who he is convinced he saw coming out of that early morning meeting. We cannot confirm. Matt Sorrelson. We cannot confirm. What is this? What is this? What are we to make of all of this? What are we to make of this filing? What do you think is the purpose of this filing? I will. I'll give you my thoughts, my questions, rather. I can't know what is going on behind the scenes. I think the timing of this is strange. Like I said, the strategy here, to never actually ask me to retract, to never present any evidence to the contrary. Hey, Candace, here's my receipt. I was getting a Starbucks at 9am I was therefore not at Fort Wachuka or getting a Starbucks at 7:30. When you said meeting was happening, could any of that. Never did this. Okay. I can tell you though, via. My experience with defamation is that there are a lot of lawsuits that are filed because people don't understand that what you put in a lawsuit filing is not always true, as I just demonstrated to you, right? You can write whatever you want. And people tend to take everything that's filed as a fact. They just go, oh, well, like case in point, Brigitte said I was a dual citizen of the uk. Suddenly people start saying, I'm a dual. I'm not a dual citizen of the uk. It's not a fact. Okay? You can, you can just put stuff in a lawsuit. And I have seen over and over again examples of people filing lawsuits as PR strategies. I lived that with the Kim Klasic lawsuit. I said she was a former stripper, blah, blah, blah. She said, I have not. So she files this lawsuit and then says, this is proof that it's not true. Because I'm. I'm filing a lawsuit. And people then sudden, oh, well, it must be true. She's filing a lawsuit. So. And then what ended up happening was she took it to discovery and then she folded. Right? She folded and wanted to sign an agreement and say, let's, let's walk away and not talk about it. When we started presenting the evidence of the strippers that worked with her and knew her. It was like, okay, actually, this was just meant to be a PR thing, actually. And so I could keep claiming that this wasn't true. I've seen that happen before. Okay, is this that. Is this someone going, I just want to be able to get people to think that by following this lawsuit means I'm telling the truth. I'm saying in this lawsuit that I wasn't at Fort Huachuca. Why else would I file the lawsuit? That's mean. You now everybody can just let the Fort Wachuca story go. Because I said it. Like, I said that Candace said things that she didn't say. Like, I asserted that Candace was a part of the early conspiracies, when actually the exact opposite thing is true. I'm just going to put stuff in here and then I'm going to hand it to journalists, which is what they do. And journalists are going to publish this and say, ah, proof, proof, proof that he wasn't at Fort Wachuga, because why else would he file a lawsuit? But maybe there's an expectation that it's never going to make it through the court system, that you're never actually going to have to present any proof of anything because the judge is going to look at this and go, no. She asked you multiple times. This is. I'm going to throw this away. Is that the expectation? Again, I'm asking questions here. This feels weird to me. The strategy here feels weird to me. You're dealing with a lawyer that has full access to my lawyers in the state of Tennessee, has been in communication with them for two years. He never raises a single issue until the end of April, and then says, doesn't matter, we're filing a lawsuit. Is this a PR move? And if it is, how do we respond to it? Well, I obviously just received this lawsuit a couple of hours ago, and I am not, therefore, at liberty to assert what we will or will not do, because I have to speak with my husband and I haven't had the time to, you know, formally plead my case with him, so to speak. But what I will say is, how many opportunities are we going to have? Are we ever going to have another opportunity to force depositions? Are we ever going to have an opportunity to have the power of subpoena? He is making claims that he rendered first aid. This would give us the opportunity to then say, oh, Terrell Farnsworth actually has footage that the public has never seen from every angle. We can now take a look. We want to see this footage and subpoena this footage. So that we can see what happened on the ground. If you are asserting that you did provide critical aid, will we ever have an opportunity to do this ever again? Can we look at this situation where you're, you're, you're saying, oh, this, this conspiracy, all these people are involved. You're bringing up Tarot Farnsworth, Mikey McCoy. You're bringing up these episodes where we discussed E. America. Can we now sit these people for a deposition? Can we now demand these text messages? He's saying there's no conspiracy here. Can we now say, okay, well, we'd like to discover that. We'd like to actually look at all of the evidence and be able to come up with an argument. And we're going to need, we're going to need access, we're going to need access to everybody's text messages. If that's what you are asserting. If you are saying that I have defamed you and you are a part of the Turning Point USA brand, you're saying, you're mentioning Erica Kirk. Is this the only plausible path that we will have before us to get Erica Kirk to sit for deposition, to answer basic questions that we've been asking for actually a very long time? If that's the claim that you are making regarding there being no conspiracy, is the power of subpoena actually going to be our only way? I'd like to hear your guys positions on this, but I have never been doing this for fun. Charlie Kirk is dead. We have been told a lot of lies, a lot of inconsistent stories from the people that are around him. They are, I would say, especially in this last month, there seems to be sort of a ramped up effort to attack people who have been asking for the truth in a reasonable fashion over and over again. Extending messages to Brian, hey, come on the show if you'd like to. I didn't actually even ask him to come on the show. I said you could just tell me what the truth is and I'll report on that. And they don't want to do that. You don't jump and skip and then file a lawsuit. That's not normal. That is ab. Normal. Normal. That's not the normal trend. People genuinely want to not have the wrong information out there. So they ask you to retract the statements that you are making. Something's not right here. I get a sense that this, this feels like. Well, we tried to answer about Fort Wachuk. It was a very serious lawsuit, but defamation's hard. That's. That was what Kim KIC said Defamation's hard. So that's, that's why the lawsuit failed. But as you can see, I'm telling the truth because I filed the lawsuit. I think we have to think on this. I have to talk to my husband. I do think that this really may be the only opportunity that anybody who deeply cares about this case and genuinely wants truth will have to be able to subpoena that information. The power of subpoena is, well, it's, it's a power, it is a tool. And I'm, I've only ever been interested in getting to the truth of what happened to Charlie Kirk on September 10th. So we will pause there, and then I will break some news to you guys after this brief break. All right, you guys, time flies faster than we expect. But when it comes to your goals like building credit, it's never too late to start making real progress. Kickoff is the number one credit building app in the App Store, with plans starting at just $5 a month. There's no credit check, no hidden fees, and absolutely no interest. In fact, users starting with credit under 600 see an average increase of 86 points just by making on time payments. And here's how it works. You make your payments. Kickoff reports that positive activity to the credit bureaus and your credit can grow really fast. They even offer rent reporting. So the payments that you're already making can help build your credit as well. You can sign up in minutes right from your phone, and with autopay, you'll never miss a payment. Join over a million users Building better credit the smart way Start building credit with Kickoff today and get your first month for as little as $1. That's 80% off the normal price when you go to getkickoff.com Candace today again, that's Kickoff without the C. So that's k I k off.com Candace must sign up via KickOff.com Candice to activate offer. Offer applies to new KickOff customers. First month only. Subject to approval. Offer subject to change average first year credit score impact of plus 86 points between August 2024 and August 2025 for kickoff credit account users who started with a score below 600, who paid on time, and who had no delin or collections added to their credit profile during the period. Late payments may negatively impact your credit score. Individual results may vary. Also, remind you guys about American financing because the cost of living is not just high, it is exhausting. If you've been leaning on credit cards lately just to cover the basics like grocery, gas and utility bills, you're essentially paying A survival tax of 20% interest or more. Why keep handing your hard earned paycheck to the big banks when you could keep it for your family instead? My friends in American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their equity to pay off high interest debt. With mortgage rates currently in the fives on average, American Financing is saving their customers $800 a month. That's nearly $10,000 a year back in your pocket. It's not just a loan, it's a total financial reset. It takes just 10 minutes to find out what you could be saving. There are no upfront fees and no obligation to talk to a salary based mortgage consultant. And here's the kicker. If you start today, you could even delay two mortgage payments. American Financing is America's home for home loans. So call American financing today at 800-795-1210. Again that's 800-795-1210 or simply visit American financing.net Owens American financing.net Owens can already hear the debate. I can, I can already. Obviously I already know my husband's points that he's going to make. He is always very sensible about these things. He and I are wired differently. I mean I even told you guys with the guy with the little tap who then was like, oh, I'm going to sue you or a little fender bender. I was like, I would have fought that to the end. And George's perspective is sometimes just take the easier route. But this is, this is different. I think this is what we have been fighting for for the last seven months. George knew to Charlie and really respected him. They respected one another. And I have been thrust into the public and dealing with all of the smears, the attacks on me, my family, my employees. This might be the only window of opportunity that we have. And I know lawsuits are expensive. That's the whole reason why they try to discourage and they want you to always take the path of least resistance. But you know what, My life just hasn't been that way anyway. I'm actually accustomed to it. So anyway, moving on. I had said at the top that I sort of slept on this, this thing. Like first off, did you. Are you getting the sense that it was kind of like all plotted and planned for my birthday? Is this, is it a weird thing? Like so much was happening. Yeah. In the universe. It feels like everyone was like, that's our date, April 29th. Go for her, Go for her. First off, I, and I also want to let you guys know a little loophole. My priest does not watch this show. Okay. He is in London. So I might be able to get away with not chilling today a little bit. And I'm not chilling, actually, because it was actually unacceptable yesterday. And I'm gonna show you more of it happened. But of course, the big news was Erica Kirk just coming out there and saying something that was so obviously untrue. It was just so obviously untrue. Baron Coleman recapped this perfectly on his show last night, and he was wearing the appropriate attire. Take a listen.

B (43:45)

So we have a series of questions, like, if Erica wants to remain at the helm, I think she has to be able to answer some questions. Number one, why did you claim Candace said that Erica killed Charlie? She's never said it. That I've seen. Oh, but bam, bam, bam, bam. Didn't you see the text message where she said, yeah, I saw a text message where she was joking around with a friend and she even put a laughing face on it. I saw that. But no one assumed that's what you were talking about, Erica. Not a single person assumed that's what you were talking about.

A (44:18)

About.

B (44:20)

It sounded very clear to me, and I think it did to everyone else, because everybody had the exact same reaction that you. That you. What you were trying to say in that moment today is that Candace goes on her podcast or goes to speeches and she says, I believe Erica did it. I'll be the first to say, I don't think Erica did it. I don't think Erica killed her husband, nor do I know a single human being that does. I've never talked to anyone who does talk to Candace. I've never heard her say that. Talk to a lot of these other podcasters. I've never heard anyone say that. No one who's ever been on this show has ever said that. I've never said that on this show. I don't know a single person who believes Erica killed Charlie. Not one. So what a weird thing to say. Why would you even bother saying that?

A (45:16)

That's a good question, Baron. Why would she bother saying that? It was just like an attack from every angle yesterday. And. And thankfully, the Internet just instantly rebounded and hit her in the face. The ball just hit her right back in the face. Boomeranged, so to speak. Thankfully, they was. Everyone clocked her on that. And then you had Andrew with this ridiculous excuse. Has he yet released the full conversation? The full conversation? The context of that? Mocking that. Ben Shapiro and Barry Weiss. This. No, this is. This is when you said this joke of his private conversation about what you were going to say, leaning into what everyone was claiming. If you ask a single question, this is you. Obviously, you think Erica killed her husband. Now, let me at first also state unequivocally that I do not believe that Erica Kirk murdered her husband. I've never made that claim in public. Sincerely, I've never made that claim. What I have said and what I stand by today is that her documented lies appear to me to be rising to a level of conspiracy and that she should be questioned. Okay? Her lack of interest in exploring possible other options, instantly forgiving him. Was there an foreign influence? She doesn't. She doesn't care. Not only that, but like her team is attacking Joe Kent for asking that question, right? Her lying about Dr. Lee Trotter's words, that is significant. You are never going to remove that from the story. Colluding with Andrew Colvette on an absurd man of Steel statement and then flatly denying to my face that she did that. Throwing Andrew Colbett and Dr. Lee Trotter under the bus. Okay, that's not normal. You're never going to make that normal. Donors literally telling me that she is lying about the audio clip that she presented at Amfest, the one that they now assert that they are never going to show us. The video component regarding Charlie Kirk saying, Erica Kirk, I. I appoint my wife Erica to become the CEO donor. Saying that actually never went down. He never said that. That is. It is plainly unacceptable that we have not yet received a response. They have not yet released the. To answer the claims being made by the donors that were in attendance, release the video that you claim to have of Charlie naming you CEO. Don't be shy now, okay? People won't believe it. You took us into the casket. You had no concerns about what people believed or didn't believe. Now all of a sudden, everyone's shy about a Charlie Kirk video. You're afraid people are going to think it's AI. Does that make sense to anybody? No, it doesn't. Of course. Doesn't make any sense. That's why they're angry. Now, on that note, though, okay? Andrew then shifting foot immediately. Shifting his feet immediately and pretending that that little private correspondence where we mocked Bari Weiss's insinuations, that somehow accounted to me making a statement. No, no, no, no. Doesn't fly with me. Doesn't fly with me. Like I said, release the entire chat. You have my full permission and it must be met with the sentencing. You guys agree? You agree? I must sentence him to more truth. Make an announcement. I must Sentence Andrew and Erica to more truth. That is always, always the sentencing in this court. Now, what, what would be appropriate. What would be the appropriate level of truth to sentence you to? I got it. Okay. Now, since what you are attempting to falsely insinuate is that I went into that conversation with Erica on December 15th already convinced of her guilt, which is patently untrue, I am now going to prove to audiences just how untrue that insinuation is. Okay. With the private revelation that I made to Erica Kirk, Information that I gave her, I would not have given to her had I immediately suspected her of her guilt. I would have given her no information regarding this. And it was a private revelation made about you, Andrew Colvett. I don't know if they told you this. This is a really bad way to find out. But since you tried to surprise me yesterday, bam. Surprise, surprise. Shouty, as they say. You see, Angie, what I told Erica Kirk was that part of the reason why I suspected Turning Point USA and why I thought she should be looking into other people is because someone at Turning Point USA got a message out to me. And that message was that I need to look further into Andrew Colvett. Wow. Turning Point usa people telling me to look further into Andrew Colvett. Was it Aubrey as he tries to insinuate? No, it was Mikey McCoy. Mikey McCoy got a message out to me via a third party person that I should look more into Andrew Colvett. Why would he do that, Andrew? Why would Mikey McCoy say that I should look more into? And I did look into things got very shady. And that's when I started going, who the hell is Andrew Colvett? Actually, he's obviously not a very good PR agent. Everybody can see that. He's a bit of a blubbering idiot. Who is Andrew Colbert? What are his ties? What are his family ties here? And the more I looked at, I did start to see more things. So as you pretend like we're all just conspiracy theorists and nobody had any good information as you fire a bunch of employees, like I said, you still cannot produce the information that you are claiming that Aubrey Leitch gave to me that I share on this platform. You were my number one source, Andrew. In the beginning, you just forgot the things that you told me. And that's when I started realizing things were weird. And then I got Mikey McCoy telling me to look more into you. After watching this show, I would say that I had a damn good reason to suspect Turning Point usa, that they were complicit in a cover up. Of what happened. Anyway, good luck Andrew. I hope you're having a good day. Have fun. Some more messages. Explain that one to the press cycle. I think that's going to catch a couple of headlines. Why would he say that? Switching gears because it does appear that they are really just throwing everything at me. Particularly yesterday I didn't even know which way to look. Happy birthday to me. Good thing I'm built for it. I'm, I'm just built differently. Erica didn't just name me and put a target on my back and lie about what I said. But she wasn't the only one. Right? We also had congressman in the House presenting a bipartisan resolution to name checking me. This is the headline in the Times of Israel headline literally April 29th. I couldn't believe this. The US House is considering a resolution condemning Hassan Piker. I've never spoken to that person in my entire life. And Candace Owens for you got it guys. Anti Semitism. Who's bringing this forward? Okay, we've got Reps. Mike Lauer and Josh Got Heimer at bipartisan bill to denounce anti Semitic hate filled rhetoric. Though far left Piker says that the move is making anti Semitism worse. That is our subheading here. The resolution begins by condemning anti Semitic hate filled rhetoric and content that is disseminated to prominent online personalities. Blah blah blah. It tells us that whereas the rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide, such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence or discrimination against any group including Jewish individuals and communities all on the same day. Everyone is just suddenly signaling that speech is violence. Speech is now violence. They name check me and says whereas Canis Owens has employed rhetoric that has included conspiracy theories accusing Israel of controlling the United States government. By the way ironically these two people, I, I both of them brought this forward. Take more than a million dollars from AIPAC government promoting false claims that that Jews are taught by ancient religious texts to hate non Jews and casting doubt on the truth of Holocaust survivors. I mean this goes on and on. Of course I can't defend myself. They can just put whatever they want. It's resolution. She made the anti Semitic claim that the United States is controlled by satanic pedophiles who work for Israel. That's not an anti Semitic claim. Okay, Satanic pedophiles working for Israel. We're talking about Epstein and everyone who has defended the Epstein class. Okay? That is not Explicitly Jewish. In fact, I have been name checking Christian Zionist pastor after Christian Zionist pastor. So do not put this on. This means you're talking about all Jews. Okay? When Donald Trump said, what are we still talking about? Jeffrey Epstein? That is when he lost me entirely. To my knowledge, President Trump is not Jewish. That pedophilia is satanic, that a satanic pedophile like Jeffrey Epstein worked for Israel. These are. This is abundantly true. This is not a conspiracy. The fact that you are passing a resolution about me and not the people that protect Jeffrey Epstein says more about you. Then goes on and says that I repeated false claims that Jews are. Chill. Killing Christian children. Where did I say this? Where did I say that Jews are killing Christian children? Where did I say that? Nope, doesn't matter. You can just say whatever you want. It's Congress. You. This is like filing a lawsuit. You can just put things in there. I don't have to respond to it. This is going to be a part of record. This is going to be a part of US History record. As they bring this forth. And I have no opportunity to defend myself or to respond to any of these points beyond that. They then bring up. Never, never, ever Forget that in July 2024, I did not mention Joseph Mengele. And then they erupted by saying that because I said there was bizarre propaganda that followed the Holocaust. Which is true. It is objectively true. Okay, I'm going to show you that subjectively true. They insert this in here. Never forget that. Even, I guess, never forgot what's appropriate to say there? That even the Auschwitz Birkenau Museum, which has a podcast, asserted that there were lies told about Joseph Mengele. Not me. Asserting that they did an official Holocaust Memorial podcast where they discussed where some of the lies and exaggerations came from. Is that a threat to Jewish people to acknowledge that some people lie. Okay. That some people misunderstand. I'm going to play it for you. This is the official Holocaust Memorial podcast discussing Josef Mengele. Just. You can just read what they are writing and then hear. Unless I don't know. Is Auschwitz Memorial Podcast anti Semitic? I don't know, but take a listen. I want to note that many myths arose around Mengele in the camp, such as the alleged sewing together of twins, which did not happen simply because Mengele saw himself as a scientist, a theoretician, a man conducting research. Sewing twins together, as Vera Alexander mentioned, wouldn't make sense from a medical point of view because Mengele had sufficient medical knowledge and the medical understanding of the time allowed him to know that it would lead nowhere. So where did this legend come from? It likely originated from the fact that Mengele performed transfusions on twins without prior cross matching tests. This meant if the donor's blood didn't match the recipient's, it led to death. To perform a transfusion, people had to be connected. Not sewn together, but connected with needles and tubes so that the blood could flow. Therefore, this legend about Mengele as someone who sewed children together probably came from this. I want to be clear why this is important to you guys. And. And specifically I want to speak to Jewish Americans because it is just so reminiscent to me of how they wanted to pass hate speech laws in the fog of George Floyd and they were using race and black people to try to do this. This is the threat to all of us. Jewish Americans, pay attention because they are using you to push through tyranny. Okay? You are now the person they are using to push through tyranny. They think that you are too stupid to understand difference between anti Semitism nor commentary and debate. Also, by the way, there is an underlying assumption that you're too weak to deal with people who don't like you. Who cares if people don't like me because I'm black? I don't actually care. I don't care if that. If that is your underlying thought process, that every time you see a black person, you're like, I hate that N word. I hate N words all the time. How is that going to impact my day? Why do you. Why do you. Why do we care so much about what other people think about us? That a little ridiculous. It's. There's just this underlying weakness that allows people who are actually tyrannical, people who are actually doing despicable things, people who actually support the Epstein files and want to protect that network of human traffickers, okay? They pretend they're the good guys. They find people who are weak, can't take being called names. You can do it. Black people, you can do it. Jews, you can do it. Spanish people, you can do it. Asian people, you can do it. You can handled being called a name as long as you get to remain free. That's more important. Okay? They are trying to flip that on its head so they can usher in tyranny. They want Europe. They want what's already happening in Florida. Police showing up on your door asking you if you sent a tweet. Did you criticize Candace Owens today? She's black. Did you know she's black? It's racist. I call the N word. Every second of every day. Go on X. I don't care. Doesn't impact my day. I don't know who these people are on the Internet. I don't feel threatened by that. Okay, you. You have a right to think racist thoughts. I know I happen to genuinely not be a racist, but if people were racist, I understand the importance of making sure that we don't pass speech laws. And that is what is coming next, because they have been signaling it for a week straight. Full fire. Not just Erica Kirk. Also, Caroline Levitt came out and now is trying to equate speech to violence. Take a list. This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of him and his supporters. By commentators. Yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party and even some in the media. The deranged lies and smears against the president, his family, his supporters, have led crazy people to believe crazy things. Everyone who has a voice and a platform across this country, whether you're on television, a podcast host, you know, people listen. And when you have mentally disturbed individuals across the country who are listening to this crazed rhetoric about the president day after day after day, it inspires them to do crazy things. Laura Loomer is his top advisor. Like, it's so crazy that they really come out here and they say this unflinchingly after the things that come out of Trump's truth. Social media posts. Who is smearing and calling people names and dehumanizing people, more posting photos of me when I'm sick than Donald Trump? Does that now mean that if an act of violence happens, every thought that happens, I get to now say that this is, this is, this is Trump's fault. And again, like I said, it's being echoed everywhere. Melania Trump, she tweeted and said this about Jimmy Kimmel. Jimmy Kimmel's vote joke that happened before the shooting, that it was hateful and violent rhetoric intended to divide our country. Meanwhile, Caroline Levitt is talking left versus right. That's. Is that not divisive? His monologue about my family is not comedy. His words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America. Does she know who she's married to? Maybe she doesn't. She might not know. People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. This is laying the ground, ladies and gentlemen, for speech laws. They shouldn't have the opportunity. She's pretending it's about Jimmy Kimmel. You start with Jimmy Kimmel. If we don't defend Jimmy Kimmel, which makes me physically sick. I don't want to defend Jimmy Kimmel, but I know how it goes. You start outward, you pretend it's legitimate. Trump survives assassination. We have to quit quick. In the chaos, we have to just get these speech laws passed. Then they come inward, then they come inward, then they come inward. And then it's like Grandma tweeted that this person was ugly and suddenly you've got people knocking on your door. We can't have that. You know who was very opposed to that? Charlie Kirk was. I tweeted this and I'm glad to see that it's trending. Here is his tweet about alleged hate speech. Hateful rhetoric, Another said, another way he wrote on May 2, 2024, Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech, there's gross speech, there's evil speech, and all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free. That was his voice. I echo that sentiment. Charlie laughed at people when they made jokes of him, notoriously laughed when south park dedicated an entire episode referring to him as the master debater. He cared deeply about allowing people to critique him, allowing people to come and debate him and winning those debates. And if he lost those debates, which I think never happened, he knew that that meant that he didn't have the stronger argument. So, yeah, I agree. Keep America free. We write back after a brief break. All right you guys, have you ever tried keeping up with crypto? It moves all the time. Midnight 2am, 3am the market never sleeps. And if you are like most people, you probably do it. Here's the problem. Most crypto platforms just give you an account and say good luck. But that's not really investing, that's guessing. That's why I want to tell you about Block Trust ira, which is a crypto IRA that's designed for everyday Americans. Especially if you're new to crypto or you don't have time to watch the charts all day. Their System uses smart AI technology to monitor the market 24,7 automatically adjusting your portfolio to help manage risk and protect your gains when things get volatile. So instead of reacting emotionally or missing big moves While you sleep, it's handled for you. Your savings sits inside a $200 million institutional grade insurance shield. You are not just investing, you are doing it with a layer of protection. So if you've been curious about crypto but didn't know where to start, this is a simple way to begin. Right now you can open a crypto IRA and get up to 2, 500 inflation shield bonus added to your account. Just go to Candace crypto.com to learn more and get started again. That's Candace crypto.com I also want to tell you guys about the Purge Tour because summer is here and for a lot of people it's a natural reset point and a renewed focus on feeling better in your own body. There's also a growing conversation about being more proactive with your health, not just waiting until something feels off, but actually supporting your body day to day. That starts with your foundation, which is digestion, nutrition, and overall balance. Your internal environment is the battlefield, so if you aren't actively clearing out that biological junk and heavy metals, you are leaving your health to chance. This is why the Purge Advanced Digestive Cleanse Triple Pack and Toxy Binder are the solutions that you have been waiting for. This is not just another supplement. It's a total internal overhaul. These formulas use potent natural ingredients proven for centuries to purge the toxins that hold your vitality hostage. This is the ultimate clean house protocol, specifically designed to detoxify your gut and bind it to the heavy metals that have no business being in your system anyway. You deserve a body that works for you, not against you. So visit purgestore.com candace and use code candace at checkout for 15% off your order. Again, that's purgestore.com candace get the bundle, take control and start your Purge today. So why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? Why do they want to come for our speech? Because they view us independent media, people that have kept the Epstein story alive. People that said, we're not accepting this Fed slop narrative regarding Charlie Kirk. He's trending every day on Twitter. We are almost eight months into this thing and Charlie Kirk is still trending on Twitter. And they wanted this to go away. At the moment that Erica said I forgive him, they wanted us to forgive him and move on, referring to Tyler Robinson. We to them are the storied barbarians at the gate. How do we control this? We have built ourselves a mini empire. We control the media apparatus. We control the schools. And now we've got people pulling their kids out of school, talking about homeschooling, understanding how we lie for the first time, not looking left or right, but looking up and down, realizing how despicable these people are, that yes, of course we are morally above them, not falling for their tricks about racism, sexism, antisemitism, locking arms and realizing we actually don't hate each other. What we hate is this corruption. And it exists on the left, on the right all across the Western Hemisphere, there is nothing but corruption. And America might be the last stand for freedom in the West. If they get what they want and they begin passing speech laws, it's over. I mean that. So wake up. Understand what's happening. Reject it. Right. Use your platform, if you have one, to speak out against it. Write to your congressman. If the. The rare ones that perhaps are not bought and paid for, and if you have an opportunity to subpoena people for truth, maybe take it. Maybe take it. How many more lawsuits can these people possibly throw at me? A surprise lawsuit? Just never been done. Maybe it has. I mean, never been done in my life, I should say. Anyway, let's get to the top comment from last episode. We have Wednesday Coffee writes, the fact that they gave you the most vile person of the year, but not Epstein says it all and then some. Oh, are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Yeah, we are. We kind of are. I'm sorry, Mr. President. Yeah, maybe he should have won that. I felt like. I do have to say that I think being a pedophile ranks higher for being vile. But I don't know. What do I know? I'm just out here trying to use rich white men, as you said. Brock Jordan writes, imagine believing a lady on the Internet is the most vile person and not the people dropping bombs on schools. Yeah, that was pretty vile. Trump, when you guys just, like, randomly dropped a bomb on 150 Schoolgirls in Iran and then lied to us about it. Ranks up there. That's what I would say. I don't know. What do I know? No, nothing. It's. That's why, you guys, we have to squash the independent. They're so stupid and low iq, but for some reason, they're effective at making people see us through the correct lens. I see. I would say people are seeing things for the first time. The scales are falling off of all of our eyes. All right, to get to some of today's comments, we've gone overtime today. Sorry, Baron. I know Baron waits for me. Get off. I'm actually, if you don't watch. If you didn't watch Baron Coleman's show last night, please do watch his show. It was a fantastic monologue correlating what. What is happening. And he. He is. Holds a sympathetic view, much more sympathetic than I do, of what's going on with Erica Kirk. And he sort of correlates it to Joe Biden and just being insulated and people around you who just want to keep you where you are because it benefits them and they get enriched and everybody can see that it' working and that you're incompetent. And then eventually they're gonna have to admit that. And yeah, it was a really good monologue. You should watch that. Also, he is going to do a follow up. Obviously, you know, Barron is a lawyer. That's his, that's his real job. He was a fantastic podcaster and just started this podcast, this process of podcasting full time. But he will have a very interesting take on the lawsuit, which I haven't even finished reading. It's so, it's so crazy. There are parts where I just was like, this is insane. It's just there's so many lies, objective lies here about my intentions and my motivations. But that's the point of filing these lawsuits. So you can send it to the press and say it's real and say it's true. And so therefore I stated it, so it must be true. And that is not the case. You can lie in filings. Let's just point it out. Today's comments. Michael Jester writes lawyer here. This money is for her legal fees. Thank you so much for that donation. Your attorneys and clients suing her over opinions of free speech to be relevant should beware of a malicious prosecution suit once a defense verdict is rendered. You deserve it. And we should make examples to deter this bs. Yeah, it. You know, I even think part of the coordination was like, this was like Laura Lumar hiding money in a trust. She, she, she said I was hiding money in a trust. Completely untrue. Hiding money from Brigitte. Here is what's happening. Like they are trying to basically say, like, getting out this narrative that like, I was duping my podcast followers and they kept bringing up lawsuits, strangely. So I'm, I'm feeling like a lot of this may have been court, like choreographed because this lawyer, Matt Sarlson, the one who speaks like he has helium, like he's just ingested some helium, definitively was retweeting war Loomer. So that feels weird. That feels like everyone was kind of in a weird way anticipating this lawsuit and knew that it may have been coming and Trump was signaling you should sue people to Erica. Anyways, 2 cent writes, why is everyone suing and not helping with the investigation? All of them had direct access with Charlie Kirk. Instead of helping, they are suing. Who and what information are they protecting? Go Max. Yeah, well, thinking clearly through what going Max means, maybe that's how we do it. You can just start actually selling that Go Max gear hat or whatever it Is now. And, yeah, I know what my husband's gonna say. This is very expensive. These. That means lawsuits to. To get to that phase. Hundred hundreds of thousands of dollars, no questions asked. But truth matters. And I. I have found that when you don't overthink, when people really want money, they tend to lose a lot of it. Right. When your focus is money, money, money, you tend to lose a lot of it. And when you are focused on truth and doing the right thing, like, no, genocide is always wrong. It actually opens the door for you get rewarded in the end. I think that's kind of been. The show has been tremendously successful. And I did the right thing. The harder thing, but the right thing. And I feel like I am again being faced with that right now, that decision. And like I said, I have to speak to my husband because everything has to be done together. So we'll see what we come up with, and I will keep you guys in the loop. I think you can see where my heart is on this, though. Keeping the faith with Father Joseph writes, the truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it, just let it out and it will defend itself. That is very true. We are seeing that. And the truth has been very powerful. And that's what they're angry about, that they don't know how to deal with the truth being out there. Jen commonwrites UVU just requires you to fill out a form, which is titled Request for authorization to operate a drone with the Office of Risk Management. So did Brian fill out this form and UVU denied it? If so, he can show us the form and the denial. Yeah, like I said, he could have just disputed the stuff. I'm not trying to get the exclusive. Brian Harpel, you know, you're out here like, Candace needs the clicks to talk about Brian Harpel. Like, what are you talking about? Why would you say these things? It's not true. It is not true. We want to be accurate. Does not benefit me to be on a platform telling lies. You will lose. Your audience will no longer trust you when you do that. They will just. They will be the girl who cried wolf. Okay, I want to be accurate. I. I'm open to being wrong. This is an investigation. Open investigation. So you're going to. Some sometimes come up against the wrong information. But I have thus far not been given an alibi for the morning of September 9th, despite you asserting that in the lawsuit. Again, she had his flights. The flights were for what, 219, 119, 139. In the afternoon from Dallas. Mitch says the meeting concluded at 7:30am There were flights that left Fort Huachuca and got back into Dallas by 10:00am so no, you have not. But I'm open. Give me the alibi. Give it to me. Give me the text message, the Starbucks receipts at the airport or whatever. Wherever you were, or I guess not at the airport because that was an afternoon flight. The coffee receipt from that morning. Like I texted you, I aim to be accurate and I was sympathetic to you and I was wrong about you is what I will say. I was deeply wrong about you. My instincts were wrong and I probably shouldn't have immediately defended you in the beginning only for you to throw it in my face and pretend that I didn't. That was a part of the early conspiracies. Good luck with Matt Tarlson as a lawyer. By the way, I will say that Goops writes, happy birthday Candice. You inspire me so much. Stay strong in God's strength. There is a purpose in everything. Just rest in his providence. I feel like even there is some providence to me having received my confirmation and hearing that message, that homily about how like what it means is like you, you then really have to toughen up. You, you become a soldier for truth, a soldier for Jesus. And that happens and I come back and it is like full blown attacks coming from every direction. But I was fashioned for this. I really do believe that. I believe that everything that's happened to me happened for a reason. Because I feel battle ready, like battle hardened from 2023, 2024. The things that happened, they pulled a carpet under my feet, they smeared me, tried to stop me from being able to travel to Australia. And so to go through all of that, it just makes you go, okay, I can, I actually now have a. I can deal with this. I know how to fight this. We have the right players that are in place and I have the support of the people and that that matters too to know that people have my back in the way that you guys do here. In the comments Breeze writes, fight for fighting for Charlie. Thank you for keeping the story as alive as you have. Thank you guys for caring about the story. I gotta think that he is watching actually and you know, helping in any way that he can. I also want to tell you guys a great way to support us obviously always is the merch store. Buy yourself a T shirt. Buy yourself a hat. Go to cannestones.com tomorrow we have book club and we this will be ending the book. The secret founding of America of America. And we will then be jumping into my book, which I'm super excited about, which is Make Him a Sandwich. I love that book so much. You can. That's a signed copy bundle. You can obviously buy a regular copy available on Amazon. You can go to make him a sandwich.com buy a regular copy, a regularly priced copy and not having to buy a bundle of the two signed books and join the book club. That would be an amazing way to join us in discussion and talking about feminism and what the true origins and true intent of feminism was and is. It may shock you. Ties in perfectly to everything. Anyway, you guys, that is all we have for you today. We really went overtime this week. Maybe because I was gone. I kind of feel like I owed you guys. You guys are always so worried when I'm gone. But I was good. I just don't post too much about where I'm going because there are insane people on the Internet, especially when I am traveling with my family. We will see you guys for book club tomorrow. Otherwise we will see the rest of you on Monday. Be sure to catch up with Baron Coleman tonight. We'll see you guys then. Sam.