A (2:22)

Well, I view the Trump movement as one that is not just built around a man, but that is about built around a series of ideas. And so really, you know, Firebrand is the book that folks ought to read right after they read the MAGA doctrine, because together it really identifies the policies and the style that we need to ensure that this is an enduring movement. It won't be enough for your generation and mine if we do all kind of great things during the Trump presidency, which I suspect will last an additional four years, and then we just go back to the Bushes or the Cheneys or the Romneys or the Kasichs. I think that the populist enthusiasm that we see right now in the Republican Party is the result of things like standing against endless wars, standing against the big tech tyranny that is trying to stifle debate in our country. Actively opposing the cancel culture. Not just self canceling, but getting out there and identifying circumstances where people have been treated unfairly and then actually un canceling people so that folks can make a full contribution to society. But the main thing I wanted to identify in the book is the culture of corruption in Washington D.C. that is driven by money. I am the only Republican congressman who, who does not take any PAC money. And it is because after three and a half years in this place, it looks a whole lot more like prostitution than it does fundraising. It is the exchange of money for favors and benefits. And it is explicit. They show up to these Washington fundraiser events and I describe in the book how it happens. And literally they go around the table telling you how much money they've brought and what they expect from you. Signing on to a letter, co sponsoring a bill, voting for something or against something in a committee. And like, the first few times I went to these things, I was kind of wondering, like, is anyone here wearing a wire? Because it felt like a straight up shakedown. The other thing is that committees are just bought and sold in Congress. And this is on both sides of the aisle. Like, if you want to be on a certain committee, there's a certain amount of money that you are expected to provide to the political apparatus of your leadership. And if you don't do that, you won't get those committees. I had to pay $75,000 to get on the Armed Services Committee from my political fund to the Paul Ryan managed political fund at that time. And I figured, Charlie, if it was for sale, I didn't want to just pay once, I paid twice. So I gave him 150,000. That's how I also ended up on the Judiciary Committee, which is how most of the country knows about my work.

B (4:50)

Well, Congressman, can you talk About, I mean, it's just hard for me to process that. And first of all, you deserve to be completely applauded for your stance on that. And as soon as you made that announcement at cpac, I sent you enthusiastic text messages. Guy said, this is exactly what is needed. And quite honestly, Alexandria Kaiser Cortez, Elon Omar, Rashida Tlaib, when they say they don't take PAC money, it's hard to do that. Can you talk about how it's harder to raise money without kind of the corporate K Street lobbyist revenue stream? I mean, it's easier just to go to the corporate class and say, please Give me the 2,800 minimum and max outs, my leadership pack, and I'll do whatever you ask on these certain committees. And what we have is this kind of fusion of the largest transnational companies that do not love our country and our government, and that is fascist in nature. I think we're actually flirting with fascism more than socialism. Not because of President Trump actually predated him. But it's a small, select few of chosen companies that are allowed special access to the albatross of the government. Can you talk about how hard it is to not get those, not raise money that way, and also why you think more Republicans should follow your example?

A (6:03)

I think President Trump has created a dynamic in politics that doesn't prioritize money. First, if you look at all of politics before President Trump, you can almost say whoever has the most money is tremendously likely to win. President Trump had less money than Hillary Clinton, but he won with message and with movement and inspiration. And so I don't raise as much money as my colleagues. I don't want to pretend as though I'm some fundraising giant. In reality, I raise far less. But I don't think the money is as important. If you tell people what you believe and if you're clear and if you tell people the truth and if that is inspiring and motivating. And so what I've learned is that if you're active and energetic on social media, if you go on television and tell people what you believe every night, if in the committee hearings, you don't play by the stiff, stodgy rules of the dad ties and the old man cologne, but you bring a little enthusiasm to the endeavor, that people will actually vote for you and support you, and they will not believe the normal hokey 30 second political advertising that a lot of this money fuels. I mean, think about it, Charlie. When people raise money in Washington, they pay one person to go get it. From the pack checks, they pay another person to deposit it and manage it. They pay another person to create a television ad, and then they pay another person to actually place that television ad. So I'm just trying to cut out all the middlemen. I just go on television, I go on social media, I say what I believe, but it does result in less money. But I think that if you buy the Trump theory of the case, that this is about a macro message, making our country great, putting our people first, being joyous about it. I mean, gosh, one thing I admire about you, Charlie, is that you could go in the lion's den and you got a smile on your face and you always kind of give me this half grin and say, it's your inner peace. But the reality is, you know, you're there for a purpose. And that sense of purpose drives people, it drives our president, and it should drive more of our political leaders like we deserve in the greatest country in the world, politicians who are bold enough to make the tough choices and to define an agenda. And then we need a media that is honest enough to objectively report it. And instead we get the perverse opposite. We get a bunch of limp wristed politicians who are just too afraid to take a stand on anything. We see that particularly in the Senate. And then we've got a media class that doesn't want to objectively report on what's happening. They want to make the news. They want to cause things to happen with advocacy journalism like you see at CNN and other places. That's why I wrote the Enemy of the People chapter in my book about the President's correct perceptions of the media today and the negative impact that so many of them have on our country.

B (8:41)

The book is Firebrand. Everyone go pick up a copy now. So, Matt, can you also just build out how you think the Republican Party in the future need to take? No more lobbyist money, no more PAC money. I have said this for quite some time that whatever party demonstrates to working people that they no longer represent the biggest companies and the lobbying firms will be richly rewarded by the voters. I tell people, all the people say, charlie, what's the number one issue in our country? They say, is it health care? Is it taxes? Is it guns? I say all those things are really important. But the bumbling frustration under all of them that fueled the populist rise of President Trump and the failed populist rise of Bernie Sanders, but still a pretty admirable rise is that people felt as if their government was bought and paid for by the Rich few and the well connected. And they're right. I've seen the same sort of system that you describe and some of your colleagues in Congress are really good people, but they've been there so long and they just go through the motions and they take the PAC money and then they're actually handcuffed. They're suffocated from saying the right things, from challenging the war machine, from saying we should break up big tech companies, from saying that we should close our borders because there's all these competing revenue flows and this favor exchange that really prevents them from doing the right thing. I actually think Bernie Sanders, despite him being a Bolshevik and all these sorts of things, I think he got this part right where he said that the campaign finance issue and I think his policy prescription was awful. But the campaign finance issue is really one of the reasons why we still have a million people coming into our country every single year, why our tech companies act as pseudo governments in our country, why we still are occupying like a failed empire halfway across the world. It's because our leaders are bought and paid for by these transnational corporations. Matt, can you tell us if any Republicans are following your example and if not, why?

A (10:37)

I am the only Republican who's taken this view and you talk about Bernie and aoc. They're socialists, Charlie, but at least they're sincere socialists. They really believe the damaging things they're saying. They don't say one thing because they are being funded by a particular entity or group. It is honest and sincere and frankly, in our politics today, sinceres. He is very attractive to the voters. I think it's one of the reasons why President Trump, being so visceral, draws so many people to him. But PAC money in Washington's a lot like meth. Once you start taking it, you gotta keep taking it. And when they get new members of Congress here for the orientation process, it's just downright seductive. I mean, I write about the scenes in my book when I first show up to Washington and the first dinner they take you to, I mean, steaks that are worth more than my kidney would fetch on the black market, carafes of wine dancing around the table. And, you know, Paul Ryan at the time stands up sort of as like the king before his lobbyist court. And he told all of us who had newly arrived that the people really responsible for getting us elected were the donors and the lobbyists. And you are told that if you just surrender your voting card to the special interests, that life will be pretty easy for you. People will pay to have dinner with you. People will pay to have drinks with you. You'll get invited to all the cool embassy parties and cocktail circuits in Washington D.C. and if you're ever really in trouble, there'll be a big corporate funded super PAC to come and kind of bail you out. But I think that what I'm doing, fighting against that PAC based system is only possible because Donald Trump is president. Because what happens is once people start taking pac. Look, I mean, I'm here for confession, Charlie. I took PAC money. I catfished those PACs out of hundreds of thousands of dollars my first term and a half. And after I just felt sick and I, I just can't do this anymore. And that's why I made a different decision to liberate myself from it. But I understand my colleagues who, they've taken hundreds of thousands, millions from these packs and then how do they turn around and say, well, this was a corrupt, bad system that I've been a part of.

B (12:46)

Computer systems in cars are the new normal. From electronically controlled transmissions to touchscreen displays to dozens of sensors. But you can't fix any of these new features yourself. So when something breaks, it could cost a fortune. And now is not the time for expensive repairs. That's why I have car shield. CarShield has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands for a covered repair, including computers, gps, electronics and more. The people at Carshield understand payment flexibility is an absolute must. Monthly plans can be customized to your needs with rates as low as $99 a month. There's no long term contracts or commitments and and Karshield gives you options others won't. You get to choose your favorite mechanic or dealership to do the work and Karshield takes care of the rest. They also offer complimentary 24. 7 roadside assistance and a rental car while yours is being fixed. Carshield has helped over 1 million customers. So drive with confidence knowing you got coverage from America's number one auto protection company. For as low as $99 a month, you can protect yourself from surprises and save thousands. For a covered repair, call 800-CAM 6000 and mention the code KIRK. That's 800-CAM 6000. Or visit carshield.com and use the code KIRK to save 10%. That's carshield.com code KIRK. A deductible may apply. Matt, this is why nothing gets done though. This is why the people are so angry at the political class. And what I love most about you is that you're actually living it out. You're not just saying, oh, we need to stop taking PAC money through this bill. You're actually doing it. And you should continue to demand all their colleagues. And also, Matt, can you talk about how foreign countries are able to engage financially with lobbying firms on K Street? The lobbying firms then take the money from those foreign countries, some of them being Islamic theocratic fascist dictatorships. And then they're able to directly contribute to candidates campaign PACs. All it is is just a laundering scheme. There's no. It's just a little bit off the top. Right. So for your trouble, how is it any different than that foreign government giving it directly to Congressman A. And then we wonder why our country has not been the forefront of focus in Congress. I mean, and you've probably seen this firsthand, Matt, where you're like, wait a second, you're a lobbyist and you represent what country?

A (15:02)

Excuse me?

B (15:03)

Like, yeah, you're a nice guy and I guess we agree on college football, but you're engaged for 2 million a month. From who? Can you talk about that?

A (15:11)

Sure, Charlie. And the one thing we can say about all foreign countries, whether they're our friends or our enemies, is that ain't no one of them putting America first. Right? They're there to put their own countries first. And you've exactly described the system we talk about the money laundering with the cartels. There's more money laundering on K Street than any cartel ever dreamed of because these foreign companies, like you say, and by the way, the numbers you quote are not out of range 1 $2 million a month. And then those lobbyists get to keep a good amount of that, but they're expected to deploy the rest of for their clients. And you know what's really egregious? A lot of those lobbyists who go to represent foreign countries are former members of Congress.

B (15:52)

That's exactly right.

A (15:52)

That's their favorite. Their favorite thing to do is to go buy off former members of Congress. So I talk about Senator David Vitter, a Republican, who when he was in the Senate, fought hard against China, against their human rights abuses. But then when he was no longer a senator and he was able to become a lobbyist, and I think he was hurt in his race for governor because he got caught up in a prostitution scandal as the john. But then he comes out and says, oh, well, now I think these Chinese companies should get special permission. And he lobbied the Commerce Department to help them get their counterfeit products into the United States. So it turns out Senator Vitter is a lot more dangerous as the trick than as the John. Because as the trick, he's actually undermining America and working at the behest of people who hate us. And like, by the way, it's never like the firebrands who end up going and working for these foreign governments. It's always like the establishment types. Like the people that you look at and say, oh, well, they were viewed as a good person, a committee chairman or a subcommittee chairman. It's not the people from the Freedom Caucus that go engage in that behavior. They know who to pick off. They know how. And you know what effect that has. If you're currently in Congress and the job you want after Congress is whoring out to some foreign country or some multinational corporation, you start behaving that way, you start to show them your utility as their valet. And, you know, I think that our politics too often has been dominated by this theory that, like, one party's gonna save you and the other party's out to get you. The reality in D.C. too often is that both parties are partying on your dime and the parties aren't even that fun. And so. And by the way, the new influence peddler in this game is Big Tech. You know, we talk about telecom, the military industrial complex. Those are the institutional actors. But Big Tech has multiple lobbyists for every member of Congress. And their new thing that they do is they go and hire the spouses and family members of powerful members of Congress in exchange for influence. I mean, Chuck Schumer's daughter works for Facebook. You tell me how we're ever going to get a good regulation on section 230, the communication decency act, to liberate the free speech interests of Americans. If you've got one of the most powerful people in the Congress having their family members work for the people that we're supposed to be holding accountable.

B (18:13)

So let's talk about Big Tech. You have been one of the leading voices against Big Tech. I have found in the last couple years there are two groups of people. Actually, there's like three groups of people in Republican circles on Big Tech. There's those. Those that are legitimately concerned, but they're purchased by Big Tech because they take money from Google super pac. And so again, you get to root causes, Matt. You're not taking the money, so you are free to be able to do what is the right thing for your constituents. There's the second group of people that are not concerned at all, and they're also purchased by Big Tech. And then there's the third group of People, and that's you, where you're not purchased by big tech and you actually want to do something about it. But what's really interesting is that the Republicans use the same excuse. We're for the free market. Don't you understand? We're for the free market. And they say we don't want to do any, you know, we want to have innovation, all this sort of stuff. And what's really interesting is that all of the ecosystem that gives them the supposed white paper support is financed by big tech. The biggest think tanks in Washington D.C. receive seven figure wires from these international pseudo government, Silicon Valley tyrannical companies. And what's really funny is that these tech companies, they don't believe in Milton Friedman, they don't believe in free markets. They're doing nothing more than buying the ideological gateway so that they get untouched. They just use it as an excuse and then they'll go to the left and they'll have a different approach, right? They say, oh, you should support us because we're actually fighting for justice and we're fighting for blm. So they know how to appropriate their money. So Matt, I think it's long past time Section 230, Sherman Antitrust act, break up the companies, tie them up in courts, make their life a living hell. These companies are far too big. They have lied to us. They've said that they've made their products more addictive than tobacco. We as conservatives should love liberty. Love liberty. And if a private company or a bureaucrat is infringing on our liberty, that should bother us. What is the path forward of big tech?

A (20:21)

Well, step one, beware of the false prophets on the Republican side who give lip service to the issue but then actually don't want to do anything about it. And then support those of us who are actually trying to do what you said and bring a multifaceted approach to this conflict. Because if we just try one thing, if we just try legislating, we'll hit our head against the wall. If we just tried the Federal Elections Commission or the fcc, those are staggered terms, so it takes a while. So my advice to the Trump administration, and I know you've given advice to the Trump administration on this too, is that we have to have a multi pronged attack on those who would deprive us of the ability to freely communicate. So you got folks like Josh Hawley, my good friend in the Senate, who is sincere about bringing that to bear. But then on the other end of the spectrum you have people like Ambassador Nikki Haley, someone who a lot of folks think is gonna run for president in 2024, and she's out there publicly giving a cat bath to big Tech. She tweets that, oh, you know, well, we shouldn't allow censorship of conservatives, but we can't possibly regulate Big Tech because that would put too many lawyers and bureaucrats in charge of things. And that's even worse. You know what? That's bs. That is the type of talk from somebody who is sucking up to big Tech, not somebody who is actually fighting Big Tech and bringing the creativity to bear that it's going to take to try to create equity and just a platform that is neutral for people to be able to engage. I will say one thing. Recently there was a Breitbart story about this where even Facebook executives and content moderators are confessing. Well, the reason we have to clamp down so hard on right wing populism is because it is so popular. Because nothing drives more engagement, particularly on Facebook, than people talking about the MAGA doctrine issue set, you know, ending endless wars, ensuring that we redomesticate manufacturing, that we become the party of working people. And because that's so popular, they go out of their way to suppress it even more. So I would say to those who are listening to this podcast and around the country and around the conservative movement, let's actually back the real fighters. People like Josh Hawley. I would say Senator Ted Cruz would be on that list myself. And let's also be aware of those like Nikki Haley, who would just assume be a valet for Big Tech, than a competent advocate.

B (22:38)

I think there's three issues and they're not exclusive when it comes to big tech. It's the censorship issue, it's the monopolization issue, and it's the addiction issue. And I think that all three of those must be handled. And so some people say they focus on the addiction issue. This is what that new movie Social Dilemma, heavily focuses on. I actually think they did a really good job. I don't know if you've seen it or not yet, Matt. I deleted Netflix after they. After they became a pedophile channel. But I got somebody else's login and I saw it and it was very well done. And it was probably the best 75% of a documentary I've ever seen criticizing any sort of company. I mean, they really thought about how they did it. The last 25% of the film was not really great, but they didn't talk about once in the entire film dissident voices. Dissident voices. I put in Quotes. You know, people like you and I that believe in our country being censored, being shut up, being demonetized, digital assassinations. They didn't mention that at all. And they mentioned very little. Just a very simple question. Why should Google be worth $1.3 trillion in their market cap? I understand that they have a really great search capacity. They might be laying some fiber down driverless cars, but in the landscape of rewarding value, is computer processing and having a better algorithm really where we want all of the capital flows in our country to be rewarding? And we've had a hardware crisis of innovation the last couple decades where planes go almost the same speed, cars go marginally faster, yet computers are 1 trillion percent more efficient. And what I'm afraid that we're doing is that we are rewarding these companies with hard earned middle class dollars that are migrating from building physical infrastructure and much needed hardware advancements to a small select people of. First of all, they all hate our country. They've all been educated at the universities that do not share our worldview and they have so much power and wealth. Can you just talk about this just strictly from an economic monopolization standpoint? Because we as conservatives, we just like run away like, oh no, no company can ever be too big. I'm like, no, actually it can be too big.

A (24:51)

Yeah, I mean, I don't blame any business person who wants to be a monopoly. All businesses should strive to be a monopoly, but statesmen should strive to bust them up when they aren't serving the interests of our country. And that's what's happening right now with big tech. Monopolies aren't just bad for America. Over time they actually become bad for the monopoly as well. Because as you described, innovation is eroded, costs go up and there's a lethargy that results from that. Look back, look at the last big breakup. I mean, when Bell broke up, what was the result? More innovation, lower cost, more consumer access. And so I think that we can benefit from these actions.

B (25:34)

It's interesting. I don't mean to interrupt, man, I really don't. I had a corporate think tank funded person come up to me the other day and he gets lots of money from big tech, right? Just the same sort of system with the Congress people, right? Just completely bought and paid for. He might as well just wear a Google blazer, right? And so he said, no, no, no. When we broke up Google, Google, when we broke up Bell, it was the worst thing ever. Eight patents a day that we were getting. It's some Ridiculous thing I said, what are you talking about? So they're already trying to rewrite this idea that the breakups have been anti innovation. And so can you lean into that more though, Matt?

A (26:05)

Well, yeah, I mean, look at the video capacity, look at the lower price, look at the extended options that didn't happen previously. And if you look at the innovation over the telecommunications space, it's not linear, right? It's been exponential recently. And that's because people have been out there trying to beat one another, provide services that the other did not. Look, I mean, the reason there's an LG phone, the reason there's a Samsung phone is because first there was an iPhone. And if folks just had one particular communications vehicle or communications provider or telecom provider, you would not have had that opportunity for different options, different features, and more Americans working in that sector. So I think that there are very few people that would want to go back to the days of Bell. I think most of us would doubt whether or not Bell would have produced us the smartphone and some of the things that a lot of Americans frankly enjoy right now. But look, I mean, where I think that that person may be right when they speak to you is that we've got to do a better job telling the story to Americans about how this impacts their lives, right? When this is just like an esoteric intellectual discussion where we talk about monopolies and the other side talks about markets, it can get lost on the average person. And the reason, you know, we're currently losing that debate and we've got to do more. When you survey the average American, survey the American people and say, do you trust Amazon to do the right thing? 86% say yes. When they ask, do you trust Congress to do the right thing? Nine percent say yes. And so I think that, you know, there are those who would, I think, you know, maybe surrender to the big tech tyranny. But that is not how we advance a country. And that's why our leadership has to do.

B (27:49)

When running a business, HR issues can kill you. I know this quite well from running a business, wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations and more. And HR manager salaries are never cheap. They're an average of $70,000 a year. Bambi, spelled B A M B E E was created specifically for small business. You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy and maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month. With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength. Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real time. Chat from onboarding determinations that customize your policy to fit your business and they help you manage your employees day to day, all for just $99 a month, month to month. There's no hidden fees. Cancel anytime you didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time in HR compliance. Let Bambi help. Get your free HR audit today. Go to Bambi.comkirk right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's Bambi.comkirk spelled BAM to the B E-E.comkirk the favorability of Amazon is probably as high as it is because they all get their packages sent to them on time and they see some sort of value created, unlike Congress. And Amazon generally does what they say they're going to do. What they don't understand though, is how Amazon has created a multi dimensional economic empire that has no interest in middle class workers, in domesticating manufacturing, in allowing free and equal voices. And Amazon Web Services is basically taking over the entire cloud computing landscape. And Amazon's just one of the examples. I think that we cannot become too broad in our indictment of big tech. I think you need to find an enemy, isolate it, personalize it, polarize it and defeat it. I didn't come up with that. Solinsky did. But actually it works. And I think rule number eight of Stalinski's rules for radicals is keep the pressure on. I think we have to make Google the only one. I think that if you get too broad, so can you talk about that. I think from a strategic standpoint, we make a mistake when we say big tech. I do it too. I think we have to find one company and then what will happen is the other companies will actually join you in that critique and criticism and in some ways you can actually disrupt the landscape. I think Google is more dangerous than all the other tech companies combined. You might not agree with me on that, but based on what I've seen. So please tell us what your thoughts on that.

A (30:18)

So the reason, the reason what you've described, the reason that's hard is because when we see Twitter labeling the president, Shadow Banning, myself, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, when we see Facebook taking content about Coronavirus offline, just because the Facebook moderators have determined that you shouldn't be able to decide the truth or falsity of that statement, it enrages us. And we want to point to that and say this is wrong, we have to fix it. But Google is the biggest problem because it is the aggregator, essentially the publisher, the distributor of most of the content that is consumed Based on their dominance in search, they can define who Charlie Kirk or Matt Gaetz are based on the first page of our Google search results. Because if someone meets you, they're interested in your ideas, likely one of the first things they're going to do is Google you. You could have the most glowing reviews, the best things written about you from widely distributed publications that millions of people have seen. But they'll go find that tiny little left wing magazine from nowhere Illinois, and then say, aha. Like, this is the number one thing that people have to read about Charlie Kirk. And it is a distorted view. It's why when we had all of the major big tech, the big four tech CEOs before the house Antitrust Subcommittee and Judiciary, I spent most of my time questioning Sundar Pichai, the CEO of.

B (31:39)

You did a great job, by the way.

A (31:41)

Well, thank you. One scene, one image that I just found was particularly noteworthy. After Donald Trump wins the 2016 election, they all have a meeting in Sundar's office, the senior leadership of Google. And the main topic of the meeting is what did we do wrong to allow Donald Trump to win and what can we do next time to ensure that he doesn't? And why that's revealing is because it shows the low view that they have of democracy and the American people. They don't think that this is a country where the people should get to vote and choose their leaders. They think that they are the social, intellectual, technical elite and that the people should only see what they want them to see and that they should really be making the decisions. And so if the people disagree with their big tech overlords, that's not democracy working, that's the overlords not using enough of their power. And so now they're doing it a lot more, frankly. One of the things that still worries me about 2020, though, I do think the president's going to win, is that we caught him by surprise in 2016. I mean, they really didn't think Trump could win. And so a lot of ways we were able to mobilize that silent majority and we shocked the world. I think it'll be less shocking when Donald Trump wins in 2020 because it'll be the second time, but it'll be facing far more substantial headwinds because I think they're putting their thumb on the scale a lot more.

B (32:59)

I agree with that in part. The part I'm not sure of is whether or not we'll surprise them or not. They still seem incredibly confident they're going to win right now. And so, I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. And so I think that when we talk about big tech, Apple can't be excluded from the conversation because they are very dangerous. The Apple News App Store and all of that. My advice and my suggestion to people is you have to find a singular target or else they're all going to band together. And the combined force of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, I think is too big. They actually are more solvent, they're more powerful, and they're better funded than our own government. But if you find one. No, they are. And they have more data.

A (33:39)

And so if they can, they benefit out of that. Like, they're like fish in a school. Right. If you don't target one, sort of, the school of fish can be disoriented.

B (33:46)

That's right. And so gaf, gaaf, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook. Their combined power, if they all realize that they're allies, not adversaries, I'm afraid that's what's going to happen if we don't single out the target, is that they will create their own kind of advocacy group. They'll combine their best practices and they'll work in a collusion mindset. I think that one thing we have to do is isolate one and turn them against each other. I could be wrong. That's a strategic point for you and I later.

A (34:13)

Well, and. Well, and I think that's true domestically. But I also want to take a moment, Charlie, to talk about the way that foreign tech is impacting our security. And I know you and I have both discussed this TikTok issue with the President. I think we might have been the first. First ones to talk to him about what TikTok was. I don't know that our young at heart, but still boomer in age. President was a big TikTok guy before his time in public life. But to me, a bad deal is worse than no deal. Just kicking them out with no deal would be better than a bad deal that allows TikTok to continue to grow and serve China's strategic interests. But I don't think we should stop there. I think we should ban TikTok. I think we should ban DJI drones, which are the Chinese drones that fly in our skies, often by our own law enforcement, around our critical infrastructure. That, by the way, our own Department of Homeland Security says is feeding stuff right back to the Chinese Communist Party. And then also BGI genomics. The Chinese are taking major positions in these companies that look at our ancestry and our DNA and certainly following the China virus, the Last thing I want to see is the American genome or the genomes of any population of Americans sequenced and then isolated for vulnerability for the Chinese. And so I think we need a far broader approach. TikTok's a good start, but I wouldn't end there.

B (35:40)

Look, you're probably listening, you're listening to the Charlie Kirk show right now or else you wouldn't hear me say this. And you might have earbuds in. And the best way to listen is actually premium wireless earbuds. And that's why I recommend wireless earbuds from Raycon. They're terrific. The whole team at the Charlie Kirk showed us walks around with Raycon earbuds all the time. And Raycon's newest model, the Everyday E25 earbuds are the best ones yet. They have six hours of playtime, seamless bluetooth pairing, more bass and a more compact design and a noise isolating fit. Raycon earbuds are stylish and discreet. There's no more dangling wires or stems. Give them a try. Raycon has a 45 day return free policy. A 45 day free return policy. So you can make sure they're the wireless earbuds for you for a limited time get 15% off your order@buyraycon.com Kirk that's buyraycon.com Kirk for a special 15% discount on Raycon wireless. Again make sure to check it out right now while the deal is running. Buyraycon.com Kirk kind of on that kind of foreign policy point, can you talk about ending the endless wars? This is one of the things I am most supportive of in your commentary and your advocacy and when you publish writings or tweets. I'm so thrilled to see Republicans take a stand against the war machine. You and I are not too dissimilar in age. One of my earliest memories was 911 when I was in second grade seeing that happen. From that point forward I've known nothing but a nation at war and quite honestly, misdirected, misguided, endless nation building. Not even war. The US military is the best at killing our enemies and breaking stuff. We are not good at bringing western values to theocratic Islamic dictatorships when they don't even want us there. While we have our own suffering citizenry, bridges that can't be built, roads that can't be reconstructed, kids that cannot read, families that are falling apart. And yet I have to be lectured by the Republicans in Congress that we need to have another 10 year extension so that we can make the Kandahar Valley a little bit safer. Quite honestly, I am growing impatient with the war machine dominance on the Republican side. Matt, what is your take? Why do you believe that you believe on this and how can people basically help with it?

A (38:07)

Yeah, I don't think we're radical to say that we should rebuild America before we rebuild Kandahar. And we've got Republicans like Liz Cheney who've been in favor of like 10 out of the last three wars and who would like to start like four more of them before lunchtime tomorrow. And I stand as a counterbalance to that. And it's not that there aren't bullies in the world. We're not Pollyanna. We understand that there are bullies. I think President Trump knows how to deal with a bully. You punch them right in the nose and you give them a second thought before they ever mess with you again. That's why the president was right to take out Soleimani. It's why he was right to take the leader of Al Qaeda peninsula off the battlefield. Yes, the whole deal. But the prior generation of leadership from Obama, Bush, that whole crowd, they thought that the way to deal with a bully was to move into their house for 20 years trying to realign their worldview. And you're right. Our generation has grown very weary of these endless wars. And by the way, they have not just cost us a tremendous amount in treasure, they have not cost us just amount in the most precious thing we have is the blood of our bravest patriots who wear the uniform. It has also caused America to lose focus. You know, while China has been building islands and skyscrapers and aircraft carriers and artificial intelligence and quantum computing capabilities, we've been out trying to build democracies with blood and sand and Arab militias together. And it has been like trading the same villages back and forth in Afghanistan for 19 years, hoping that somehow that's going to result in a more stable country. Afghanistan is not a stable country. And you know what? Those neocons who think that, like, we can just go to Whereveristan and set up America have too low of a view of what America is. You know, this is not just a place or an idea or even a constitution. We are a culture. We are a people. I think we are the most special country that has ever existed in all of human history. And I don't much feel like apologizing for it. And Americanism is not just something we can export willy nilly. You know, if people want freedom like Americans did, they're going to have to fight for it and die for it and bleed for it. They're going to have to lose some of their fellow countrymen over it, and they're going to have to tell stories about those heroes for generations so that no one can ever take that special freedom away. And there's a parallel to what we see going on in America, Charlie, because the folks who do want to take America away, that's exactly what they're targeting. They're targeting our heroes and those who fought and those who engaged in the spirit of revolution that created an American identity. And so, look, I think we should always be the friend of freedom around the world. I think the biggest threat to freedom is not like Russia. I mean, it's China, right? I mean, these boomers are trying to tell us that, like, we have to wander around in the deserts of the Middle east and we have to go post up on Russia. Russia's two biggest exports are oil and models, and America has plenty of both. Look around your house. How much stuff was made in Russia? Not a whole lot of it. Right. It was made in China. And I think that that's why positioning away from the trillions of dollars lost in these endless wars, the countless lives, precious lives that we've lost in the Middle east, transitioning away from that to a focused, determined effort to beat China for the 21st century, that is what ensures America's continued greatness for generations to come.

B (41:47)

Well, Matt, I think you're articulating where the Republican Party needs to go in the future. And President Trump has just opened up the space for this conversation. And quite honestly, we're about a month from Election Day. It's hard to say, but, you know, there will be a time, and President Trump has said it, where he won't be president, and there will be an ideological vacuum. Some say it might be a civil war in the Republican Party where the corporate types are gonna try to take over again, and they're gonna try to tell us another six countries we have to invade. They're gonna try to tell us that we have to keep the social media tech oligarchs permanently powerful. They're gonna try to tell us to stop talking about the issues of life and social conservative values. They're gonna try to tell us that we need to have open borders. And I think you are leading the charge also on the political corruption angle. So, Matt, the final question I have here is can you just give us some insight into the election? You represent Florida. I'm also a Florida resident. I came to Florida for a reason. 0% income tax. A great governor people like you that love their country. Is Trump gonna win Florida? Is Trump gonna win the presidency? What are you seeing? What are you hearing? Give us your insight.

A (42:51)

The president's looking real good in Florida, Charlie. About 1100 people every day move to our state. We're real glad you're one of them. We're proud to count you a fellow Florida man, if you will. That's right, but that's not by accident. It's because in Florida, we've essentially had one party rule for a generation in our government. From Jeb Bush's time till now, there hasn't been a Democrat governor, there hasn't been a Democrat majority in either house. And so it's a perfect experiment to show what happens when you cut taxes, have a strong education system, the right sized environmental regulations. People actually want to be there and they want to bring their ideas and their capital and their love for our country. And so I think that that immigration into Florida, for people who want to see that type of worldview play out in their government, has helped the President. I actually predict, you know, the president won Florida by about 130,000 votes in 2016. I think he will win Florida by more than that. Now, another county to watch on election night, Miami Dade County. Usually this is a huge reservoir of votes for Democrats, but what we're starting to see is that these Hispanics, many of whom are not more than a generation or two removed from like real socialism, not like hacky sack drum circle socialism, but like no bread and no medicine socialism in the old country. They're not signing up for the Biden Harris Woke Topia. They're not signing up for the policies of Portland and San Francisco to be metastasized around the country. President Trump will do better with Hispanics, I think, than any Republican, even since George W. Bush. George W. Bush did very well with Hispanics. I think Trump could do even better. And I think it's because they're voting against the Woketopia.

B (44:36)

I think that is very well put. And boy, do we need to win Florida. The book is Firebrand. Everyone pick up a copy. Matt is one of the good guys. I don't say that very often. We talk about all the things that we're against on our show. Very. And we talk about things that we're for. But it's good to see someone fighting for the right things, not taking the corporate money, not taking the lobbyist money. And if everyone's listening to this, you should just take a pause and say, why is my congressman taking money from lobbyists That's a good question to ask them and use Matt Gaetz as the example that they don't have to ending the wars, holding these tech giants accountable, believing in our country, defending the American history and culture as you mentioned and I think articulating a vision for the party. Very well put, Matt Firebrand. Check it out right now. Let's make it a bestseller. Thanks so much, Matt for joining.

A (45:25)

Thank you, Charlie.

B (45:26)

See you soon. What a great conversation that was with Matt Gaetz. Please email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com freedomarliekirk.com get involved with Turning Point USA where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war. @tpusa.com, tpusa.com chip in some money if you can or get involved, start a chapter, attend an event. The Student Action Summit. Applications are open so go to tpusa.com sas that is tpusa.com sas. Please consider supporting us@charliekirk.com support and chip in some money if you can. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. God bless.