The Truth Behind Charlie Kirk's Dinner with Bill Ackman | The Brief | PragerU

You were speaking with Charlie Kirk less than 24 hours before he was assassinated, yet about a month and a half before he was assassinated, there's this now infamous dinner with Bill Ackman. I was there the whole time. The notion that there was a pin down of Bill Ackman pinned Charlie Kirk into the wall. I mean, literally nothing remotely like this happened. Welcome back to the brief insights from the inside. We are joined today by Josh Hamer. Josh is the editor-at-large at Newsweek, as well as the author of Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the Jewish Nation, and the Destiny of the West. Josh also was speaking to Charlie less than 24 hours before his assassination, so we really appreciate his insight and his time. Josh, thanks so much for joining us. It's a pleasure, Shabbos. Thank you. So when we talk about Charlie Kirk, it sort of reminds me of this parable between three blind men and an elephant, where one is grabbing onto the trunk and saying, this is what the elephant is. And this one is grabbing onto the tail, saying, this is what an elephant is. And I'm sort of seeing that different ideological movements, especially in the conservative world, are sort of trying to say, this is who Charlie Kirk was. No, this is who Charlie Kirk was. You knew him personally, both as a political figure and as a friend. So comprehensively, who was Charlie Kirk? So Shabbos, first of all, let me just say that I regret the fact that we're even forced to have this conversation. Charlie Kirk's memorial service was just recently held. This conversation happened, frankly, while the body was still warm, I mean, let alone having been given an identified proper burial. There were immediately people kind of chiming in saying, oh, he really thought this, oh, he thought that there. I mean, can't, on a very human level, I mean, can't those of us who are actually friends with this amazingly talented, extraordinarily precocious leader, someone who I've been referring to, I think accurately, as a five-star general in our battle to save Western civilization, can't we just like mourn a friend? So that's the first thing there. But nonetheless, because a lot of opportunists have been leaping in to try to posthumously convert him to their pet cause, their pet crusade, trying to paint him out as if he was something other than that which his demonstrable career's long, you know, accumulation of work clearly evinces that he was. And because of that, I think many of us have been forced to respond. So specifically here when it comes to the Jewish people, Jewish-Christian relations, the state of Israel, right, these are all the topics that I think a lot of bad faith actors have been kind of getting out there in the conversation. Charlie's life work in this respect, Shabbos, really speaks for itself. Charlie cared tremendously about the Jewish people, he cared tremendously about the state of Israel. I know this because, among other things, I personally experienced it time and time again. The reason that he befriended me on an individual level, the reason that he befriended, I think, a lot of politically conservative, prominent Jews in the conservative movement going back many, many years, you know, mutual friends of ours, Ben Shapiro, I mean, the reason that he used to study Torah with Dennis Prager, the reason that he kind of, one of his first mentors was the late, great David Horowitz there. He had an affection for the Jewish people for the very simple reason that Charlie Kirk was an evangelical Protestant and his form of evangelical Protestantism was, as I've been saying, the same type of evangelical Protestantism that founded America. It was the Christianity of John Adams, of John Jay, of Alexander Hamilton. You know, when John Adams famously said that the Jewish people, the Hebrews, are the greatest civilizing force for all mankind, that's kind of where Charlie Kirk was coming from. And his spiritual mentor and pastor, Rob McCoy, who spoke at the memorial in Glendale, Arizona, I've gotten to know Pastor Rob a little bit as well. Pastor Rob is very much of that type of Protestant Christian thinking as well, a real kind of old school book of Genesis, God promised the land of Israel to the Jewish people kind of guy. Shabbos, Charlie Kirk literally turned his phone off for 25 hours when Orthodox Jews like you and I turn our phone off from Friday night to Saturday night there. He spoke over and over and over again. He wrote this beautiful letter to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu back in May. I read this letter in June or July. His team gave me access to it. This letter's existence, I think, was not even acknowledged until Netanyahu actually spoke about it the day after the assassinations. I think now it's fair to talk about it. The letter literally begins by Charlie writing to the Prime Minister and saying, as a Christian, one of my greatest joys in life is befriending the Jewish people and the state of Israel, or something closely like that. Charlie was also numerous things to your kind of blind man elephant analogy. Among the other things that Charlie Kirk was, was he was a massive political organizer. As Vice President Vance has said, I think there's an argument to be made that no one did more other than President Trump himself than Charlie and turning points to get Donald Trump and J.D. Vance in power. So, because he was such a leader of a grassroots coalition, he was such a political animal as well. He was also involved in alliance building and building coalitions there. And you know, he and I didn't always agree eye to eye on where exactly to draw the lines there. To give a very concrete example, I do not like the fact that Tucker Carlson still speaks at Turning Point USA events. I'm just very candid about that. I have a massive issue with Tucker Carlson these days. But Charlie's hard job was always, always, always in the right place. This notion that he was about to renounce his lifelong friendship with the Jewish people, his life's work of support for Israel, the fact that he was literally defending the Talmud on college campuses when anti-Semites asked him about it there. He was not about to renounce it. And again, I know that firsthand because we literally had a Zoom call with like five or six people less than 24 hours before he was assassinated, where he asked me, Rabbi Pesach Wolicki over in Jerusalem and one or two others. He literally asked us for a series, a series of questions. How do I respond to this when they asked me on this in the campus or how do I respond to the leftist asking me about genocide, apartheid, the day after, Hamas, two-state solidarity? He literally asked us. He sought my counsel, Shabbos, less than 24 hours before he was killed on these very issues. So I can speak firsthand about this. Charlie Kerr remains a great friend of Jewish people in Israel until the exact moment he tragically was taken from us far too soon. You know, there's so much you said to unpack. But before we get into the specifics, I sort of want to go more broad for just a moment. The reaction that we have seen in this country, just from a quantitative measurement, is really unprecedented. As a young person, I obviously was not alive when JFK was assassinated. I was two years old during 9-11. And I think there are certain moments in American political history where you will always remember where you were, what you were doing. And in that vein, are you surprised in any way to see just how many Americans on all political spectrums were affected by Charlie Kerr's assassination? I actually have been a little surprised, honestly. And, yeah, I've known Charlie for, you know, five, six years, however long it's been. I got to know him initially back when I was running the op-ed section of Newsweek. Charlie was one of the conservative columnists that was grandfathered in when I started my tenure as op-ed editor. I've spoken at some turning point conferences. You know, we ended up being in a very, very active group chat over the past year and a half talking about rising anti-Semitism, which he was very concerned about, talking about saving Western civilization. So I knew him, Shabbos, really kind of through that lens. I knew him kind of through a political animal lens. And I knew that he had touched and inspired so many young men in particular throughout this country. You know, if you listen to carefully what Charlie had been saying over the past few years, it started to sound a lot very similar in some ways to Jordan Peterson, right? Jordan Peterson, one of his big things is make your bed in the morning, get off to a good start. You know, Charlie, as a sincere principle Christian, would say, you know, that girl that you're looking at, maybe ask her on a date, maybe actually ask her hand in marriage, have some children, go to synagogue or church on Saturday or Sunday. So he really was affecting a lot, a lot of young men. But to your question, I think what I didn't quite realize is just how broad the sheer depth and breadth of his cultural impact really beyond the realm of politics. I mean, I'm a big sports fan. I virtually all the NFL teams, the National Football League teams, the Sunday after the assassination held a moment of silence. The NFL is not known for its political conservatism, I think would be a very polite way of putting it. Unless I'm mistaken, they still have end racism in the end zones as kind of a lingering vestige of the 2020 George Floyd riots. The New York Yankees, my childhood sports team that I revered, they held a moment of silence hours, literally the very evening that he was assassinated. Country music megastars like Morgan Wallen and Jason Aldean shouting out to him, praying for his for his widow, his wife, Erica, in the middle of their concerts. I mean, international vigils across across Europe, down under in Australia. You know, these are the kind of things I don't think I frankly quite realize. But watching that NFL stadium in Glendale, Arizona, just packed to the brim like that, they're really extraordinary. It kind of got me thinking, is there anyone other than the president of the United States for whom we would have something similar to this here in the United States? I don't know the answer, honestly. It's a it's a it's just it's just absolutely extraordinary. Huge kudos to Turning Point USA for putting on, I thought, an extraordinarily impressive event. But he really did touch on this, whether it was politically, whether whether it was faith, whether it was just trying to get young men, young women as well, really kind of young men above all to kind of just take their lives in their own hands. He really inspired just a lot of people and is incumbent upon all of us in our own small ways to try to carry on that torch the best we can. I couldn't agree with you more. And I sort of drew a comparison within the Jewish community that for so many young Americans, Charlie Kirk was the closest they would ever get to a rabbinic figure. This is someone that they would pray with. They would ask, to your point, what is the type of woman I should be looking for in a relationship? What are the types of churches I should be praying at? And we don't just mourn the fact that Charlie, of course, was killed, but the fact that that spiritual connection that so many young Americans had in him is now gone. As much as we talk about this outpour of love and grief, two days before Charlie was killed, FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions, they released a survey that found one third of American college students found it acceptable to use violence in reaction to opinions or speech they did not like. At Harvard University, that number was closer to 36 percent. So Governor Spencer Cox of Utah gave, I think, one of the greatest speeches in response to Charlie Kirk's assassination, which is, words are not violent, violence is violence. But at the same time, we're sort of seeing young people in particular are more accustomed to the only appropriate way to respond to speech I do not like is violence. And in an almost sick, cynical way, it sort of makes sense that Charlie was assassinated on a college campus because the institutions that are meant to be barometers of free speech and intellectual discourse are the exact opposite. So how concerned are you about young people increasingly feeling that violence is the answer to speech? Well, let's also let's also observe here that Charlie, among everything you just said, which is which is accurate, Charlie was also one of the foremost critics of people going to to get a college degree in general. Actually, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie Kirk famously did not get a college degree. He literally wrote a book called The College Scam. He was really trying to try to encourage young people to not I mean, to be clear, some people it makes sense to go to college, but he was of the opinion, as am I, that there are far too many people these days that go to university, get these degrees that they have spent too much money for. They don't actually learn any skills. It sets them back four years when it comes to opportunity, cost, learning profession, dating, getting married, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there's something of a tragic irony simply to that as well. But I did see this exact same poll from FIRE. I think I actually quoted it in my first column that I wrote just a day or two after after the assassination. Horrific stuff. Absolutely horrifying stuff. I saw I saw your alma mater, Harvard University, had a very similar poll that showed roughly 30 percent, something between 30 to 35 percent of Harvard students, according to the poll that I saw, also said that they could foresee a world in which it would be acceptable to respond to to to speech with violence. You know, I mean, Chavez, not to put too fine a point on it, but this is literally how republics die. This is literally when human beings become indistinguishable from the animals of the animal kingdom and we lose the ability to actually govern ourselves. I think that, you know, I'd heart Chavez. I'm a constitutional guy. Right. I'm a lawyer. I clerk for federal appeals judge. So I really think back to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And the famous story is that Benjamin Franklin is leaving the convention there. He's approached by a local doctor in Philadelphia who says, Mr. Franklin, you've been hard at work here in the convention hall for these months in Philadelphia. What is it that you have given us? And Franklin's famous response is a republic. If you can keep it or if we can keep it right. And this, you know, we're coming up here on 250 years after the signing of the declaration next year. And it really is this increasing assassination culture that makes you makes you wonder whether or not the American people are in this form currently capable of maintaining sustaining a republic. I hate to be so bleak there, but that fundamentally is how I see it. The day that Americans lose their ability to settle their differences at the ballot box with the pen, with the keyboard and so forth there, and instead take out knives and swords and rifles there, that is the day that it is ultimately, tragically, potentially the beginning, beginning of the end there. And, you know, I guess the final thing I'll say on this, you know, one of the reasons Shabbos, I think that Charlie and I became became closer over the past year and a half, two years, however long you want to put it, is as I became more observant in my Judaism, which of course is a big theme of my book, Israel and Civilization, that you that you helped out on, you know, that was that was kind of a natural thing that brought Charlie and I together because he was already very much a religious evangelical. And as a religious evangelical, as someone who kind of kept his version of the Jewish Sabbath, kind of, you know, he was a big fan of Genesis 127, as am I. I think it's a single the single foundational ethical underpinning for all of Western civilization. In Hebrew we would say, this is the divine image imperative that God made man in his image, male and female created them. And it is something of a deeply tragic irony that is ultimately this assertion that man is made in the image of God and that this is what differentiates man from the animals, the animal kingdom. That is ultimately what is put in jeopardy when a man loses the ability to settle our differences with the pen and said resorts to the rifle. So the stakes really, frankly, could not possibly be higher. Before we unpack what you said earlier, I just want to ask on the opposing political side, do you think the right in some ways has gone too far to their reaction to Charlie Kirk's assassination? And what I mean by that specifically is I think you and I would probably both agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. There's been a website established shortly after Charlie's murder that basically compiles all of the horrific reactions that people can can go and look at online. But at the same time, you have the head of the FCC, who one can make a pretty credible argument is because of his actions resulted in Jimmy Kimmel show being canceled. So do you think that the right is sort of becoming the enemy by which they were speaking out against for years and that issues like free speech are actually not something that they're taking to heart after this horrific assassination? No, I'm not of that opinion, to be honest with you. And I know some people are. You know, Ted Cruz, for instance, has been a critic of Brendan Carr's actions with respect to Jimmy Kimmel. And I have a great amount of respect for Senator Cruz, but that's not exactly how I see it. So first of all, I'm actually a longstanding critic of the paradigm and phraseology of so-called cancel culture. Frankly, I think cancel culture is a lie. I think I think it's stupid. I think that people on the right were mistaken for ever adopting it as as some sort of cause celebrating the first place is a very simple reason for that, which is that there actually are things that should be canceled. There are some viewpoints that should not be heard. There are indeed some viewpoints that absolutely should be outside of the bounds of the proverbial marketplace of ideas. The question, rather, is not a theoretical one, rather, it is a pragmatic and prudential one as to where those limits, where those boundaries should should be drawn. So I've actually been a critic of those in the right who have kind of reflexively just shouted cancel culture, cancel culture, you know, every single time that someone faces the consequences. And on the contrary, I think every situation really should be assessed on its own underlying merits. When it comes to to Brendan Carr and Jimmy Kimmel, look, the First Amendment does not guarantee Disney, which the parent company of ABC, the ability, I mean, frankly, the ability to exist in the first place, but it does not guarantee them the ability to platform Jimmy Kimmel generally speaking there. And in particular, when it comes to ABC, CBS, NBC, the three big broadcast television stations going back to the early days of television, when the FCC was created during the New Deal, the FDR presidency, you know, almost 100 years ago now, the licenses were doled out on a quid pro quo understanding that the programming would redound to the common goods, the public interest. And we can debate whether or not that's that's still a good policy. It will be up for Congress to actually statutorily amend that language. But that actually is the law to this day is that they operate, they operate there according to that which serves the public interest there. You know, it's not like left wing FCC commissioners as well have have not taken this and run with it many times over the years as well. You know, back when Rush Limbaugh was really developing conservative talk radio in the late 1980s into the 1990s, as others, the great Dennis Prager, of course, many others got into the game. You know, many left wing FCC commissioners, which would try to kind of stifle conservative voices under the under the same rationale there. But, you know, frankly, shop is I think what happened to Jimmy Kimmel is probably a good result for literally every other person other than Jimmy Kimmel. But, no, there's not there's not necessarily an egregious free speech issue going on here. Jimmy Kimmel wants to go on the sidewalk. He wants to go in the Boston Commons and, you know, give his piece about how Charlie Kirk's assassin was really actually a MAGA, which is what he was saying there. He's free to do so. He won't be prosecuted for that speech. That's the First Amendment. You know, having a license to produce programming that serves the public interest while serving blatant misinformation. That's not really a First Amendment issue. You obviously, as you said, you were speaking with Charlie Kirk less than 24 hours before he was assassinated, yet about a month and a half before he was assassinated. There's this now infamous dinner with Bill Ackman, with other ostensibly pro-Israel influencers, albeit he was not merely to discuss Israel. But if I'm putting on my conspiratorial tin hat and I was looking at the dark corners of the website, this was a shakedown trying to get Charlie Kirk, who was on the verge of turning against Israel, of turning against Western civilization as a last ditch Hail Mary, to to shake him down as to why he needs to toe the party line. Can you provide some insight? What was this dinner? What happened? And sort of quell some of these bizarre conspiracies that, as you said, have unfortunately propped up just hours after he was killed. Yeah, it's been really weird slash funny to see this Hamptons retreat get blown up into something that it was not because, again, I was there. I was literally there. I was one of thirty five ish attendees. So this was a small invite only retreat. The retreat was called a Save the West retreat. There were about three or four sessions and only one of the sessions that was actually about Israel. There was a whole session about the rise of Zoram Amdan, the New York City and the Red Green Alliance, then that Charlie was becoming extremely vocal of, which I think was to his tremendous credit. There's a whole nother session about Gen Z economics and some of the unique economic concerns of afflicting and affecting Gen Z. Charlie actually co-hosted, moderated that session with Bill Ackman. And the whole point of this retreat, I mean, to be clear, there were a few purposes. One was for Charlie to just kind of hear more perspectives, meet people, maybe scout out some new talent among the people who are a little more obscure, who are there. He was a big free speech guy. He really genuinely enjoyed these big, robust conversations. But it became apparent to me after I landed, I didn't realize this. Bill Ackman has since acknowledged that he funded this whole thing. So I think part of the reason was for Charlie and Bill Ackman to get to know one another. Charlie probably saw him as a potential big ally for Turning Point. I'm sure Bill Ackman saw Charlie as a useful ally in the various fights that he cares about, DEI, campus craziness, which you're so familiar with, and so forth as well there. But more to the point, Sean, I was there the whole time. I participated in all these sessions there. The notion that there was a pin down of Bill Ackman, or as some folks have said, my good friend, Seth Dillon, the CEO of the Babylon Bee, the notion that Bill Ackman or Seth Dillon or me or someone else, you know, pinned Charlie Kirk against the wall and said, young man, you're going to go to Israel and you're going to make right with Bibi Netanyahu. What are you talking? I mean, literally nothing remotely like this happened. Now, there were spirited exchanges during both the Israel session and other sessions. For instance, during the whole Mamdani Red Green Alliance conversation, Charlie kind of provocatively threw out the question, is Zoram Mamdani an American? And, you know, he's getting at this distinction between a legalistic American on the one hand versus kind of a cultural American. So, you know, numerous of these of these panels had very spirited, robust conversation. It was never hostile. There was never there was never anyone shouting, oh, you idiot, how could you say that? No, there was there was nothing like that. And also, that's my first time meeting Bill Ackman in person. He's kind of a more reserved person than I realized. So the notion that even has it in him as a matter of like basic human personality to pin Charlie Kirk. By the way, Charlie was a very tall guy. Charlie was like six, three, at least maybe even six, four, very tall guy. I was kind of shocked when I first met him in person. The notion that Bill Ackman would have it in him to pin this tall guy against the wall. It's it's so preposterous and ludicrous, like it barely even passes the lab test there. But look, you know, Charlie, even at that retreat, Shabbos, he was critical of the way that some pro-Israel folks advance their messages. He didn't like the way that they were making their arguments there. But what he was really interested in, above all, was in trying to gently guide his predominantly millennial Gen Z audience back to the right place on this issue. He was kind of he was interested in workshopping, in troubleshooting messaging there. And his heart was genuinely in the right place. He was just critical sometimes of the way that people would formulate their arguments there. But even at that retreat, he doubled down on the civilizational threat posed by radical Islam and suggested that that Israel is kind of a natural ally in that fight. So he was not shifting or anything like that there. There was no intervention. There's just a bunch of lies by a lot of very silly and frankly sad and in some ways demonic people. So just so we're clear, to put the online Internet rumors to bed, Charlie Kirk at no point was yelled at by Bill Ackman to change his stance on Israel, was not paid for by the Israeli government to change his stance. It was, in your words, a free spirited debate, an exchange of ideas. I think that's an important point for our viewers to know. You have to understand that the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel, this was not just a public policy issue for Charlie Kirk. This is not kind of just a let's debate what the most efficient tax rate would be for capital gains or the best child tax credit number there. It wasn't like that. This was a this was a genuine matter of core conviction, ultimately rooted in his Christian theology. And despite the attempts of people like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene to say that Charlie Kirk was was shifting, that he was getting ready to renounce them. Charlie Kirk's theology, as we've said, was the Christianity of the American fountain. He was a deeply, deeply Hebrew Bible rooted, philo-semitic Christianity that was sculpted by his learning Torah many years ago with Dennis Prager, that was sculpted by his actually immersing himself at times with parts of the Talmud itself. He was really taking classes in studying biblical Hebrew, writing a book on the Sabbath that is supposed to be posthumously released, God willing, this December. The book is titled Stop in the Name of God, literally calling people to honor the Sabbath. I mean, he would literally quote Genesis and say on the Sabbath. So so whatever Charlie's relationship with Tucker Carlson may or may not have been, I have no doubt that they were personally chummy there. Their their forms of Christianity and their theology were just totally, totally different. And that had real tangible implications for how they approach the Jewish people, how their their natural affection, affinity for the Jewish state of Israel and so forth. As far as my debate against Dave Smith, who you're accurately describing as a third rate comedian there, you know, Charlie, again, was was a huge proponent of free speech. I say I went on his show many times over the years. And I would say that that the segments that I went on a show where he would most push back me, we never got into a fight. I mean, to be clear, he was not a very argumentative guy, actually, or not. He would never kind of raise his voice or attack. But when when he would push back me the most is when we kind of tried to define the line between, you know, harassment, incitement, anti-Semitism and free speech. He was not he was not a big fan of of measures that are perceived to perhaps infringe upon free speech. I see it a little differently. It's really neither here nor there. The point is that he was basically a free speech absolutist, frankly, even more frankly, even more so than I am, because that's actually not my read of the First Amendment, the American founding, neither here nor there. But that's what he's trying to do when he did debates like me versus Dave Smith. He was genuinely of the opinion that the more speech, the merrier hashed out best side wins. Whoever has the best arguments wins there. That was his way of Congress to have this out in the open there. And for what it's worth, I think he actually moderated a very good debate. I told that in person afterwards. I was very happy with how that event went. One of the ironies I feel of calling Charlie Kirk far right is the far right did not like Charlie Kirk, mostly because he was pro-Israel. He believed in Western civilization. He was very outspoken about Judeo-Christian values. And now that we don't have Charlie Kirk and now that there's no obvious replacement to a Charlie Kirk, you're seeing far right nefarious actors who are trying to court the Gen Z, spiritually curious American conservative. So where do you see the future of those young Americans who are so attached, not just politically, but also religiously to someone like Charlie? Where does that constituency go from this point on? The folks who are criticizing Charlie from a pro-Israel perspective because, you know, he didn't go far enough or maybe he wasn't perfect and maybe he didn't say everything that I would say or Ben Shapiro would say. Fine. I mean, I understand that, but he, I think, felt that he sometimes had to be a little critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu or something there to try to maintain credibility with younger folks, with Millennial NG. I think he thought that if he would go kind of full Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, I'm not picking on Ben and Mark. They're both good friends. I'm just saying hypothetically, you know, if Charlie, I think Charlie thought that if he would have gone there, he would have probably lost credibility. And the reality is, Chavez, that there was probably no single person in America, which is the point that you're correctly making. There was no single person in America who did more to keep Nick Fuentes, that whole Royper neo-Nazi crew. Literally no one did more to keep them at bay than Charlie Kirk. No one. And it is a massive, massive issue that I am very concerned about in his absence. In fact, here in Florida, where I live, you know, the rabbi where I where I go to synagogue, you know, knew that Charlie and I were where we're friends. And he called me, you know, within minutes of on that terrible Wednesday afternoon of getting the news. This is actually one of his very first things he said to me was he immediately had this thought as to what happens to that kind of Nick Fuentes, Royper energy from there. I wish I had a good answer. I do not know what the answer is there. You know, look, his widow, Erica Kirk, has delivered numerous extraordinarily powerful speeches there. I have no doubt that she is the CEO and she's the the right CEO, the right chairperson for Turing Point USA. We will see where she takes the direction from here. For what it's worth, I have no reason for thinking that Erica does not share Charlie sentiments on these matters. If I'm not mistaken, I think she and Charlie actually met in Israel on a Christian pilgrimage retreat of some sort there, which is kind of an interesting, you know, an interesting anecdotal fact, you know, amidst all this conversation about his legacy there. So we'll see what happens there. But it is no doubt a big loss and no doubt the whole Royper wing feels emboldened right now. Tragic. I cannot thank you enough, Josh, not just for coming on this show, but for everything you've been doing for this country, for the conservative movement. And again, for all my listeners who have not read Josh's book, make sure to go out, buy it and read it. His ideas and his arguments are more important today, arguably, than they ever have been. So, Josh, thank you again. Shabbos. God bless you. Mazel tov on the new show as well.