The Best Logical, Scientific, and Faith-Based Argument Against Abortion
On this special episode of The Charlie Kirk Show. we're airing a speech Charlie gave to the Bringing America Back to Life Convention in Cleveland, Ohio where he gives an impassioned defense of life and the values & courage every American must adopt in order to become an effective advocate against the archaic and evil practice of abortion. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey, everybody.
On this Sunday episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, I wanted to air my speech that I gave around the Defense for Life at a pro-life event in Cleveland, Ohio.
It was a terrific time.
Great people that hosted me.
I give a logical and scientific and faith-based argument for the Defense for Life during this episode.
It's brought to you advertiser-free, not one advertiser in this entire episode, by those of you that support us at CharlieKirk.com/slash support.
Email us your questions or your thoughts on this episode, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Our campus tour is just days away.
tpusa.com slash gen free.
The defense for life, it's Sunday.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
It's great to be here, and thank you for that wonderful introduction.
I see so many friends here, Tom, who does a wonderful job.
And I saw on my schedule I had an opportunity to speak at a Right to Life convention.
I was so excited because I talk about the right to life quite often, but I talk about other things as well.
So actually, to be able to focus on this is really exciting.
A couple of things I just want to reinforce.
First of all, thank you for mentioning that.
You could find both of us every day on 1420, The Answer.
So every radio in the room should just be on 1420 when you get in the car and get out of the car.
But no, it's great.
Yeah, exactly.
That's worthy of applause.
It's phenomenal to be here, and I want to talk about my short life's work, which is going to high school and college campuses and arguing for the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman culture that built Western civilization.
What your children are learning, which is becoming an existential crisis to our country, and also the case for life, because I think we have to get a lot, we have to get even better at articulating it.
I think that it's not an argument for anyone in this room that we're on the moral side when we talk about life.
The question is, how is it that we know we're so right, yet this practice continues, and it seems as if legislatively in certain states, it's going in the wrong direction.
And so I want to talk about that as well.
But I'm originally from Chicago.
For those of you that might have some Chicago roots, it's a great place to be from.
The fun thing about being from Illinois, I can honestly say this, that Illinois is more of a corrupt state than Ohio.
And that is really saying something, truly.
No, it really is.
No, some people say no.
I don't know.
Teapot Dome, I don't know.
There's a lot there.
But the fun thing about being from Illinois is we have term limits, one term in office, one term in jail.
So it's a little bit, you know, it's different than Ohio style term limits.
My grandmother was a lifelong Republican, probably one of the most unbelievable Catholics ever in the history of North America.
I mean, she would watch EWTN after going to Mass and read the Catechism and then tell everyone around her what they were doing wrong in their Catholic life, a perfect Catholic.
And I say that, though, I mean that with love.
I have a great amount of love for Catholics growing up in Chicago.
And she passed away and she's been voting Democrat ever since, being from Chicago.
And so I know she would approve of that, but no, it's 100% true, by the way.
And so I'm from Chicago, started Turning Point USA, been at this for nine and a half years.
It's been the most unbelievable journey one could be on.
I get to do what I love every single day.
I do podcasting, I do radio, and then my day job is trying to save the country from absolute bitter destruction from people who hate the country and in some ways actually hate themselves.
I'll get to that in a second.
So let's talk about life for a second.
And I think that we, I'm going to have a call to action at the end of what we need to do.
But for those people in the audience, there might be only a couple of them that might not yet be pro-life or understand the issue.
It's very, very simple.
And I think the more that we actually get into the logical and the scientific argument around life, I think that we're more successful.
And so I was at the March for Life last year, right before the lockdowns.
Anyone else was there?
It was a wonderful.
If you have not been, it's worth going at least once.
It is definitely, I don't want to say it's disorganized, but it's definitely chaotic.
I think that's probably fair to say.
But it's worthwhile.
It really is, because one of the most amazing things, there's young people from all across the country.
And that's one of the things I'm going to convince you of, if not already, which is that life is actually a winning issue.
See, I was told in the first couple years in the conservative movement, stay away from that abortion topic.
Stay away from life.
You know, it was kind of this Mitt Romney way of the world.
Like, all we should care about is shipping our factories to China and basically deindustrializing the backbone of our country.
But if you dare talk about life or the family, you're somehow going to lose young people.
And the data actually doesn't reflect that at all.
So this is the most pro-life generation in American history, that the more we learn, it's true.
And whether it's religious young people or secular young people.
And so my first piece of advice, not just advice, I'm going to convince you of it, is we have to lean in on this issue.
And so I was at the March for Life and I saw this nine-year-old that had more wisdom on this sign that she made than the entire combined professor class at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
There was more wisdom on her one sign.
And all it said was this.
It's like, this is the best pro-life argument I've ever seen.
It's not your DNA.
It's not your choice.
I said, what?
That's a phenomenal argument.
I said, that's as simple as it possibly gets.
Because the entire argument from the left that I hear, or from the abortionists, which, by the way, I'll get to this in a second, never again, I never want to hear pro-choice, ever.
They're not pro-choice.
They're abortionists.
Call them what they are pro-abortion.
Stop giving them a mantle of something that is moral.
A choice is moral.
Destruction of a life is not.
Call them what they are, which is pro-abortion.
I'll get to that in a second.
And I said, that debunks the pro-abortion argument of my body, my choice.
It's not your body.
It's somebody else's body.
It's unique DNA.
It might be a different blood type.
It might have its own heart.
It does have its own heartbeat after 21 days, but at least after six to eight weeks, it's not your body.
So even that talking point in and of itself is invalidated.
And then there's just some logical hurdles that the abortionists have to overcome, which of course, and I don't celebrate this at all, but Chrissy Teigen, who's a very foolish person, and she's a celebrity, and she's married to John Legend, and you can follow her on social media.
And she's very, very pro-abortion, very pro-abortion.
Raises money for Planned Parenthood, outspokenly so.
A lot of young people are deceived by her.
And tragically, she went through a miscarriage recently.
And for her, the miscarriage in her own telling of the events was a death of a child, the death of a baby.
And I can't help but think: how is it for her that that was a sad death of a child and not a sad death of a clump of cells or a fetus?
So for her, she helps finance an organization that convinces young women that it's nothing but a clump of cells and that inconvenience can be eliminated in a moment's notice.
But she wept.
She had pain because that child was not able to continue in its development.
Do you notice how I just phrased that?
Continue in its development?
Not that it becomes a human being or was a human being at conception.
The way we talk about this is very important.
We must have this entire conversation on accurate, truthful moral terms.
And so within their own nomenclature, within their own narrative, there's logical and rational, not just inconsistencies, but fallacies.
For example, if you were to go to Kim Kardashian, whom I've had the opportunity to meet, and she's actually smarter than people would think.
She is.
She's a smart person.
And I think that if I had an hour just to talk to her about the abortion argument, I could flip her.
I really do.
But she says she's pro-abortion.
And if she were to host a pregnancy celebration, what would she call it?
She'd call a baby shower.
Interesting, and it's not a fetus shower.
Now, having a baby shower, having a celebration of life, the expectation of life, under the moral paradigm that our children are learning in the university and in high schools, it's perfectly acceptable to have a baby shower and then right after get in the car and go to Planned Parenthood and end that baby's life.
Basically, what we're really fighting here is subjective versus objective morality.
And what has always made the West different is an objective belief of how we interpret morality.
How we are able to look at what a human being is, and that person is made in the image of God.
We are image bearers.
And so the four common, and this, I did not come up with this.
My friend Seth Gruber made me aware of this.
There's websites dedicated to it, but I want every pro-life person to listen carefully, and this will be rebroadcast on my YouTube channel and on the podcast feed, is the four biggest points of logical fallacy amongst the pro-abortionists.
And it's an acronym called SLED.
You might have heard it before.
Size, level of development, environment, and dependency, degree of dependency.
Now, this is the four arguments that the abortionists will make as to why it's okay to terminate innocent life.
So number one, size.
Their argument that the size of a human matters.
It's only the size of a peanut, therefore, we're allowed to eliminate it.
So therefore, I'm about 6'4.
If I were to say that anyone smaller than me should be eliminated, you'd say that's the most immoral argument I've ever heard.
Of course it is.
Size is irrelevant to whether or not human life matters.
So that one is pretty obvious.
Number two, level of development.
That beautiful child that was just shown up on stage, shown on stage, no one would say that that child is not worthy of human protection.
Level of development is completely irrelevant.
Number three, environment.
Does it matter where a person actually is, whether it be in a woman's, in the womb or whether it be independent of the woman's womb?
And that's the fourth one, dependency.
Now, this is the one that they really are able to win young people on.
They say you're able to eliminate that fetus because that fetus is dependent.
Now, that, of course, is a logical fallacy in and of itself, because every single human life at some point is going to be dependent.
For example, that child, if you left that child alone in the crib for three weeks and that child, unfortunately and tragically were to no longer be able to live, you would then go to jail for infanticide.
We have laws against that.
That's exactly why they're getting rid of those laws in Virginia.
That's why they get rid of those laws in New York, because that paves the way for the eventual moral justification of abortion, which is the subjective taking of life.
Now, this idea of dependency is easily debunked through a compassion-based argument.
I know people in my life that are dependents because they have Down syndrome or because they have some form of mental, let's say, handicap.
By no means does the law justify us to be able to take those people's life.
They have equal rights of protection under the law, and so should an unborn child.
And so it really comes down to a very simple question that the abortionists cannot answer.
The most important question, which is when does human life begin?
It's that simple.
We're able to answer that question.
It begins at conception when DNA starts to form.
You see, we have science on our side.
The left says, oh, we need to trust the science.
They don't.
It's unbelievably Orwellian.
And I'll just take a little bit of a tangent here.
The lockdowns were anti-science.
The lockdowns will go down as the worst mistake ever done by our society.
And I'm going to build this out throughout.
The lockdowns are directly correlated to the rise in suicides, mental health issues, business closures, opioids, drug usage, and alcoholism.
Now, that's not to say that I think every single person should take the virus the same degree of seriousness.
If you're over the age of 65 and you have underlying health conditions, you absolutely should take this virus seriously.
If you're 14, you should not be locked down in your home for six months behind a Zoom and a Skype computer class, have no human interaction, no spring sports, no prom, no commencement, no summer sports under the idea that this virus is equally as big of a threat to the 14-year-old as it is to the 81-year-old.
That's immoral.
So I'm pro-life not just to be able to protect people in the womb, which they are people, but I'm pro-life in every single public policy measure that I espouse.
And that goes to another logical fallacy or another lie that our young people come across on college campuses, or all of you.
How many of you heard from your liberal friends, you're just pro-birth.
You see, you don't actually care about the human being because you don't want open borders, you don't want to give away government programs, you don't want all these sorts of things.
You're just pro-birth and throw the baby away.
So what we need to do a much better job of is demonstrating and communicating.
So, no, no, no.
We're pro-life, not just to protect the unborn child, but I want more police on the streets so that gangs are not shooting children on the way to schools.
I'm pro-life so that parents are able to have educational choice to send their kids to a better school.
I'm pro-life so that we do not have thousands of people in southeastern Ohio overdosing on opioids and methamphetamines.
I'm pro-life because I want a southern border so that guns are not smuggled into our country alongside of women that are sex trafficked over 11,000 into our country every single year.
I'm not just pro-life at birth.
I'm pro-life all the way through that child's life.
That's how we must articulate a culture of life.
And so to understand the sled paradigm, size, level of development, environment, and dependency, is very important to be able to counter the abortionists' argument, public narrative, and popular narrative.
But let me tell you this.
They're growing increasingly nervous that the science is not on their side.
Life begins at conception.
It's that simple.
What is life?
You see, if college was doing their job, which most colleges aren't, it's true, most young people would be able to answer this question.
What is life?
Life is that which grows.
Life is that which improves.
That which is dying does not grow.
Therefore, that which is formed at conception is growing and improves.
What a simple way to argue that.
Not to mention, it has its own unique deoxoribonucleic acid.
We learned this in fifth and sixth grade, DNA.
And yet, for whatever reason, they say that special mixture of DNA, that special combination that will never happen again, is not worthy of constitutional protection.
And they are not able to get over a very simple, logical question, which is when does human life begin?
And the next question is, what species is a fetus?
It's a very simple question.
On the animal kingdom, what species is a fetus?
Because what they've done, because there's no depth and there's no wisdom, because there's no God, it's an Old Testament saying, no God, there is no wisdom.
That's why you go to a college campus and you say, there's unbelievably intelligent people saying stupid things is because intelligent people can not be wise.
It's because wisdom is a choice.
You must want to be wise.
And universities decide not to be wise because there is no God.
And so you have these people at these universities that are saying this pablo.
They say, oh no, that is not a human life.
Well, then a very simple, logical question would be, well, then you need to place it somewhere on the animal kingdom.
If it's not a Homo sapien, is it a bald eagle, an ostrich, an elephant?
What is it?
And of course, under pressure, they would say, okay, it is human.
Well, then if it's living and it's a human life, then how does that human life not deserve constitutional protection?
And so this really is a theological debate.
And we as Christians, I'm not Catholic.
I consider all of us to be part of the Christian family.
Some Catholics don't believe that.
Some evangelicals don't believe that.
I think we're all Christians.
We believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.
So we're all in this together.
That's my belief.
And so, and let me say, I think Catholicism is a beautiful religion.
I really do.
It's a phenomenal tradition.
And I learn a lot from my Catholic friends and my Catholic brothers and sisters.
And so let me say this.
My biggest complaint is how Christians do not understand that there's a theological debate happening in this country.
And so we as Christians believe two basic things.
We believe a lot more than this, right?
This is not the end of our theology, trust me.
But this is basically the beginning of what we Christians believe.
There is a God, and you are not him.
It's really simple.
When you think about it, that's the beginning of the Christian faith.
We recognize there is a God and I am not him.
Now, the reason why abortion has become so popular, the same reason like a lot of these trends are happening, transgender, and I'll get into all that nonsense, is because they don't necessarily believe in either of those.
They might say, okay, there's a God, but I might be that God.
You see, if you believe that you're made in the image of God and you believe that life is uniquely formed in God's image and you're not that God, then who gives you the right to take away that human life?
You don't.
And that's the theological debate raging in our country right now.
And it's in every single public policy discussion.
And what do Republicans want to talk about corporate tax cuts?
I'm going to say this as lovingly as I can because I can't stand the left and the Republicans are the only thing that stops us from becoming the left in some ways.
But Republicans just introduced into the House of Representatives a repeal of the estate tax, which basically is a tax on intergenerational wealth and inheritance.
Okay, I don't like the wealth.
I don't like wealth tax.
I don't like inheritance tax.
I'm a free market guy.
But on the hierarchy of wants and needs of a broken republic, when men are able to go into women's locker rooms, when women's sports are under attack, we have open borders and a million abortions a year, I probably wouldn't put the estate tax as the top priority of the Republican Party.
And so, and again, I'm totally against, I'm totally against the estate tax.
It's fine.
But it seems as if that corporate interests of go bow down to some ridiculous, woke, secular Fortune 100 company, and we're going to just finance your campaign.
That's been the prevailing wisdom in Washington, D.C.
And one of the main reasons why Republicans are starting to win a state like Ohio by eight to ten points is not because they're going on a whistle-stop tour saying we're going to get rid of the estate tax, which does hurt farmers.
I understand that, but that's that's not the primary concern.
The reason why Republicans are doing better is because in Ohio is because people of faith, people of moral conscience are like, Republicans are all we got.
That's it.
That's the reason why Republicans are doing well.
That's it.
And Trump deserves a lot of credit for his ability to communicate with Appalachian voters and middle-class workers that felt disenfranchised.
And so this is the theological debate raging in this country, but I want to focus some of my criticism.
And I get so much backlash for this, which is precisely why I choose to do this.
So you're going to be in all the papers.
You're going to have more visibility for this beautiful organization than ever before.
So you're welcome.
And so, I know I say that I mean that.
And so I read this thing the other day, but this Timothy Keller.
Anyone know who Timothy Keller is?
This guy in New York, Redeemer Church.
And one of my biggest frustrations, and I'm putting that very nicely, is how people that can believe we're made in God's image, that can believe there is a Creator who cares about what you do and how you act, that wants to get back into a relationship with you, that sent his son to save you, commanded you to look after the least of these, and then can be kind of on the fence when it comes to abortion.
So here's Timothy Keller.
He writes this Facebook post, who Redeemer Church, he's part of Christian Incorporated, big mega church.
This guy has a very big following.
He says this.
The Bible binds my conscience to care for the poor, but it does not tell me the best practical way to do it.
Any particular strategy may be good and wise and may be even somewhat inferred from other things the Bible teaches.
But they're not directly commanded and therefore we cannot insist all Christians, as a matter of conscience, to follow one another.
He continues to say, the Bible tells me abortion is a sin and a great evil, but it doesn't tell me the best way to decrease or end abortion in this country, nor which policies are most effective.
The current political parties offer a pote parie of different positions on these.
And many, let me just stop there, Timothy Keller.
It's very simple.
The Democrat Party believes that you should be able to massacre born children.
The Republican Party doesn't.
It's really not that.
It's not a pote-parie.
That's not a Socratic dialogue in the pursuit of truth, okay?
That's pretty, that's as black and white as I could possibly make a public policy decision.
Okay, he continues, and I only bring this up because I know that there's a Christian undertone of this gathering.
No, I mean that.
No, seriously, because we need to get very, very intense and direct towards our Christian ministers and pastors that talk about this nonsense.
He continues by saying, this means when it comes to taking political positions, voting, determining alliances, and political involvement, the Christian has liberty of conscience, really.
Christians cannot say to other Christians, no Christian can vote for, or every Christian must vote for, unless you can find a biblical commandment to that effect.
Well, theologian Timothy Keller, how about thou shalt not murder?
It's probably a good one to start with.
And this, Timothy Keller, who runs Redeemer Church in New York and has millions of followers, is the true definition of cowardice.
This right here is moral indifference.
And so, let me put it as plainly as I can morally.
I want to replace one word in Timothy Keller's pile of dribble.
The Bible tells me that slavery is a sin and a great evil, but it doesn't tell me the best way to decrease or end slavery, or which policies are most effective, unless you can find a biblical command to that effect.
It's very easy to say that what were the people in the 1850s thinking when it came to slavery?
It's so patently obvious, isn't it?
And what the activist media says, and media matters, they love writing me up when I compare abortion to slavery.
And they're similar but different sins.
But the massacre of 60 million unborn children since Roe versus Wade, I think is a stain on the moral conscience of this country.
And people say, is that a worse sin?
I said, I'm not in the judging of the hierarchy of sins.
That's not my business.
What I am going to say, though, is that the moral indifference from the people that are supposed to be the moral referees in our country, the people that are supposed to be the communicators of God's spoken word, is not just scandalous, it's reprehensible.
And so, you know, that the Bible does not have any specific verses about hanging homosexuals.
It doesn't.
But we could say that that is obviously morally wrong.
The Bible does not say anything about female genital mutilation, but we can obviously say that is morally wrong.
The point is that the Bible explicitly commands us against abortion.
I knew you before you were born.
It's pretty simple.
Made in the image of God, image bearers.
And the amazing thing, and Thomas Aquinas deserves great credit for this.
The more we go into the scientific realm, the more it confirms the teachings of the Bible.
You see, we as Christians should be unafraid to have this conversation on a scientific basis.
Okay, you believe in science.
Absolutely.
I worship the God of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Okay.
No, it's actually true.
People have like vigils to that maniac.
It's unbelievable.
Been wrong about everything he has said in the last year and is responsible for thousands of teen suicides across the country.
That's what I think of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
And so I trust science.
If you trust science, then go back to the Pope of science and the Archdiocese and tell me when life starts.
Human life begins.
And then if you say, well, I think human life begins at conception, but I think prenatal development is not worthy of constitutional protection.
Then you should say, then what value of where do you then draw the moral guardrails on anything else?
Their argument falls apart.
And so we know that abortion by definition is dehumanizing.
The entire movement of abortion in this country is trying to make you care less about the neighbor around you.
You see, one of the reasons why abortion has been so popular, and it is an industry in our country, people make a lot of money off of this.
It is a very profitable endeavor.
God forgive us for what we've done.
I mean, it's just unspeakable to think that people are getting richer off of the elimination of human beings.
It's true.
One of the reasons why is because it's not always in the public eye.
That's right.
It's because it's behind closed doors.
You don't always have to see it.
And they frame this as an argument of privacy and of women's rights.
Well, if they cared about women, the law of averages would tell us that out of the 60 million abortions, 30 million of them were women.
Therefore, 30 million women never were able to live since Roe versus Wade.
That would be anti-woman, not pro-woman, in any sort of rational argument you could possibly make about abortion.
And so I do want to take some questions.
I think that's part of what we want to do.
And you're going to do.
Okay, good.
And so let me continue to build this out.
Believe it or not, we are actually on the precipice of the most exciting pro-life change our country has seen.
I know it might not feel that way, but I study the left, and I don't actually say this jokingly.
I go to college campuses, so you don't have to.
I have spoken at Brown, I've spoken at Stanford, Yale, UC Berkeley, you name it, I've spoken there.
Security, guards, snipers on the roofs, helicopters overhead, death threats, the whole thing.
And one thing that I've learned about the left is that I can tell when they get nervous and anxious.
The reason why Governor Ralph Nolum comes out and says, you got to have the baby born, and you relax that baby, and then a decision is made.
The reason why they're all of a sudden doing things they never would have done on abortion is they actually know public opinion is falling out of favor there.
So the question is, how do we move public opinion to where it was from all of a sudden in the 1830s, people thought that slavery was going to be the law of the land forever?
And then our sixth president, yes, John Quincy Adams.
Is that right?
Or seven, sixth or seven?
Yes, that's right.
The sixth president, phenomenal president, abolitionist, went back to Congress just for this reason.
John Quincy Adams went to Congress to abolish slavery.
Which let me just say as a side note, one of the biggest lies that your children are learning is that America was founded on slavery.
It's a pathological lie.
It's not true.
We were founded on freedom.
Did some of our founding fathers participate in unspeakable sin?
Yes.
However, what the next part of the story we never talk about is Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
He also signed a moratorium saying no new slaves into the United States 20 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
We never talk about how the document that he wrote in his handwriting explicitly condemned slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence and that document inspired the abolition of slavery in 1777.
Or that Thomas Jefferson argued for the end of slavery in the Virginia House of Commons.
The founding fathers never wrote glowingly about slavery.
They struggled with it morally.
Sound familiar to something we're going through right now?
They wondered how to get rid of it.
It was always a question of how, not if.
You see, that's a moral country.
We don't teach our children that.
John Quincy Adams, an abolitionist, went back to Congress after losing the presidency.
So imagine you lose the presidency, Andrew Jackson, you go back to Congress for this purpose.
Thabbus Stevens, Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionists, and they got it done and it was not easy.
And so the question is, how do we do that now?
Because I can understand the frustration.
And for those of you where this is all you do, you're beyond heroes.
And I want to tell you something that bothers me.
It bothers me how under-resourced the pro-life community is in this country.
No, it really does.
And by the way, God bless you for supporting this unbelievable organization.
You deserve thanks and praise and gratitude.
The Planned Parenthood receives $500 million a year of your money, $500 million a year of taxpayer funding.
And that doesn't count all the other pro-abortion groups.
And so I've said every single church across the country should have 10% of their operating budget go to pro-life causes and pregnancy crisis center.
10%.
Enough of the big buildings, enough of the endless amount of, I get it, okay?
The light show, all that stuff.
It's great, okay?
I speak at those churches all the time.
I feel like I'm going to a Led Zeppelin concert, and I think to myself, that's great.
No, I think it's terrific.
It's seeker.
People come in.
It's all that.
But for goodness sake, the pro-life community is under-resourced like I've never seen before, especially up against the opposition.
And so, how do we change this?
How do we all of a sudden change public opinion to go from something that is unthinkable, ending abortion, to something that is policy?
Well, we can actually learn something from recent years.
An example that probably some of us like, and an example we don't like.
There was a man by the name of Joseph Overton.
He theorized something called the Overton window.
For you political nerds out there, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
The Overton window is a way to look at ideas that are in the public arena.
And everything in his theory, which was brilliant, moves on this spectrum, whether we realize it or not, from an idea that is unthinkable to an idea that is radical, then an idea that is acceptable, then an idea that is sensible, then an idea that is popular, then an idea that is policy.
I think that's a pretty fair way to look at things.
So now let's ask ourselves: when in recent years have we seen the Overton window shift?
Gay marriage is a very good example of that, but let's even go a little bit more recently.
Because gay marriage was unthinkable that we would all of a sudden redefine a biblical covenant to be something that it isn't.
However, in more recent years, let's use one that hits home, literally, defunding the police, right?
It would have been unthinkable five years ago that local city departments would be defunding the police.
And yet, leftist activists were able to move the unthinkable to policy instantaneously.
Here's another great example.
How is it that all of a sudden we are sending stimulus checks to every single person across the country?
Universal basic income, and some people need the help.
And I'm morally opposed to universal basic income, but that's a different, completely different conversation or a different time.
But how did they move that?
Well, they obviously communicated throughout a crisis, and they were advocates for it.
So, what are the lessons of that?
Well, this is where organizations like this matter a lot.
Number one lesson of how to move the Overton window, because we all want to take something from unthinkable to policy, right?
That's our goal.
Whether you guys realize it or not, you're all participating in the Overton window here tonight, right?
So, the question is: where is the pro-life movement?
I can tell you right now that because of your courage, you're not in the unthinkable realm.
You're not.
No, you're not.
It's a very good thing.
You're in the radical realm, and that's okay.
Ending abortion is considered radical, not unthinkable in the country.
The fact that you've actually moved, we've moved that far is actually worthy of applause.
It really is.
It's something that's in the zeitgeist, which is the spirit of the times.
And so, how does one move that spectrum?
Because that's really what we're talking about here, right?
Now, mind you, the Overton window can move backwards too.
Something can be policy slavery and then become unthinkable.
So, it goes both ways.
So, how does one move?
Number one, a relentless commitment to playing offense.
Think about the defund people, BLM Incorporated.
They are in your face.
Now, I don't recommend that as a tactic.
I don't.
I actually think it's going to backfire on them, and I think that there's actually a backlash.
But there is something to be said, and the gay marriage debate was probably the most effective that we saw: they had an offensive strategy, placing advertisements in areas that hadn't heard it before, testing out new messaging, using the enemy's own book against them.
That's a rule from Saul Linsky.
So, the wonderful Reverend opened up with a speech earlier.
If we want to all of a sudden get into this, and I think it's absolutely dangerous, this critical race theory direction in our country, and they want to overly racialize everything, then let's talk about the slaughter of the black community in abortion.
Let's talk about how if you see a black woman in the subway in New York City, she's more likely going to an abortion clinic than to the delivery room.
They want to overly racialize everything.
They want to know why black birth rates have flatlined.
Maybe because there are more planned parenthoods than churches in Brooklyn.
Maybe that would be the reason.
And so to move this window, it also is going to take innovation, creativity, non-territorialism, working with other partners that might disagree with you in a couple things.
And I'm all for, especially when it comes to Republican primaries, I'm all for temporary purity tests.
And my goodness, do we need them?
We're probably going to need one in this state very soon.
That's all I'm going to say.
I'm not going to say any more than that.
However, when you're talking about big ideas, because you're not just talking about electing some guy to dog catcher, right?
You guys are here tonight for a big idea, right?
You're here, like the guys who were in 1860 that started the Republican Party at Ripon, Wisconsin, were like, hey, we're going to start a new political party.
I'm not suggesting that, but that's how big you're thinking.
And what was the party they started, the Republican Party?
Do you know that it was a single-issue party?
What was that issue?
Abolition of slavery.
That was thinking big.
And so what else they did?
They lifted up the most charismatic people.
They were willing to contest and fight for their beliefs.
And you don't allow the enemy to have you be anything but optimistic.
I'm telling you right now, I talk to young people.
The only problem a pro-life movement has, the only problem, that's probably not true.
The biggest problem is exposure.
It's that simple.
When pro-abortion young people are properly exposed to the truth that I shared tonight, their minds change.
I've seen it happen.
The wonderful work that Lila Rose does.
And again, there's people where their full-time job is the pro-life thing.
And I obviously am unafraid to talk about it, but it is not my only focus.
I have a broad approach to what's happening in the country.
But I could tell you when I do talk about it, this issue is moving and it's moving quick.
The more ultrasound technology, the more science, the more transparency, the more we talk about it.
And so this is the moment where the pro-life movement should be saying, okay, we're either going to quiver and fight amongst ourselves and kind of go in and just kind of say it's never going to happen, or we're going to think really big.
We're going to say this generation, by the time that I am 50 years old, abortion will be illegal in America.
That's thinking big.
And it can be done.
It can be done.
And it's in all of the above strategy.
It's forming sanctuary cities like they did in Lubbock, Texas, where they say no abortions in our city.
It's getting involved in lawfare.
It's challenging people on their own hypocrisy.
It's running hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising on television.
That's what the gay marriage movement did.
Where you say, when does life begin?
Big questions.
That's why I say we're under-resourced.
And what an unbelievable investment to be able to live, to leave for the generation behind you.
And so I want to get to some questions, but let me say this: which is that what you are doing is, in my opinion, the issue that impacts all the other issues.
And it's an issue, as you can tell, I'm very, very passionate about and outspoken about.
And it's an issue that I believe, if you get that issue wrong, don't be surprised when all the other moral decay follows from it.
When you can't even defend the child that has no defense, don't be surprised when all this other injustice spreads.
And so I'm a big believer in the God of the Bible, a God that cares about what we do and how we act.
And I truly believe that Christians will be judged based on whether or not we contest and get involved in this very simple fight of right versus wrong.
There is no ambiguity here.
There isn't.
And so, Let me say this.
The truth is on your side.
You know that.
This generation is trending in your direction, and the enemy is nervous.
The opportunity is in front of you.
And together we'll seize it.
Okay, let's do some questions, right?
Okay, good.
Charlie, I've been perusing the questions that have been turned in on these index cards, and it looks like we still have some more coming, and they're all over the map.
A lot of them having to do with your presentation and the issue of pro-life, but a lot of them just other public policy and political questions.
I think you will enjoy responding to these.
Okay.
First one.
And thank you to everybody who has submitted a question.
Really, this is good stuff.
The first one, Charlie, is the conservative movement becoming more LGBTQ friendly, and is that a good thing?
Or asked another way, can you be conservative and be pro-LGBTQ?
So I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, no doubt.
And I'm unafraid to say that.
I will say this, though.
I have gay people on my staff, and I'm not afraid to say that.
And they know how I stand on the biblical issues and the biblical morals.
And some of my closest friends participate in that lifestyle, Rick Grinnell, Dave Rubin, and Peter Thiel.
And so I'm not an apologist for that.
But I will say it's something that I believe in the politics of addition and multiplication, not of subtraction and division.
But I also think we must be very clear.
I prefer clarity over agreement.
And the clear, I believe, and I'll say one other thing on the side of it, is that God made man and woman very clearly for each other in a covenant of marriage.
And if I think that the conservative movement should say that a gay person is not allowed in it, I don't think that's the right move.
I don't.
And that's obviously not what I practice, that's not what we do at Turning Point USA.
With that being said, I don't think that we should ever shy away from our beliefs or why we believe what we believe.
And especially when it comes to marriage and what marriage actually is.
Let me also talk about the transgender issue, because it bothers me greatly that somehow there is this insertion of the transgender issue, which is really an issue of mental illness, into the issue of homosexuality, right?
And the transgender issue really comes down to gender dysphoria.
It really does.
And it is an issue that is well documented in clinical studies and journals, in psychology journals.
We've decided to throw that all away, of people who think they are something different than their chromosomal structure that somehow want us to accommodate them.
Now, I believe that we should give them compassion, we should give them healing, and we should give them any sort of treatment that those people might need.
But all of a sudden, if we have to restructure our entire society and then destroy the innocence of our young women and female sports, I believe is evil and it's immoral and it's completely and totally reprehensible.
And so I, for one, on the transgender issue, have been more outspoken than almost anyone, especially when it comes to what is gender, where does it come from?
They say they're pro-science.
It's very simple.
XX, X, Y.
Those are the chromosomal structures that God made man and woman.
And so I will say that I can see what they're trying to do is continual moral confusion in our country.
And so I appreciate the question.
Absolutely.
By the way, for those who were not here earlier, if you did not see Mary Rice Hassan's presentation on gender dysphoria and the whole transsexual agenda, watch it when you see the YouTube and Rumble videos put together.
This, Brad, that presentation was amazing, so educational.
And Charlie, you would love it.
You would absolutely.
Thank you.
Charlie, there are two questions here that are very similar.
The first one says, do you have any aspirations to run for office?
The other one is much more direct.
Are you going to run for president?
Oh, that's very direct.
Well, no.
I mean, I get to do what I love.
And people ask all the time, am I going to run for office?
And I guess one would run for office to try and make an impact.
And most people I talk to in the Senate or the House, I ask them, I say, do you think you're actually making an impact?
They say, I don't know.
Well, I know I am.
I know what I'm doing is moving the dial.
I know that the people on radio and podcasting on campuses, I know what we are doing is moving the dial.
And that is a very fulfilling thing for any human being to have, to be able to know that your action is making a difference.
I don't know if it's making the difference.
I don't know.
And I actually want to comment on that, which is that people say all the time, Charlie, the odds are so great, shouldn't we just give up?
And the proper response is, the probability of victory is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you are going to engage in the moral fight.
It's actually completely irrelevant.
So people say, well, basically, do you know what they're actually saying?
They're saying, Charlie, can you tell me I can give up now?
The answer is, of course not.
They win when we give up.
It's that simple.
There is an inevitability to truth.
We know that.
And what I'm dedicated to doing at our work on the college campuses and podcasting and radio and all of this, in a lot of different ways, has been, I think, more fulfilling and has given purpose to myself and other people's lives.
And so the short answer is no.
The long answer is no.
But I do think other people should run for office.
I want to support you for that because I want to support anyone that runs to run for office because we need more people to do that.
For my own personal life, though, the answer is no.
It's almost as if you saw the next card.
Oh, yeah?
Because it has something to do with someone who has expressed an interest potentially in running for president.
This question is: how did you and Candace Owens start to work together?
Yeah, so I, it's a great question.
I met Candace, boy, three and a half years ago when I met her.
I think she had 20 or 30,000 followers on Twitter.
We hired her as our communications director at Turning Point USA.
And we traveled the country together, UCLA, UC Berkeley, you name it.
We spoke at it together.
And obviously, she's just a superstar now.
And she has Blexit, and we remain very good friends and totally in support of what she's doing.
And it's kind of one of the most fun moments in American political history that I can say that I played a part in, which is kind of being at the beginning stage of Candace Owens being in politics, which is pretty amazing.
And we saw a lot.
And I could tell you that, and one of the guiding thesis that we believe at Turning Point USA is that whatever happens on college campuses does not stay on college campuses.
And so whatever happens on college campuses spreads, and please excuse this comparison, like a virus all across the country.
And Candace and I, three years ago, were on these college campuses where they were arguing for all the radical ideas that you are now having to deprogram your children from believing in.
White privilege, critical race theory, postmodernism.
All this stuff starts on a college campus.
It's incubated there.
It's perfected there.
And then it's exported to the rest of the country.
And so Candace and I saw a lot of that.
We had a lot of fun together.
She has a new show, which I'm very excited about.
And she just had a child.
And I can honestly say the world's a better place because Candace Owens is in American politics.
I don't want to let you off that easy, though.
What about the presidential part?
Do you think, because you know her so well, I don't know.
I could tell you she would be very formidable.
I mean, she has a huge following.
She's tough.
She's smart.
She understands the issues.
She never surrenders to the left.
She'd be tough.
I mean, look, I don't know if she would run or not.
But if she ran, I'm telling you right now, she would be tough to beat in a primary or in a general.
And that's obviously up to her.
I'm going to go off the script here and just ask you this one.
She is bright.
She is powerful.
She is outspoken.
She is extraordinarily popular with her base.
I could say the exact same words about AOC.
What would happen to this country?
Not right.
How would it go if there...
No, okay.
You're right.
Not bright, but well respected by her base.
Charlie, in a Candace Owens hypothetical VAOC presidential campaign or election, who wins?
So if I ran with Candace?
No, This is Candace Owens versus AOC.
Candace would win a 57-state landslide in the words of Barack Obama.
I mean, it wouldn't even be close.
I mean, it wouldn't even be.
New York, California?
Look, we believe in the God of the Bible, supernatural intervention.
So absolutely, we could win New York.
No, but I mean, all kidding aside, I think Candace would totally beat AOC.
The moment AOC has to actually communicate, well, let me stand corrected.
We can now elect presidents without the need to communicate.
So there's, I think, maybe she could win.
I don't know.
I would hope you're right.
Apparently, the work talk is not a necessary prerequisite to become president.
Next question: I work with mostly all progressive liberals where it is safe to come out as gay or lesbian, but not safe to come out as a pro-life Trump voting conservative.
How can I turn the tide within my work culture without killing my career?
Yeah, I mean, that's a phenomenal question, and I get it all the time.
And so the short answer is there is no way.
And so I'm not going to give you some sort of magic hypnotic trick where you can somehow get your co-workers to think that you're St. Augustine because you're a conservative.
One thing that you'll learn the more you get involved in politics for all the young people in this room, and look at all the young people.
How awesome is this?
How many young people are here?
It's so great.
Is we think they are wrong.
They think we are bad.
It's a very important difference.
And so this is why, whomever asked this question, and I'm not going to out you or else you're going to get fired, that if you came out, you would not just be ridiculed and mocked, they would want you removed.
So they look at politics in the terms of, I'm a better person than you are, which is a very rich belief of the people that are in favor of post-birth abortion, widespread drug legalization, and the decriminalization of our entire society and the opening of our jails.
Somehow, they're the ones that are supposed to have the moral high ground.
And I think that part of it we deserve credit for because we, as conservatives, Christians, whatever you want to call it, call yourself politically, we want to believe the other side has good intentions.
So one thing that I tell our students, and not everyone agrees with this, but it's true, is that this, we don't want the same thing.
You see, this is a lie of harmony that is taught to young people in political science courses all across the country.
This is the lie.
Republicans and Democrats disagree on fundamental issues, but they all want the same thing for the nation.
And you've probably heard this many times, right?
We want unity.
We want to bring people together, which is hilarious because they say they want unity, and in the next sentence, they say diversity is our strength.
Like, it's one or the other.
It's either our differences make us stronger, or we all must be like Stalinistically totalitarian in obedience to what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways.
But the more that I've been involved in this and the more I've studied the left and seen where our country has gone, we do not want the same thing as the left.
They want churches shut down.
They want pastors in prison if they dare disagree with their dogma.
They want post-birth abortions.
They're perfectly okay with this transgender garbage all across our society.
We don't want that.
And so we have to all of a sudden say, no, no, no, we actually want two completely different things.
So one of the reasons why I think conservatives lose is because of this, which is why I think Donald Trump was so refreshing in some regard, is that there was very little confusion as to what side you were on.
Now, I'm a friend of the president's.
I wrote an entire book about the president.
I defended the president, but I think at times the president made it more difficult to win over swing voters.
And I've said that many times, and I would say it to him publicly and privately.
However, he's a gift, and I don't say that lightly.
He was a gift to the American political scene because he did more for life and more for our country than any other president.
And I don't say that lightly.
And so, and the great Dennis Krager will say this, I prefer clarity over agreement.
And one thing that Donald Trump offered to the American political discourse is clarity.
Okay, the Trump Party does not want 300,000 Nicaraguans and El Salvadorians pouring over into our country overnight.
Like the Democrat Party does.
The Republican Party believes life begins at conception.
The Democrat Party believes that it is not a human life.
Those sort of very bold differences, I think long-term is very healthy.
In fact, I think that's actually how we win.
I think we lose more on voter confusion.
And this is one of the biggest lies from the Mitt Romney-Liz Cheney types, which is, well, what we need to embrace is this fiscal conservatism.
So the only thing that matters is maximizing GDP and making sure the billionaire class has their ninth private jet.
But let me tell you this.
In the last year, billionaires added $600 billion for the net worth.
$600 billion.
We have tried this kind of corporate worship in our country.
And I'm a free market guy.
Okay, I believe free markets are the best way to help people.
But I also don't worship the free market.
I worship our creator.
And when the laws of nature are violated, I'm going to put that first.
And when these corporations that are supposed to be on team right are funding critical race theory, they're funding this woke nonsense, they're coming in and all of a sudden saying that they're in favor of post-birth abortion and all this nonsense, I'm going to say to these corporations, I'm not going to advocate for you anymore.
I'm not.
I'm not going to advocate for a corporate agenda in the Republican Party.
And so I'm not even close to sure what the question is, but I'm going to go back to you and say that what we have been given is a gift, a gift from Donald Trump.
And whether he runs again or not, we'll see.
Whatever his decision ends up being is the right decision.
But the Republican Party is now a party that values social conservatism more than ever before.
This milquetoast, vanilla, Mitt Romney, Massachusetts metropolitan agenda, which you guys kind of know a little bit about here in Ohio, is deeply unpopular.
And actually, we lose in the long term.
And now let me say this as a piece of loving feedback to the pro-life movement, if I may, because I do want to say, and I actually meant to say this earlier, and I speak at a lot of churches and all this.
Let me tell you one thing we have to do a better job of.
And it's actually a better job of communication, not a better job of actually doing this.
And so one misperception that the abortionists or the open-minded people in the middle have is that somehow we want the child to be born and then we abandon that child.
I already talked about that from a public policy perspective.
But we have to advertise, advocate, and I use this word and the fathers are just going to like jump on top of me.
Brag.
Like, you know, I know you're not supposed to say it.
Brag about how much we do in adoption.
We have to brag about what we do in the adoption arena in this country because the church does a lot, more than what people realize, that adoption is a real option.
There are families that want to adopt and that that is out there.
What we do a poor job of is advertising that.
And I could tell you from talking to young women that have had abortions and that regret it and have sought reconciliation for their sin.
And that's another thing that we have to tell young people.
It haunts people for the rest of their life, both the man and the woman, is this, is that there is a loving option out there for you.
And then the other thing is this, and I have to applaud, you guys don't do this at all, but certain pro-life groups border on the criticism of the woman that has had the abortion.
And I want to say that's a mistake.
These women are misled by predatory abortionists.
They know they've made a mistake, okay?
There's no reason to go out of your way to condemn them and all that.
They know what they've done was not the right thing.
Offer a place of healing and hope and compassion.
Focus on the abortionists and the abortion doctors all day long.
And if they don't repent, then stay on them.
I hope that makes a little bit of sense.
Those two pieces of feedback, and you guys have done a wonderful job of this, which is brag on the adoption scene and then also offer reconciliation, hope, forgiveness, and compassion for women that have made that choice.
I think those two things will make a substantial difference in our movement.
Excellent.
It's kind of funny.
The next question, once again, you seem prescient.
Because this question is about doctors.
I had doctors tell me to abort three of my four children.
Why do you think doctors are so quick to push abortion as a medical treatment when there is no medical problem that abortion cures?
It's a great question.
And I'm happy to answer questions indefinitely.
So I'm on your time, by the way, and I don't want to take otherone else's time, but I think this is helpful for some people.
So I just want to say that.
Abortion's not health care.
I think that's a very simple truth.
It's not.
It shouldn't be treated as health care.
It shouldn't be...
Anything that denies life is by definition not health care.
And so why do doctors push this?
Well, without getting too deep into the incentive structure of it, it depends on what sort of environment you're in.
In Planned Parenthood, their business model is abortion.
It's that simple.
They raise money on it.
They receive money on it.
Their business model is abortion.
If Planned Parenthood ceased delivering abortions, all of a sudden the Democrats would go find some other pro-abortion group to appropriate $500 million a year to it.
And they say, well, we do women's health, and they don't even do mammograms.
They don't even do the thing they tell the public they're doing.
They say, well, we need money.
You know what that is?
They say, well, it doesn't go fund abortion.
I say, okay, we're covering your overhead, okay?
So you have to pay for the building.
You pay for all of your administrative overhead with $500 million a year.
And then you go get this extra money to go pay for the abortion.
So why do doctors push for it?
Well, some doctors are not trained properly to actually know the severity of what an abortion actually is.
Number two, it's convenient, unfortunately.
I hate to say that, but it's widely accepted and it's convenient.
And I don't want to speak for doctors.
I know a lot of great doctors.
I also know some doctors that are unbelievably intelligent, but they have no wisdom on this subject.
I had a discussion with a doctor like six or seven months ago, very, very smart.
Harvard, John Hopkins, like no wisdom at all.
A 14-year-old that has read Proverbs once has more wisdom than this guy.
And he said, yeah, I mean, it's not a human life.
It's a prenatal fetal development.
And his argument was that if it was a human life, the law would recognize it as a life.
That was his argument.
I said, you must have learned that at a university because it's so unbelievably void of common sense or logic.
There's no other place you could possibly find that opinion except at a college.
And so, again, I don't want to speak for doctors, but I do think that we need more doctors to have courage to speak out on this issue.
And not necessarily the doctors that are performing the abortions, the doctors that are recommending them or that know what is happening.
Because it really is tragic.
And I think that it goes to a broader and deeper problem of communication and information.
And I have just loved learning about these pro-life ministries that have been counseling young women to say, hey, let's get an ultrasound.
You know, let's show you what you actually have.
It's not just a clump of cells.
You want to hear the heartbeat?
You know that this is, you know, that's such powerful and moving ministry work.
It really is.
And for doctors that recommend abortion as a primary option, I hate to put it this bluntly, but it's a very immoral thing to do.
It really is.
Because then you are using your position of authority and trust with someone who is vulnerable to lead them to a regret, not just a regrettable, but an immoral and life-ending decision.
And even more so than that, if I may say this.
So in the Bible, it says the worst sin that you could do, at least in the Torah, the Old Testament, the worst sin is to take the Lord's name in vain.
So a common and conventional reading, which I do not believe is the correct reading if you look at the ancient Hebrew, is to say, oh my, and I actually don't say it, like, oh my God, right?
You're not supposed to say that.
That's actually not what it means.
What it means is to carry, you go back to the ancient Hebrew, to carry the name of the Lord towards a certain action.
What is that actually saying?
To do evil in the name of God.
And so for any priest or rabbi or minister that condones abortion under the guise of your authority as someone that is trying to be an intermediary to the divine, that is the worst thing that you can do is representing evil in that way.
John, our last question, we're going to go straight political, and I'm going to save this for last because I know you could go for a while on this, as we probably all could.
In light of the 2020 election, what do you see as a way forward with this rigged electoral system?
So that's called leading the questioner.
No.
Yes, it is.
Look, it was the most interfered with election in American history.
And I talked about this a lot on my podcast.
I want to thank those of you that have been listening to our podcast and supporting us in the pursuit of finding out what actually has happened.
I think we must get very specific of what happened, what didn't happen.
So, and I say this as lovingly as I can.
There's a lot of misinformation around this as well.
Mike Pence is not in Gitmo.
We didn't have votes transmitted from Italy.
That stuff's just not true.
What is true, and what still remains to be seen, is how on earth there were hundreds of thousands of ballots and who filled them out and the signature verification problems and them arriving in the middle of the night and election judges not allowed to be coming in there.
That's what we need to focus.
And so I've talked about this quite a lot.
This was the most interfered with election in American history.
In Georgia and Arizona in particular, Georgia changed their laws to specifically have their Mail-in-ballot system because Brian Kemp and Rothensperger went into a consent decree with the secretary, went into a consent decree with Stacey Abrams to then allow relaxed signature verification standards.
And so Brian Kemp, being probably one of America's worst governors, allowed a relaxation of the voting rules and regulations in Georgia.
And that never should have been allowed to happen.
And so how are we going to fix it?
Well, first of all, we need to fix it on a state-by-state level.
And we need to be persistent.
And we need to, we have still not found out the extent of what has happened in this election.
I hope you all understand that.
And I'm open-minded to all of it.
Absent the wacky stuff that Mike Pence is currently in Gitmo.
I get these emails.
I'm like, this is an incredible thing to believe.
It's just not true.
And so, or like, Trump was going to be president on March 4th.
Like, okay, guys, let's calm down.
You guys probably saw those emails, right?
Not true.
Okay, now they say it's March 16th.
I love you guys.
Not true.
Okay.
But with that being said, he should be, but he's not going to be.
Two different things.
What ought is not is.
Okay, so we know that to be true.
And so let me say this.
Stay on your state legislators.
In this state, you guys, I think, actually executed a rather fair and free election because you guys made the right choices years ago to put in some sort of reforms.
You guys might agree or disagree.
Trump won by nine and a half points.
I'm not that concerned that this state was interfered with.
Georgia, absolutely.
Arizona, absolutely.
Pennsylvania.
I mean, you guys just right over the border probably have story after story after story of what happened.
And I'm going to tell you right now, if you anyone live in Pennsylvania here, I'm sure somebody lives in Pennsylvania.
No one lives in Pennsylvania?
Some people, I was going to say, if no one lived, it's pretty impressive.
Some people do.
In Pennsylvania, you have to get to the bottom of what happened.
I'm talking about lawsuits and FOIAs and state legislators and looking into every single issue imaginable there.
And let me tell you this, they're getting very uncomfortable with the amount of pressure and the amount of interest that remains for the issue of voter integrity.
That means there's something there.
There really is.
And so I'm not going to speculate, I'm not going to conjecture, but let me tell you this: that states that operated their elections correctly, Donald Trump won significantly.
The elections when there were long vote counts and ballot drops and all of this, Donald Trump magically lost in the middle of the night.
And let me tell you one thing you can do about this.
HR1.
HR1 is an existential threat to our country.
It's House Resolution 1, which would universal mail and voting.
It would put every prisoner out there registered to vote, DMV, illegal aliens, the entire thing.
And so I highly encourage every single one of you in any capacity you have to publicly or privately communicate with your lawmakers to stop HR1, House Resolution 1, which is now in front of the Senate, and miraculously, and pray, and I don't say this lightly, pray your most serious prayers for Kirsten Sinema and for Joe Manchin.
So these two Democrats that are pro-abortion Democrats very well might be the only thing that prevents us from losing the Republic.
You might say, how is that possible?
Without getting into the weeds of it, there's a thing called the filibuster.
You need to break it by going to cloture.
They need all 50 votes of the Democrats to get to it.
And if those two Democrats hold the line and say that you require 60 votes reconciliation, then HR1 will probably die in the U.S. Senate, at least until another term comes around.
And that makes the midterms next time very important.
And so the election was tampered with and interfered with.
Instead of improving our elections, Democrats are trying to further destroy them.
Why?
Pelosi knows under normal circumstances, she's going to lose the House in a massive way in 2022 by 40-plus seats.
So, therefore, she says, I don't accept the premise.
Why do we have to be under normal circumstances?
So, therefore, she has HR1 to change the rules of the road so that she can remain in power perpetually.
It's Machiavellian, it's evil, it is Chicago-style thug politics, and it must be met with the same form of intensity that they're giving to us.
And that is, right now, two Democrat senators, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, basically hold the keys to the kingdom, the future of the Republic.
And I don't say that lightly.
This bill is that bad, and I'm going to prove it to you.
If you don't have elections, you actually don't have any form of a government.
It's that simple.
I mean, the government is just a reflection of the people and how you actually put your values into it.
Elections, you don't have elections, you don't have a government, you don't have a country.
And so, HR1 is that big of a deal.
And so, I encourage all of you to get informed about it, stay engaged about it, and try to do something about it.
In closing, let me say one.
Can I say one final thing?
It's an honor to be with all of you.
If you guys want to learn more about the work that we're doing, we do two podcasts a day, one on Saturday, one on Sunday.
Everything we talk about here is reflected in it.
All of you have smartphones.
If you want to subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show, it helps us immensely from being uncanceled and not censored.
As you know, there's a lot of that going around right now.
And one of the ways we remain uncancelable is when people take out their phones and actually subscribe independent of all these channels.
Just Charlie Kirk Show, hit subscribe.
But more than anything else, there's a crisis, and it's a crisis in courage.
And my charge for you tonight is to be courageous and think big and move that Overton window.
We are at radical right now.
Let's get it to policy.
Think big, pursue truth, and defend the good.
And one day, together, we'll end abortion.
Thank you guys so much.
I appreciate it.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
And Turning Point USA is your place to get engaged and get involved.
Join our campus tour at tpusa.com/slash genfree.
That's tpusa.com/slash genfree.
I hope to see you in person.
God bless.
Speak to you soon.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.