The Speech UC-Davis Tried To Stop Charlie's appearance at UC-Davis made headlines around the world and got the attention of Elon Musk, thanks to a tidal wave of lies from trans activists, the Sacramento Bee, and the school's own administrators. But there wasn't just a riot in Davis that night. There was a speech, too. Charlie gives a response to the lies about him, makes stirring defense of free society, and then directly debunks every cretin shrieking "Fascist!" by taking questions from the audience.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
UC Davis Speech Backlash00:15:02
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, happy Saturday.
My speech at University of California, Davis, made international headlines.
Elon Musk commented about it.
Share this episode with your friends.
Speech will win.
Go to tpusa.com, sort of high school chapter, sort of college chapter at tpusa.com, turning pointusa, tpusa.com.
Come to our upcoming campus tours, LSU, Rutgers, Ohio State University, TCU.
And I encourage all of you to start a chapter and support us if you can.
You could do all of that with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.
You can email me directly your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
That is freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
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.
First of all, thanks for coming.
And they didn't make it easy.
And it's interesting.
We're going to talk about how important it is to speak and to be able to speak freely in this country.
Free speech is a moral good for all people.
And we're going to exercise that tonight in more ways than one.
But I think a lot of the energy around tonight is because of a material falsehood that the Sacramento Bee first published, and which literally started from an internet rumor that is not just untrue.
It is the opposite of the truth.
And then unfortunately, the chancellor of this school repeated it in a video today, which is completely slanderous and defamatory.
We're going to go into that.
But first, I want to thank specifically the police here tonight that are helping make sure that this event, they really deserve a lot of thanks.
They do.
And that is a tough, tough job.
I don't know if you saw, but they broke some windows.
The terrorists did outside to try to come in.
People had things thrown at them.
The whole place was spray painted, not just throughout the week, but also tonight.
And the fact that this event is allowed to go on is a testament to the terrorists that we are not going to put up with force of trying to shut down people you don't like.
And instead, we are going to have a free society based on speech, based on dialogue, based on discourse.
And tonight is a statement to them that they're the losers and that speech wins in America.
That is what tonight is all about.
Now, I have to do two things.
First of which, I have to talk about this Sacramento Bee story.
You guys fans of the Sacramento Bee around here?
You know, it's just hard to believe who actually funds these papers, right?
So this writer who, I don't know if she's a nice person or not, but she's a total liar.
Hannah Holzer, it's hilarious.
She says here, first she says, another fascist speaker is coming to UC Davis.
How should the community respond?
Opinion in the Sacramento Bee.
So fascist speaker, I don't know who she's talking about, because tonight you're going to see that anyone who disagrees with me tonight is not just allowed, but is encouraged to go ask a question.
I would be the worst fascist in the history of government if you allow people that disagree with you to go to the front of the line and challenge you with an open mic.
So I don't know who she's talking about.
You know who the fascists are?
The people outside using violence to try to shut us up.
Those are the violent.
Those are the fascists outside.
So Hannah Holzer writes this for the Sacramento Bee.
And this is, look, I get lied about all the time, and the result is death threats and violence and all that.
I could deal with it.
What bothers me, though, is every so often one of you have to be the recipient of this propaganda campaign.
And you don't have a platform like I do.
You don't have a podcast like I do to be able to punch back and actually set the record straight.
They come after people that aren't as big or as strong as the newspapers are, and they try to crush you.
And in fact, they do this to try to chill all your speech at your workplace, in your family, to try to make a public example of it.
And they just flat-out lies.
So, Hannah Holzer writes in the Sacramento B, she writes a lot of stuff, but one paragraph in particular.
She says this, Kirk has called for the lynching of trans people.
A comment, this is the Sacramento B, a comment that is beneath contempt.
That is a lie.
I have never done that.
I have never thought that.
There is zero evidence of that.
In fact, it originated by some Twitter account by some trans activist that saw a segment of mine where I said, quote, in the 50s or 60s, we would not have put up with men going into female locker rooms.
That was the quote.
And by the way, it's totally true because the district attorney would have arrested men going into female locker rooms for being a pervert.
And I said that.
She says, Charlie Kirk is calling for the lynching of trans people.
I've never said it.
I've never alluded to it.
In fact, I've always been clear about peaceful activism.
But instead, the Sacramento B writes this.
The Sacramento B publishes this.
And if they could do it to me, they're going to do it to all of you.
They're going to do this to every single good, God-loving patriot in this country to try to smear you and slander you.
Frankly, as a UCD alum, I have little confidence in the ability of UCD to keep the peace.
Is that a threat?
Apparently it is.
So they lie about me, and then they're surprised.
Like, oh, I don't know why there's all this violence happening everywhere.
It's just people can't control themselves.
How about you stop lying about the speaker that's coming on your college campus, Sacramento B?
How about you stop smearing people just because you disagree with them?
She continues by reflecting on, she says, my overwhelming indication, inclination is the demand UC Davis to get ahead of the situation and uninvite Kirk.
But there's no legal basis for doing so.
Praise God for our founding fathers that we have a First Amendment in this country, that people like Hannah Holzer aren't in charge.
She continues to say that, unfortunately, Charlie Kirk has a right to speak, and the Davis community has a right to show him he's not welcome.
So again, I've never, ever, ever said anything to even allude to the violence against trans people or any people.
In fact, I do over a thousand hours of radio every single year.
I give public speeches where everything I say is filmed.
Find one sentence where I've ever advocated for anything violent.
You won't find it.
If it was there, they would have led with it.
And that's the tell.
She doesn't even cite her source.
She just makes it up.
But these lies are not innocent.
Here's what ends up happening.
So then the chancellor of your school ends up doing a video saying the exact same lie.
Watch this video of the chancellor of this university parroting this material falsehood about something I did not say.
I didn't think.
I didn't get close to saying, watch this video of Gary May.
Many of you have reached out to me and others regarding tonight's event organized by the registered student organization Turning Point USA, or TPUSA at UC Davis.
Thank you for sharing your distress at a student group hosting a speaker who is a well-documented proponent of misinformation and hate and who has advocated for violence against transgender individuals.
That is a lie.
With respect to concerns related to violence, UC policy permits denial of requests if the speaker will present a clear and present danger to the campus.
That's what council also means.
We can't control how these groups operate, but we can work together to neutralize and negate their influence.
So, having to speak to an empty room would make a powerful statement.
Looks like the room is not so empty, Gary May.
Sorry, you failed miserably having to speak to an empty room.
No, actually, the room is rather well attended.
Thank you.
And I want to focus.
So, not only did he lie about me, but then he also said, Well, you know, it would be something if the room isn't filled, saying that he actually has a bias towards what he wants to have happen tonight.
But here's what I want to just emphasize the most: this is not some sort of deranged professor, this is someone in a leadership position earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year that has a duty to you, the students.
And here's my question for Gary May: Will he condemn the fact that windows were broken tonight and that people have been arrested for their violence?
Because he's so worried about violence, and then he repeats and parrots the lie.
Our country is broken right now, and it's broken largely in part because you have people in leadership positions that are more worried about stoking the sensitivities and feelings of Antifa outside than actually a commitment to the truth.
Do you know what he should have said?
I don't care that he, it really doesn't bother me that he doesn't like my views.
I don't exactly go out of my way to try to win the opinions of chancellors of University of California universities.
Not exactly why I do what I do, right?
Instead, he could have said, you know what?
Charlie Kirk has views I don't share.
But also, it's important that those of you know that there's a lie being spread about Charlie Kirk, that he is saying that there should be violence against trans people.
Instead, he's inciting it.
He wants to talk about incitement of violence.
That right there is an incitement of violence.
And they're just, oh, well, you know, we're going to be watching this speech very closely.
I hope you watch this speech.
You know what you'll find?
You'll find that the disagreements, again, go to the front of the line.
You'll find a call for peace and harmony to try to be able to remedy our differences and divisions in America through dialogue and discourse.
Because America can go one of two ways.
We can go a totalitarian way, where we go back to street mob justice, or we can stay on the path that our founding fathers set before us.
Where if we have differences, we have debate, we have dialogue.
We're able to actually figure out if we have anything in common at all.
Speech is a massive moral advancement.
We are the speaking beings.
And that's why the founding fathers put the First Amendment right front and center.
The ability to challenge your government, the ability to speak, the ability to petition your government for rights and redresses and grievances.
And leaders have to be, leaders have a moral obligation to tell the truth, and they also have an obligation.
If you're in charge of a school, why don't you lead your students towards virtuous action, not try to put them away in a direction that is altogether against the values that made America the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world?
So I didn't actually, you know, a week ago you said, oh, Charlie, what are you going to speak about here?
I don't know.
But isn't this an example of how derailed our country is?
Where I'm coming to a college campus where we need 100 police officers and SWAT teams to prevent from the breaking in of windows.
Some of you sent me messages, Charlie, I'm fearful for my safety to come here tonight.
And that's exactly what they want.
They want to try to intimidate you.
They want to try to make you cower in fear.
This is exactly why they've been doing this in every single fashion.
They do it in the streets.
They're trying to do it in the banking system.
They're trying to do this on social media.
And guess what?
If they didn't fear our ideas, they would not have to act like gangsters.
They know that our ideas are popular.
And what are we doing tonight?
90 minutes?
The professors at this school get four years of uninterrupted indoctrination.
I ask for 90 minutes.
That's how you know what we're about to share tonight.
Probably has a lot of truth in it.
That 90 minutes of truth can derail and, in fact, reverse four years of indoctrination at the University of California, Davis.
So I want to get to some questions, but I do want to just reiterate and thank, and I meant to do this, our Turning Point USA students.
These are the heroes, everybody.
What they go through on a daily basis is unbelievable.
They deserve so much credit.
Their personal information gets doxxed.
Their private information gets made public.
They are the recipient of threats, physical intimidation, and they're doing it as a way to try to chill speech and try to chill conservative activism.
I am inspired by how many young people know the cost.
They know how hard it is to put in an event like this.
They know what they're going to have to encounter, and they do it anyway.
And they say, you know what?
My country is worth it.
You know, my grandfather stormed Normandy Beach.
I'm going to host Charlie Kirk on campus.
Not exactly the same thing.
It's a lot different.
This is a lot easier, right?
But it goes to show that the very same totalitarianism that so many of you have always been afraid that come to our shores, it's here now.
The very same totalitarianism of street justice, of intimidation, of having to deploy, you know, look at this, a barricade.
I don't want to be this far away from you guys.
I'd rather be right up there.
As if, you know, this is some sort of, you know, massive UFC fight or something.
And someone's going to, it's some sort of wrestling ring.
But here's the other thing.
Somebody said, well, Charlie, why do you want to go to UC Davis so bad?
Well, first of all, our beautiful chapter invited us, and I wanted to honor that.
Number two, I hope to be able to have disagreement about the consensus ideas that are prevailing these college campuses.
I want to talk about why critical theory is an awful and bad idea.
I want to talk about how woke is a mind virus destroying our country.
I want to talk about how there are two genders, period.
I want to talk about how the Constitution is the greatest political document ever written.
I want to talk about how this country is not just the greatest country ever to exist, but we're so close to losing it, what we could do to try to reverse it.
I want to talk about all those different things.
But the third reason why I'm here, and it's very important, is I want to remind the people that think they dominate us conservatives that they don't.
I want to remind them through us being here tonight.
I want to remind them that there's actually a lot more of us, that there's people that look at the world through a rational, reasonable, center-right worldview.
That there are people that you might never have known that actually believe in eternal wisdom and eternal truths and allowing this country to continue to go hopefully on a path of prosperity and to flourish.
Resisting Totalitarian Pressure00:10:42
And they win when we silence ourselves.
I am a big, let me just put it this way.
You know, the, oh, I just got an update from the team, by the way.
The Sacramento B, so interesting coincidence.
They took down the original article and corrected the lynching lie.
Too little, too late, if you ask me in some ways.
But they still call me a fascist, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.
But the damage was already done.
By the way, you know why that happened?
Because they got a very strongly worded letter from our legal department as soon as that went up.
We have to be willing to sue these people when they lie about us.
Like Nicholas Sandman and so many others that sue that Kyle Rittenhouse and many others.
But I want all of you to know that, yes, it's hard in California.
It might feel as if you're outnumbered, but the totalitarians and the tyrants are the most bothered when all of a sudden they realize they can't break your will, they can't break your resolve, they can't break your commitment to the truth, and that they might quote-unquote outnumber you for the time being, but you're going to show that we only get stronger the more they resort to these types of tactics.
That we're going to keep on showing up to these events, that we're going to keep on leaning in, that we're going to keep on running for local office, that we're going to keep up our prayer meetings, that we're going to keep on homeschooling our kids, that we're going to keep on pressuring our school boards, that it is an attitude of a commitment that no matter what they do to us, that we are going to get stronger, not weaker.
You want a sign of hope?
I'll give you a sign of hope.
A sign of hope is that conservatives at every single turn have to justify their positions.
Why do you believe that?
You're a racist.
You're a bigot.
You're this.
You're that.
You get tougher when you have to do that.
You get tougher when you have to debate and you have to defend your positions.
At every turn, the left is weak.
They're weak and they are fragile.
Weak, fragile people try to prevent other people from speaking.
Conservative students roll their eyes and they're like, well, that's kind of a weird idea.
And they would take the opportunity to go to the open mic and challenge the speaker.
The future of America rests solely on if the conservative movement will continue to expand and refuse to surrender to these sort of quasi-terroristic tactics that are being used.
And so tonight is a statement in that more ways than one.
And I'm very pleased to be able that this event was not canceled.
And it shows that not only are they personal losers, but they lost tonight.
And that is something I'm very, very thrilled to be able to celebrate with you.
Let's do some questions.
And it's the best part of the evening.
I want to reiterate a couple things.
This is a largely favorable audience.
A lot of conservatives here, a lot of people that agree with me.
If somebody, this is, again, Sacramento B, I hope you're taking notes.
If somebody comes up and you find something objectionable or you find something disagreeable, do not interrupt them or boo them.
Instead, welcome the disagreement to come so that we can have dialogue.
Even if you find the ideas to kind of be, oh, that's so silly.
Allow people that disagree a chance to tell us what they believe and why they believe it.
We need to show the world the left is what happens in the streets.
The left lies like the chancellor.
We have real free speech here in this room, and we're going to show that tonight for the remainder of the evening.
So please feel free to line up.
If you disagree, you're allowed to go to the front of the line.
And I look forward to speaking with you, and we'll go to the first couple of questions.
All right.
Hi, Charlie.
This is my name is Veronica.
My question is this: for folks who are wanting to try to rebuild a relationship with their families and peers, those of whom they may not be able to disagree with politically speaking, and how can they establish a dialogue and conversation, like being able to talk about anything like politics, COVID, or events without feeling like they feel like they're going to have to force it upon them?
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, for family members, especially?
Or, yeah.
Especially, yes.
Yeah, so look, this is a tough thing, right?
Let's first talk with your parents about your parents.
I'm a big believer in the biblical commandment of honoring your mother and father.
99.9% of the people in this room have no excuse not to honor your parents.
I don't care if they don't share your politics.
I don't care if they were nasty to you, if they were legitimately abusive in a very serious way, then yes.
Okay?
But 99% of the time, people say, well, I just don't get along with them.
I don't like them.
If you cannot honor your parents here on earth, then you will not be able to honor the eternal and divine Father, of which is much more important, by the way.
It is a step and an intermediary to that.
Secondly, with honoring your parents, it is the only one of the 10 commandments that involves your nation and a promise.
Honor your mother and father so that you may live long in the land of which you are in.
One of the reasons why America is falling apart is because we have decided to break this commandment and we are teaching children to no longer honor their parents.
A nation that no longer honors their parents, you have a bunch of 17-year-olds that think their parents are dumb and stupid, and they do what they think is right in their own eyes, and that creates a morally chaotic, miserable country very quickly.
So I just talked about that on the parents.
Do everything you possibly can to not allow divisive politics or different ideas to get in the way of your family relationships or your close relationships.
You need to do that.
Now, how many people here have family or close friends on the left that won't talk to you because of your politics?
Raise your hand.
A lot of hands go up.
That's unfortunate.
That's tragic.
Never do that with a leftist.
You as a conservative have a moral obligation to even keep a relationship neutral or warm in one way despite the difference in worldview.
A worldview is not an excuse to sever a relationship.
They might do that to you.
You should never do that to them.
That is cruel.
It is wrong.
And it only further divides America.
Okay?
If they do that to you, ask them to reconsider and try to find common values.
I know it happens very often.
I do not like when people say, well, I'm a conservative father and I refuse to talk to my daughter because she's a liberal.
You have a moral obligation to stay in touch with your child, to be truthful to your child.
Don't change your views.
Be very honest about how you think they have erred in their step.
But the left or the people that wish to divide the country would love nothing more than to create silence between family members that have shared experience and bonds just because they have different worldviews.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Hey, Charlie, as the vice president of the Turning Point Chapter at Sacramento State University, the rival TUC Davis, I'd like to just thank you real quick for creating an organization that has enriched my college experience greatly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Now to the questions.
So a quick anecdote.
I'll make it very brief.
But I am a seven-year veteran of academic speech and debate in high school and college.
I have competed at a high level.
In fact, last year I was top 32 in the country at my chosen event.
But it is so entrenched by the left.
In fact, I have an acquaintance named Michael Moreno, who had a tournament at Arizona State University, was tossed from around for quoting a piece of evidence from Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Yeah.
So my question to you is, how do we start to take academia back?
What is the best route to achieve that?
Well, that's a great question.
Thank you for the enthusiasm.
And the fact that Turning Point USA has positively impacted your life makes the last decade of work worth it.
So thank you.
That really touches me.
And for those of you that support Turning Point USA, you're changing lives every single day.
Secondly, to take academia back, look, I'm not convinced it's possible in certain areas.
I think we have to build new colleges and new institutions.
Jordan is doing that with the University of Austin and many other places.
But you have to do what we're doing here tonight.
You have to try to show up, start Turning Point USA groups.
In California, it's hard because the Board of Regents is just completely and totally lost and out of control.
And that's just too bad, and it's a shame.
But look, the problem with academia is conservatives don't want to go into it for good reason, and liberals just continue to, or left-wingers continue to protect their own.
My big fear is that this woke ideology is now infiltrating the social sciences.
It's also infiltrating engineering and mathematics.
The things that you thought would be immune to the kind of racial preference worldview is now totally and completely infiltrated.
And so I wrote a whole book called The College Scam.
So I'm not exactly big on saving higher education.
But I do think there is a place for higher education.
And it pains me because I go and I visit to Hillsdale College quite often.
Hillsdale College is America's greatest college, by the way.
They do a fabulous job.
And it pains me because I see how good education could be.
I sit down in these classes at Hillsdale College and they're studying Aristotle's ethics.
They're studying, you know, Augustine.
They're studying the Summa Theologica by Aquinas.
Now, I would just venture a guess that many of you have probably not spent more than maybe a week or a month or a semester thinking about Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and what they had to offer.
If you guys are, then I'll stand corrected on that.
Or talking about why Western civilization is the greatest and most excellent experiment in self-government in human history.
Why is that the case, right?
And so education can be great.
And there is a place for students to learn classically and read the great books and to have dialogue and discussion.
That's not what's happening on university campuses.
Instead, you get a steady diet of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi and of Gene Stefanik and of intro to critical race theory and Herbert Marcuse and Michelle Foucault and Jacques Derrida and postmodernism and post-structuralism that really these ideas could be entertained for a short while.
It's a really bad idea to build a worldview around them.
In fact, it's a great way to burn everything around you if you actually do that.
So how do we reclaim it?
I think it's time to support the good institutions and build new ones and then get out of the ones that are captured by the ideologues.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Kirk.
I'm Aaron, and I'm a student here.
I want to start off by saying I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to discuss these issues with you.
And I want to say that though our beliefs differ greatly, I still think it's awesome to be able to converse with you respectfully.
For anyone recording me, please put me in an SJW cringe compilation.
That's part of my childhood.
Oh, okay.
I think we can arrange that.
But here's what I want to ask you about.
Gender Therapy and Suicide Rates00:07:26
So trans youth experience extremely high suicide rates.
And trans youth who transition receive hormone therapy or surgery have significantly decreased rates of suicide according to studies by Turbin et al. and Almazan Kroglian et al.
In fact, this effect becomes stronger the earlier they receive the surgery or hormone therapy according to the same studies.
Additionally, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders suggests treating gender dysphoria with transition hormone therapy or surgery.
So I guess just from a purely practical standpoint, regardless of political belief or what you think about trans people, wouldn't it be a good thing to allow access to these surgeries just sort of empirically?
Sure.
Let me first ask you a question.
Why was there not a trans suicide issue in the 90s?
Are you sure that there wasn't?
It's very possible that I guess the publicization and destigmatization of transgenderism now is making it so that people who might have committed suicide before.
Yes.
So the one thing we can agree on is people need help, right?
I think the best way to help somebody that's suffering under a delusion is cognitive-based therapy and non-chemical, non-pharmacology interventions.
You would probably agree to be able to have counseling therapy.
For example, if a girl's 11 years old and she's experiencing puberty or her father's not around and she might think she's a boy, wouldn't it be more loving to say, hey, let's go through some therapy to actually get you back into alignment with your biological reality, not put you on Lupron or chemical castration or irreversible surgical methods?
That would probably be rational, right?
I think that if it were possible to reduce these feelings by, I guess, cognitive behavioral therapy and things like that, I would definitely think that would be great.
But I guess research also shows that rejecting gender identity in youth typically also increases suicide rate.
So let me ask you another question.
Do you think that people that are suffering under the mental delusion of transgenderism might have other underlying mental health issues?
Yeah, certainly.
Yeah, so it's not fair necessarily to connect transgenderism with suicide.
It might be somebody that's suffering under gender dysphoria and also a heavy dose of depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, bipolar disorder, right?
Yeah.
I guess, but just empirically, allowing access to trans or gender-affirming surgery does reduce that to.
Not necessarily.
So after six years, there's a big thing called transition regret.
We know 35,000 young people that are now vocally saying they regret gender, like medically mutilating themselves.
And there is no reverse switch on that.
So again, wouldn't it be rational to do what is reversible, which is just cognitive behavioral therapy, not what is irreversible to a 12-year-old that might be going through a temporary puberty-driven crisis?
Wouldn't that be a more loving, rational way of going about it?
Because what we have now is a boom industry of quote-unquote gender-affirming care clinics and pediatric gender clinics for 12, 13, and 14-year-olds, some of which, by the way, do not require parental consent of a 13-year-old that might make a mistake.
And I think you would agree, you made mistakes when you were 13 years old, right?
Of course, of course.
Yeah, so shouldn't we have a health care system and laws that reflect trying to protect the innocence of a 13-year-old, not trying to incentivize their mistakes where they can't reverse that decision later in life?
Yeah.
I definitely agree that there are certainly people who do regret these surgeries, and I don't think that's something we should minimize.
But at the same time, there are also hundreds of thousands of people who don't regret these surgeries.
And I guess overall.
So then maybe they should wait till they're 18.
I think that's the whole crux of this, right?
So you got 12, 13, 14, 15.
And then I would have a separate moral question on that, right?
Even when they're 18.
But we're focusing on the pediatric element, right?
Which I think is important.
And let me just kind of re-emphasize this, which I think is the question.
Let me actually ask you this.
Is there an age that's too young in your opinion?
If a six-year-old says, I think I'm a boy, do you think it might be too young to do surgery on them?
You know, I think it's important for me to admit that I don't really know, but I do think.
I appreciate the honesty.
But you would probably say six-year-old too much, right?
I honestly wouldn't know.
I wouldn't say one or the other, but I would say that I guess over 18, how do we say?
What?
Okay, so let's close every pediatric gender clinic in America and stop the chemical castration of our youth, which is exactly where we were 10 years ago.
I think we found a lot of agreement, my friend.
Oh, sorry?
I think we found agreement.
I don't really know either way on that one, but I guess over 18.
The crux of the debate in America today is focused on children.
Teenagers make mistakes.
Teenagers go through identity crises.
Teenagers are susceptible to social contagions.
Teenagers are susceptible to peer pressure or for other influences.
And the laws and the culture should reflect, let's say, an atmosphere that respects the innocence of the child and says, once you are of adulthood, you have certain agency and ability.
I might disagree with that, but I don't want to live in a country where an 11-year-old might be misled by a gender psychiatrist, has their breast chopped off, and wants to have that reversed in eight years.
I don't think that is loving.
I think that's cruel.
I guess I still raise the issue of, in total, the number of people who are committing suicide would probably be reduced if we allowed these surgeries.
Not necessarily.
So in the short term, yes, when you administer testosterone replacement therapy, you get a boost in self-esteem.
You get a temporary boost in mental clarity, but that actually tapers after about five or six years, which is why you see the transitioner community increasing.
I could see you're coming after this from a good place, but I want you to think about this in the days and the weeks and all of you to think, how young is too young?
I think that if you are in the teenage age, 12, 13, 14, and we're trying to say that we are so advanced, we're going to prescribe Lupron, which was called too inhumane for rapists in prison, to young boys that effectively chemically castrate themselves.
I think it is a rational, moral argument to say, let's make sure we don't do something irreversible to somebody that might be preyed upon.
I think that's rather fair and reasonable.
Unfortunately, that's considered radical enough where you have Antifa show up.
Thank you for coming tonight, and God bless you.
Thank you.
Hello, Charlie Kirk.
I've watched, I've been a longtime viewer.
I don't always agree with you, certainly on this particular issue.
Left-Wing Neoliberal Delusions00:11:14
So I'm an opponent of universal health care.
This would be Medicare for All.
I imagine, I mean, I know you're not.
You believe in the value of the for-profit health care system.
So I guess my question is, like, your argument is that the for-profit health care system, I guess, serves as a, you know, for innovation.
I want to know, like, what innovation does the healthcare, does the private for-profit health insurance provide to MediCo?
So I just want to make sure I understand your position.
Are you arguing for a single payer or for the government ownership and running of the healthcare industry?
Single payer, I guess, Medicare for All.
Got it.
Spending it to everyone else.
Yeah, that's a gateway to eventually getting to the government-run health care system.
But your critique is probably not wrong.
I have plenty of problems with our current health care system, right?
Some are driven solely by profit.
Some are driven by just bad regulation and honestly not enough profit drive.
So I'll give you a great example of a fruit of the free market of the last 10 or 15 years, okay?
LASIC.
LASIC eye surgery used to be considered a fringe idea that many people considered to be unfounded and not proven.
Insurance largely does not cover LASIC.
Entrepreneurs got into the industry, and LASIK is now the most performed eye surgery in America with great results and great benefits.
The price has gone down and the quality has gone up.
Now, that's one example of many, right?
And you'd be able to counter, you'd say, well, Charlie, why is it that you go to a hospital and they charge you way too much for like a Tylenol, $35 for a Tylenol?
Now, here's where I can agree with the spirit of the single payer people, which is we need to crush the hospital lobby in this country.
It is wrong the way these hospitals operate.
We need to mandate transparency and pricing.
If I have to go to Chipotle to see how many calories are in a burrito, I want to see how much everything costs at a hospital the minute I walk into that hospital.
Every consumer has a right to know what things cost, right?
And so at times I'm willing to yield on price transparency.
I'm even willing to say that in certain regards that there has been some major issues with, I am no fan, for example, of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson ⁇ Johnson.
And so I'm actually more of a moderate on it.
I will hesitate to say, though, the Medicare for all system, what it will do is it will turn the American health care system into a major college campus where nobody is actually paying for the good that they're getting.
One of the reasons why college is so wildly overpriced and why the quality has decreased is because we have single-payer higher education.
Many of you take out loans that the federal government is subsidizing and that you're not even directly invested in for a little while, scholarships, grants, and all that.
But I think the spirit of what you're saying is smart, and I will also be happy partners with you to crush big pharma.
I think they have way too much power in this country, and I think they actually make people super sick and not always healthy.
Your final thoughts?
So, I guess a follow-up question is: would you be in favor to have the government negotiate drug prices?
I think there might be a role for that.
I do.
And I wouldn't have said that five years ago.
The government would probably screw it up, but how could it be any worse than it is now?
I mean, again, I believe that Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Johnson Johnson have done such deceitful and treacherous things, especially in the last couple of years.
I am open and willing to use the power of the state to start to make sure we're no longer owned by these pharmaceutical companies.
Thank you.
I've got to get to the next question.
Thank you, though.
Hi, Charlie.
I want to say, by starting off, I was told by your wonderful assistant over here that I should tell you that I disagree with almost everything.
Obviously, we've not had a two-hour discussion.
So, like, who knows?
Who knows?
Maybe we had a few beers.
We agree on something, but I'll have a stick of water.
You can have whatever you want.
All I've heard is stuff that I'm just like, what?
First, I want to say that I guess as the first part of your speech was you complaining about kind of these leftists and kind of this, but I've never heard any policy positions.
When I go to something like a Senator Sanders convention or someone on the left, they're talking about health care, inequality, inflation, growth.
But you guys all seem to want to talk about how the left does this or the left does that, but no policies on how to fix anything.
So I guess that kind of goes to my first question: is what is the GOP's actual position when it comes to fixing inflation?
Well, let me, a couple things.
First of all, I'm not a senator, nor am I aspiring to be one.
Number two, yes, I was mildly distracted by the windows being broken and the terrorists outside.
I fully acknowledge that.
So I was a little policy shallow tonight and a little bit terrorist deep.
I fully, I will admit that.
Third, I'll say this.
I don't speak for the GOP, right?
I have my own ideas, and I actually think the GOP does a terrible job.
But let me give you some ideas that I think you might agree with.
I think that vital products should be made in America, not in China.
And we should use tariffs and sanctions to get it done.
Vitamin C, penicillin, critical infrastructure should be manufactured here.
I think American college graduates should be given preference to go work for American companies above foreign workers.
And that means reforming the H-1B system and actually giving you, the American college-educated kids, a preference because we have a moral obligation to our own citizens over the citizens of another country.
I think we should fully close the United States southern border.
I think we should not allow illegal.
I just want to interrupt you.
Sorry, you were saying you're for a government program that puts American college students like the.
No, reforming the immigration system, right?
So that big companies like Facebook don't do quasi-indentured servitude to bring foreign workers in and be able to compete.
That would be a government program that would do that.
Well, yeah, the government program actually already exists.
Okay, so you're actually a conservative who's for increasing the government size, not for the program.
Well, no, I want a small but strong government, so I want things that are smart.
For example, I'd love to have more border patrol agents and less IRS agents.
So where it makes sense to increase the volume of government agents as long as it is pursuing a couple things that are core to my philosophy.
A strong country that has borders, sovereignty, culture, and maintains a moral commitment to its citizens that you should be able to work hard, play by the rules, be able to have a family, own a home, and see rising income and wages.
Those are very basic things in a social contract.
Why is the increasing IRS agents, which are taxes that Pay for things like roads, GPS, infrastructure, basic things that you and yourself needed to get here.
Why would that be against?
Why would that be so bad, having everyone pay their fair share of taxes so we can have a government that functions correctly?
Obviously, government doesn't work for everything, but we all benefit from government services every day.
I'm sorry, no one in this room is going to benefit from 87,000 new IRS agents.
And so those 87,000 new IRS agents are going to be deployed against small business owners.
But I could keep on going with policy examples.
I can keep on building it out.
But let me just say this: I love markets, but I'm willing to critique markets when I think they're not serving people and they're not serving the nation.
I think our overindulgence in free trade fanaticism has been a major mistake over the last 20 or 30 years.
I don't worship corporations, but I do think that entrepreneurs and private property rights and people taking risks are a general good for society.
And not only does history show this, but common sense logic and material reality shows all this.
I can give you more and more examples, if you want, of policy stuff.
That's less actually interesting.
The reason I don't go through policy stuff is, again, whoa, is that I'm not running for office, right?
I don't represent the Republican Party.
But if I can build out a worldview that you can agree with, then the policy answers will come naturally, right?
So if you understand morals and values, then you can answer the next 1,000 policy answers.
I care a lot more about policy than what people say.
Like, what government does is a lot more important to me.
And that's why I was confused why your speech was not about policy.
Because, again, I'm not running for office.
I want to ask one more question before we go.
I guess for us, there used to be a thing called the middle class, or the idea of a growing and strong middle class.
And I feel like for the past 10 years, especially on the right, maybe on the left too, for the more neoliberal left, but the right, that idea has kind of shrunken.
I don't think there's a lot of talk in the middle class.
Do you view income inequality as a problem?
I totally disagree.
I want to say income inequality being the difference.
Let me ask you, though, I have a question.
Why is it that the wealthiest counties in America all vote on the left?
Because that's where all the how money works and how capitalism works is how all the wealth is where all the people want to be.
So Silicon Valley is all the jobs.
Why do they vote liberal then if the left...
In what ways do they vote liberal?
Not on taxes, not on things that I'm voting for.
They vote for Joe Biden, they vote for Nancy Pelosi.
They're socially left, but they're not economically left.
Believe me, if you go to the Bay Area, they are very economically right.
Diane Feinstein is not left, in my opinion.
So it may be left socially, but I don't think they're left in my point of view.
Yeah, but so then let me ask you then, why is it that the muscular class in America has shifted right over the last seven years?
Not according to the midterms.
I mean, you guys tanked on the midterms mostly.
You keep on saying you guys.
I don't represent the Republican Party.
But I just want to critique one of your misguided premises, which is that somehow the right is not representing middle-class voters.
It's the opposite.
Actually, states that are traditionally blue-collar, muscular-class, middle-class states are now solid red states.
Look at Ohio.
Ohio is a state that used to be far left, and now it's more in the right direction.
So what is the right actually doing about it to answer your question?
A couple things.
We're rejecting neoliberalism.
Like, how about this?
We shouldn't send $200 billion to Ukraine, and we should instead represent our own people and close our own border.
That's number one.
Number two is that we should be unafraid to use tariffs and sanctions to say that critical infrastructure and things that matter should be made here in America.
The delusion on the left, and I just want to challenge you on this, is that the left has a bunch of people that talk a good game, AOC and Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, but when it really matters, they're nothing more than neoliberal shills that are willing to invade other countries, invite them into our country, and then lie to their voters under the veneer of social liberalism.
The populist movement in America that represents real people, muscular class teachers, police officers, and firefighters, it lives on the American right because we listen to our constituents and we're willing to fight for ideas like tariffs, sanctions, closed border, and no more money to Ukraine.
The left is shilling for all those things.
Thank you for being here tonight.
I appreciate it.
Got to get into the next one.
Thank you.
Can I just ask, is the difference between the mean and medium?
Income and above all.
50 people in life.
Thank you.
Income inequality is a big issue, which is exactly why I support the things that I said.
Next question.
Hi, I'm a liberal.
I'm Democrat voting.
I'm very strong in my beliefs about a certain set.
I have a very strong belief in a certain set of principles.
I probably disagree with a lot of your principles.
I disagree with conservativism and usually right-wing conservative beliefs.
The reason I'm here tonight is my son is very right-wing conservative.
You have a very smart son.
And he doesn't drink.
He's only 20.
Watch it.
Personal Conflict on Principles00:13:02
And the reason that I'm here is because I raised him to believe and think for himself, to look at both sides and come up with his own opinion.
And he kind of didn't come up with Bernie, okay, I can live with that, but I absolutely stand behind his right to think what he is free to think.
And I don't need to break windows.
That's not a model for what I believe in liberalism.
There's a lot of liberals who are very upset about that.
So my question to you is, in my sense of accepting and loving my son, it's different.
He's my family.
I also believe, for example, one example is LGBTQ adults, not trans kids.
I'm going to get that argument.
But LGBTQ adults who are happily in relationships and married, who are behind what they believe in.
And it doesn't necessarily coincide with the Bible.
It doesn't coincide with two genders.
I believe that people have the freedom to express themselves and they don't want to be in two genders.
They have a different point of view because they looked at both sides.
They came up and they have the freedom to believe what they want.
So how do you, my question to you is: how, in your belief of two genders, do you accept people who don't believe that?
Well, yeah, I just asked the question.
I would ask it of you.
What is a woman?
For me personally, I am a woman, and I believe.
But what is that?
Don't answer the question with the question, like, what is the vocab term woman define it?
That I align myself as a mother and what the women in my life and the feminine values of being more relationship oriented, less competitive, mothering, caring about someone ahead of myself.
So those are values that I, feminist values that I believe in, and I believe I can be a woman.
I don't have, I wasn't born with a male body, but I believe that I am a woman based on feminine principles.
Those and other values.
Your view, somebody can choose to be what they want to be.
Yes.
Okay, can I be a bobcat?
Well, and more than that argument, I want to get more into your beliefs.
Let me ask you another question.
Can I be whatever age I want to be?
The response to that really is not exactly what my question's about.
Well, you're asking about my view on the LGBT, and I'm getting there.
I'm just trying to understand.
And as an example, people who don't believe that there are two genders, just in general, who are disagreeing with you.
And you are one of those people, so I'm trying to get to some form of understanding and clarity.
Okay.
So do you think that having agreed-upon objective reality on age is important?
Yeah, but that's not within the concept of gender.
Well, but why is that different?
Why does reality stop when gender gets discussed?
Because I'm not thinking about people of different ages.
Why not?
If a 30-year-old thinks he's 14, he should be able to be able to have sex with a 12-year-old, right?
No, this is more about gender.
Well, no, no, no.
Well, but I have a limit.
But gender is gender is a what?
Where does that limit come from?
And why do you believe in the limit for age, but not for biology?
Because I feel that gender is an aspect of somebody they can believe in being able to be in more than one gender.
I don't believe that age falls into that.
I believe this is more about a gender that people are able to choose.
You're saying, though, that gender is a personal feeling or belief that somebody has about their existence.
Regardless of...
Within gender, there's some things that they don't like being an animal or being not a person.
Right, but the moral premise of that is that your biology, your chromosomes, do not dictate your reality, correct?
I don't know.
Do I have to know the answer to that in order to honor the fact that somebody else believes that they are choosing to be a person?
I'll tell you why and what I believe.
Do I have to agree with that?
Well, not a matter of agreeing.
In order to be able to identify.
You can have whatever opinion you want, but the truth is what I'm trying to articulate.
It doesn't matter what you believe.
Somebody is born a man.
They don't stop being a man if they appropriate womanhood.
If I wore blackface right now, I don't become black.
If a man decides to all of a sudden dress in a dress, he doesn't become a woman, nor should you force other people to reaccommodate society.
If they want to think that in their private time or in their own mind, it's kind of weird and strange, I guess.
Go ahead and do it.
But that's not the debate we're having in America right now.
The debate we're having, and I'd love your final thoughts on this, is a biological man is able to compete against biological women in NCAA sports and win the national championship in swimming.
Do you think that's fair?
I don't think that.
That's not part of my personal beliefs.
Okay, so let's maybe just go for gay and lesbian couples who are successful.
I mean, just because I really want to know the answer, and I kind of know where that's headed, and I don't agree about men playing in women's sports or...
Hey, we agree on that.
So when I say that, you understand that the liberals that you identify with call you a bigot for that belief, right?
Not the liberals that are my friends, and not all liberals believe that.
Yeah, that's shocking.
I'd love to meet them.
So, secondly, though, on the other part, as far as they're all in their 60s, let me see, my friends.
On the LGBT thing, and I want to get to as many questions as possible.
What does somebody's own personal sexual orientation have to do with lumping in a bunch of letters with somebody that is suffering from gender dysphoria?
Those are two separate issues.
Don't you think we should divide them?
No, I think that there are people who have healthy homosexual relationships who identify that way who aren't in favor of some of the things that you're doing.
You misunderstood the question.
What I'm trying to say is that for a while it was gay activism and now it's LGBTQIA plus.
It just keeps on growing and this kind of social contagion of left-wing activism.
Let me just tell you my position very clearly, okay?
Everybody's made in the image of God.
That's my first, that's my moral, my first premise.
We all have a soul.
You could disagree at that.
The American founders believed every single human being had a soul, and that is a fact.
I believe that marriage is an institution and a tradition that should be between one man and one woman.
Marriage, in an ideal world, the state would have a limited role in that.
But I don't believe that diluting or destroying the institution of marriage or the vocabulary or the truth behind it does it any justice for anybody.
And you must understand what a word means and what is the purpose of that word.
And having been married, I can understand that marriage is about opposites getting along to do something bigger than themselves.
The big issue in the gay marriage debate, and some conservatives disagree, is that you don't have two opposites.
You have two alikes that are coming, two people that are alike coming together.
That's not what marriage is.
You could call it something else.
That's not marriage.
In fact, I think it actually destroys and diminishes the beautiful institution of marriage in our country.
Thank you for being here tonight.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Charlie, for coming out tonight.
And I'm going to go a little longer.
Is that okay, guys?
Is that okay with you guys?
All right.
Okay, my question is short.
Should America be a more isolationist nation to aid in the interests of the American people?
Depends on the situation.
Give me an example.
Wars in the Middle East, wars with Iran, wars in Ukraine, wars in Yemen.
I would limit funding all across the board on those, yeah.
What was that?
I think that our role should be limited in all those, especially with Ukraine.
We shouldn't give a dime to what's happening in Ukraine.
Especially as our own border remains wide open.
What was that?
What was that, Charlie?
Especially as our own border remains completely and totally wide open and 5,000 people are entering illegally every day.
I find it silly that D.C. gets really mad that Ukraine's border gets invaded and our border gets invaded every day.
But sorry, do you have a follow-up thought?
Nope.
That was it.
Thank you.
And by the way, if you disagree, you're welcome to come to the front of the line.
The staff will help you.
Let it be known that evil fascist Charlie Kirk wants people who hate him to come to the front of the line.
Next.
Hi, Charlie.
My name is Cole.
I think I agree with you.
I just wanted to ask with how much our school systems have changed since even when I was a kid, I'm only 20, what is the best way to shield our younger children from falling into the mindset that they're trying to teach the very I get the question a lot.
Thank you.
If you're able to homeschool, I'm a big fan of homeschooling.
I am, and I know that's very difficult.
And then I think you have to find good private schools, if not that.
And if you have to send them the government schools, you have to fight for better schools and better school boards and stay involved in those school districts at every possible way you can.
And so there's no easy answer.
But you know what the most important time is?
It's not the time in the classroom.
It's the time that your kids have with you at home.
Turn off all the devices on the weekend and talk about the Constitution.
Talk about the founding.
Talk about the Civil War.
Become your child's teacher, regardless of where you send them to school.
Homeschooling is not just doing it Monday through Friday.
Homeschooling is a 24-7, 365 operation where you're constantly educating your children about American values, hopefully Judeo-Christian values as well.
So that would be my advice to you.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Hi, Charlie.
I am a former classical liberal, turned libertarian, turned conservative.
Hey, that's a great arc.
Largely thanks to guys like you and Ben Shapiro, so thank you.
I was wondering about a couple of things that I've heard you say pretty strongly over the last several months.
The first one is your pretty much unequivocal support of Donald Trump for 2024.
I assume you still feel that way, right?
Correct.
Okay.
The second thing is your talk about the RNC leadership and more specifically Rhonda McDaniel.
I heard you say on your show that she's always been very nice to you, very sweet person.
I don't care.
I want to win.
I assume you still feel that way?
I do.
Okay.
So if in the next year and a half or so you find yourself objectively thinking that a different candidate, whether it's DeSantis or somebody else, would give us a better chance to defeat the Democrats, how would you reconcile your sense of loyalty with your desire to win?
Thoughtful question.
I'm going to answer this personally, not on behalf of Torney Point USA, tax status stuff.
Everyone understand that.
Thank you.
Recorded catalog.
This is Charlie speaking personally.
Got it?
Thank you.
So yes, I'm supporting Donald Trump in 2024.
I'm doing so enthusiastically.
I wouldn't say that it's loyalty, but I do have a friendship with him, so there is a fair amount of kind of familiarity there.
And so I'm very biased, and he's been very, very good to me.
But he also did a fabulous job for this country.
And every day, especially in the last 30 days, I am just reminded of how awful this country is being run in more ways than one.
But look, here's what I'll say about the other candidates.
They're all welcome on my show, every single one of them.
They'll get uninterrupted time.
I'm a really big believer and supporter of Ron DeSantis.
I don't know where he's going to fall, but I think America is lucky to have Governor DeSantis, and I think he has been America's greatest governor.
And so I personally do not, I do not support going negative on Ron DeSantis.
I don't like it.
I don't think it's good form.
And it actually kind of bothers me, I'll be honest.
And I say that as an open Trump supporter.
But yeah, look, you've asked me a hypothetical, and I've learned not to answer hypotheticals because there's too many questions in the future.
Drug Legalization and Fentanyl00:05:56
But here's what I can say, question you're directly.
I think Trump has had a great last 30 days.
It seems he's really hitting his stride.
He's talking a great game on foreign policy.
He recently, I thought his visit in East Palestine, Ohio was fabulous.
My personal opinion, it's time for MAGA season two.
MAGA season one was big rallies and big things.
I think he's got to go super small and just show up at like random homes and living rooms and just like go through and just talk with people in front of fireplaces.
He is the best unscripted in personal one-on-one environments.
It's fine.
Okay, we know the big rallies.
We know all this.
He's funny.
He's charming.
He's compassionate.
He's tough and he's direct.
And I think the more people see that side of Trump, they actually are like, wow, okay, we get the rally thing.
This guy's a leader who cares, that can win over people one by one, but also millions by millions.
But I understand there's a lot of disagreements in the primary.
I think it's a good thing if DeSantis runs.
I think it's a good thing that Vivek runs.
I think primaries are healthy.
I think it will actually make Trump stronger in the end.
God bless you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi.
I know you're generally in favor of smaller governments.
My question is.
Can you make sure you go right into the microphone?
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I know you're in favor in small government for a lot of issues.
I know that drugs are a big issue in America.
I was wondering what was your perspective on recreational drugs in general, the legalization of drugs, and just what your perspective on that was.
Sure.
The mass legalization of drugs has been a major mistake in our country.
I used to be for it, and I have had 180-degree reversal, and I'll tell you why.
I believe in a small but strong government with prudent and effective and, let's just say, common sense laws.
I used to be one of those guys that was a conservative that said, if we really want to reduce government and make the cartels weaker, let's legalize weed, and that will really make the cartels weaker.
And then we'll have less people in prison.
Everything I believed was completely incorrect.
Let me tell you why.
As we've legalized weed, especially in the American Southwest, we've seen more violent crime, not less.
The cartels are wealthier and stronger than ever before.
One of the arguments was, well, kids now are going to be able to not do harder drugs.
That's not true.
Kids are now getting into fentanyl and harder drugs earlier because whether or not we want to admit it, marijuana is a gateway drug.
That is a true fact.
Kids don't just start with fentanyl.
They start with marijuana and it goes to other drugs, and we see that happen time and time again.
So actually, I believe that the decriminalization of weed has been something that actually makes government bigger.
We now need more social workers.
We now need more services.
We're now giving more people things on welfare, money on welfare.
And so while I understand the spirit and potentially the principality, the principle of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, we have to look at the evidence.
And the evidence is that we live in a sadder society, a more depressed society, a more anxious society, a more violent society, the more that drug use has gone up over the last decade.
Can I ask a follow-up question?
I was wondering if, in what ways you said that the cartel has become stronger with the legalization of marijuana?
I was just wondering, like, what are the reasons for that?
So they're no longer in the business of growing weed in the Sinaola region, so now they traffic fentanyl and people.
It's much more profitable and much more dangerous and murderous.
So we basically told the cartel, stop trafficking the thing that actually wasn't as bad.
It's bad, okay?
And now they've gotten into really rich business where they get $5,000 a head when they traffic them across the Rio Grande Valley and they're doing $5,000 a day.
Or they get fentany trafficked in from China, that this much of fentanyl, like a salt grain of fentanyl, will kill your grandkid almost instantaneously.
And so now the fentanyl is the cartels are bigger and stronger than ever before.
They're more brazen and bold than ever before.
They're kidnapping and killing Americans.
They're controlling the entire Mexican government.
The border is now completely controlled by the cartel.
And we were told that drug legalization would make the cartels irrelevant the same way that the legalization of alcohol made the mob less powerful in the 30s.
That was a lie, by the way.
The mob just went into a different business, okay?
It's not like they stopped committing violent crime, and it's just not true.
The cartels are running the entire southwestern part of the border and many parts of the southwestern United States.
Last follow-up question with that.
I see your point that the legalization of marijuana has increased drug abuse and has increased the demand for things like fentanyl and heroin and stuff.
I was wondering, I guess, like, why is making things like alcohol illegal, but making things like marijuana illegal?
Why is alcohol more acceptable than marijuana, for example?
Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not exactly a big fan of alcohol.
I actually think alcohol is a really bad drug, and we overly glamorize alcohol in our society.
I think we'd do some good to actually limit alcohol intake.
I think it would actually make people's lives better.
And I think we've waive over socialized drinking in our country.
Now, that's a separate argument, though, because that's making something that's currently legal illegal.
We're talking about making something that's illegal legal, right?
So those are two separate things.
But if you were to say, wave a magic wand and people would drink less in America, I'd say, sign me up for that.
Because, I mean, if you look at the amount of DUIs, violent crime, if you look at domestic assault, alcohol is almost always involved, almost always.
So I would say this: right now, the question is on marijuana, and it has been proven right now to have massive externalities that are negative.
Over 70,000 people died of fentanyl overdoses last year, right?
And over 140,000 people die from the effects of alcohol every single year.
Now, I'll be the most unpopular public commentator on the planet to argue for a ban or an abolition of alcohol, but let me just say this.
Someone needs to have the courage to say the amount we drink in our country is bad for us, and it's making us deeply unhappy.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi.
Coordinated Bigoted Protests00:04:46
So as someone who claims to be such a bastion of freedom of speech, why do you call the protesters outside terrorists, outside of, say, one broken window?
Well, it's more than one broken window, assaulting cops, spray painting the death threats that they throw at me, the violent intimidation, the graffiti.
But that's not, don't you think it's bigoted to call all protesters who are outside as terrorists when a handful of minority might be representing some of the things that we're doing?
Why would it be bigoted?
They're mostly white liberals without jobs.
Sorry?
Why is it bigoted?
They're mostly white liberals without jobs.
But you're calling all protesters terrorists?
I'm calling Antifa out there that are anonymizing their identity, sending death threats to my family, smashing windows, and spray painting the campus the entire week leading up to this terrorist.
Yes, I absolutely stand by that.
But that wouldn't.
A lot of them are just college students who don't agree with the point of view that you're propagating.
Maybe they should have come to the front of the line and asked a question like you and not acted like somebody in a third world country where they settle their differences with gang violence.
But just to be sure, those people who are there to register their protest aren't terrorists.
Okay, the terrorist definition is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Did they do that?
I don't think.
I don't think so.
Wait, hold on.
A person unlawfully violent, window smashing, graffiti, assaulting police officers.
Not all of them.
Hold on a second.
The leaders, they cover for themselves.
And by the way, only a small of them are isolated, and they're all in one big black block.
And don't try to gaslight the people here or the people watching online.
There's hundreds of them.
They're working in a coordinated network with coordinated tactics.
And these are not just quote-unquote college kids.
There's obviously somebody behind this with funding and sophistication, with quasi-paramilitary tactics.
And let me ask you a question.
Why is it that when people go into the United States Capitol and take a selfie, they're called terrorists by our government.
But when you start to terrorize and smash windows and put violent threats and death threats to me, it's somehow bigoted to call them terrorists.
So first of all, it's not, it wasn't a coordinated effort as someone who was there.
I just knew that there was this event happening and that there would be a protest in order to register our point of view.
I was not part of any coordinated effort and neither were a lot of the other people who were there.
We don't appreciate the label of being terrorists, especially a lot of us are from countries where you shouldn't appreciate the label or the activity.
Why don't you come here and say, you know, I'm pretty damn embarrassed that people that agree with me resort to violence instead of going up here and trying to lecture me about calling them terrorists?
Absolutely.
But this isn't about.
You're making a fool of yourself.
Why don't you go out and talk to your buddies and tell them to stop trying to shut down our event?
So I don't know why your response is always a what about ism.
And I'm just asking you if you're asking questions you can't answer ism.
What?
I've answered each of your questions.
I'm just saying everyone is part of the family.
Let me ask you a question.
Will you publicly condemn the violence done in the political spirit outside by the people that you were protesting alongside?
Will you do that right now?
It depends what you're referring to.
Smashing of windows and assaulting police officers.
Breaking windows is a good idea.
Assaulting police officers.
Do you condemn them?
I've assaulted police officers.
You was there.
No one assaulted police officers.
That's lie.
That's not true.
Throwing eggs and objects at police officers is a legal definition of assault, no matter how much you try to gaslight it or spin it.
If I can just, without resorting to what aboutism, using your definition of terrorism, if the police uses unjust violence against civilians, should that also count as terrorism?
Absolutely not.
But first of all, your definition of unjust.
I'm just taking your definition.
No, no, no.
Let me read this again.
Unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.
And Tifa doesn't just do this here.
They did this in Sacramento and assaulted one of our Turning Point USA employees and sent one of them to the hospital.
And Tifa, oh, by the way, the same buddies, the same tactics, the same coordination, the same wardrobe, the same language, the same signs, you know what they did two weeks ago?
They arsoned and firebombed an entire police training headquarters in Georgia in massive coordinated fashion.
And so right now what we are seeing is the rise of left-wing domestic violent extremism, and the failure to acknowledge or admit it means that you are blinded by ideology.
Thank you for being here tonight.
Gun Control Evidence Debate00:02:35
We'll get to the next one.
Hello, Charlie.
Wait.
I just want to say I don't exactly agree with you on everything, but it was a great speech, and I did like hearing your points.
And there are some things that we did agree on.
For example, big pharma.
I totally agree with you on that.
But my question isn't related to that.
So, well, first I want to ask you, so what is your stance on guns in terms of gun control?
I think I know, but I mean, I'm very pro-Second Amendment.
Right.
Okay.
So, you know, against gun control.
Right.
Making guns legal.
Yeah, no.
So you believe, I'm assuming that by making guns illegal, criminals are still going to get their hands on guns, correct?
Yes, but let me tell you my position, okay?
The Second Amendment is there to protect all the other amendments against a potentially tyrannical government.
If we act as if that has not happened in history, we're not even reading our 20th century history.
I fully acknowledge and admit when you allow gun ownership, you're going to have gun deaths.
There is a cost to liberty.
Anybody who, if you argue for Second Amendment rights and say that you're going to get gun deaths to zero, that is a falsehood.
That is also why I support driving.
I think driving is a moral good, but you're going to have 50,000 people a year that die in auto fatalities.
Liberty comes at a price.
And so I believe that, yes, there will be costs and consequences of having firearm ownership, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Please ask your question, though.
Yeah, so it's actually kind of to do with using that same logic, right?
If criminals will get their hands on the guns anyway, there's no point in banning them, then by that same logic, should we not legalize marijuana?
Because won't the kids get their hands on it anyway from either like people who are older or criminals?
Just using that same logic, would it make sense to then also ban marijuana?
So two things.
So I didn't actually use the criminals will get their hands on it.
It happens to be true.
But the other part is that the evidence shows the opposite.
That kids are doing more weed than ever before.
It's now laced with things it was not laced with a couple decades ago.
It's stronger than ever before.
And we were told that, well, if it's accessible and it's commercialized, kids will be less likely to do weed.
The usership of kids under 12, 50% in a national survey of kids 10 to 13 have tested with some form of cannabis or marijuana.
That's a bad thing for the country.
It's not good.
And the more we've legalized it, the more we glamorize it, the more we normalize it, the more we have kids doing marijuana.
And here's the other thing.
I don't see a moral good for marijuana.
I do see a moral good for private citizen firearm ownership.
So the equivalent is not one-to-one.
I understand.
Banking Legislation and Glass-Steagall00:10:38
Thank you.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thanks.
We'll do a couple more.
And if you disagree, tell our staff.
Come on up.
Hi, Charlie.
So I just first wanted to comment quickly on the guy who was defending the protesters outside.
So I'm the vice president of the UC Davis Turning Point Chapter.
And the same people who organized those protests outside have put my name on flyers and my face on flyers for my social media, put it all over campus, wheat-pasted it so it's glued to the wall.
And they've called me a homophobic fascist, a bigot.
They've said I'm not welcome on this campus, and they've published my phone number and email so that people could be able to harass me.
So if unlawful intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is the definition of terrorism, I'd say even that probably falls into the definition.
That's exactly right.
That alone is terrorism, right?
Thank you for your courage.
What's your question?
Yeah, so then the other point I had, I had a question for you, probably an easier one than a few of the other ones.
But so the left, as we can see, has really serious positions for the future.
They have really serious opinions and hopes and visions for the future of the U.S. Serious enough that they're willing to organize into groups of hundreds and break things and burn things down.
And we on the right, that gives us lots of time to talk about it and make fun of it and make compilations and whatnot.
And that's all good and funny and entertaining.
And that sort of roped me in at some point.
But what is our vision for the future?
What are we willing to get that passionate about?
It's a great question.
So three really basic things that I think should be a commitment to the next generation.
It should be easy and celebrated to get married, have children, and be able to own property in this country.
It should be a moral guarantee to the next generation to be able to do those three things.
It's good for everybody.
It anchors you in responsibility, right?
Right now, it is harder than ever to buy a home in America thanks to inflation and thanks to all this nonsense that's happening.
We are telling young people not to get married and we're saying that if you have children, it could be an existential threat to the climate.
And we wonder why this is the most depressed, suicidal, anxious, alcohol-addicted, and Medicaid generation in history.
Those three things should be a core social compact.
I could go through list by list, though, right?
I want a country that cares more about our borders than the borders of a foreign country.
I want a country that makes stuff that is critical to our national sovereignty and our future, such as vitamin C, penicillin, actually made here in America.
And finally, well, not finally, but in addition, I'll say this.
I want to see church attendance go up.
I want to see less kids addicted to pornography.
I want to see more people outside.
I want to see people spending less time on their phones.
I think we should entertain at least the spirit of a national week day of rest.
I call it the Sabbath.
You can call it whatever you want.
I think we should have a day where we slow down.
I think that we're able to get Uber Eats quicker than ever before.
We're able to get medication we want.
We have more ease and convenience that we're more miserable than ever before.
Why don't we actually tolerate?
We don't have to do laws, even though laws might be a good idea, where we just rest for a day.
We used to call these blue laws, where everything kind of slows down.
We spend time with loved ones.
You don't look at the phone all day long.
Maybe your favorite restaurant isn't open that day.
Maybe you actually have to cook for yourself.
I want that country.
I want a country that actually is purposeful in our action, in our community, that is more local than it is corporate, that focuses more on the family than some abstract ideology.
That's what I think we as conservatives need to fight for and fight for vigorously while they do all the nonsense that they do.
I just want to follow up.
We got to get to the next one.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for taking time out to come to California, even though you might hate it here.
I guess we could say I take the scenic route to conservatism.
Second generation college student.
I went to an HBCU actually in Washington, D.C., doing some work now in the public sector for the government.
So I'd like to get your take on how someone that might look like me or come from my socioeconomic background can find a home in conservatism.
Or, if not conservatism, where can someone who might find themselves in the gray area go if they don't fall into one camp or the other?
Well, let me tell you, you have a home in the conservative movement if I have anything to say about it.
And I'll be honest, the other thing, I don't want to live in a country where I care about people's race.
It doesn't mean anything to me.
I care about that you're a sweet person and that you're trying to do better in your life.
I care about your values and your actions.
Your melanin content is irrelevant to me, and it should be irrelevant to everybody else.
I want to live in that country.
And so, conservatism, if I have anything to say about it, will be values-based and ideas-based and merit-based, not race-based, not melanin-based.
And so, look, you're working for the government in the public sector.
You know, I don't know if you're a religious person or not, or you believe in God, but I would just encourage you to pray if God is using you for your greatest and highest purpose.
But I could tell you right now: if God answers your prayer and you say, get in the fight for freedom, we need people right now on the front lines working for Turning Point USA, working for churches that are engaged and active, like Greg Farrington's church.
I think some folks from his church are here.
Thank you guys, by the way, fabulous church.
And so, there is a place in conservatism for you, but it might not look for working for Turning Point USA.
It might be, hey, I'm going to work for this local committee or whatever it might be.
But if you're passionate about these ideas, we need you.
We need you badly.
God bless you, and thank you for being here tonight.
Thank you.
Two more questions.
Hey, Charlie, 18-year-old activist out of Sacramento, sophomore year, college student, and proud member of the ex-recall Gavin Newsom team, by the way.
So, as you know, there's a Democrat supermajority in our state legislature, and a committee in our state legislature, state assembly, did something, or state senate did something ridiculous today.
They passed a bill that would put women's menstrual products in men's restrooms in government facilities, and not a single Republican on the committee voted against the bill or spoke out against the bill.
They decided to abstain so it passed easily.
My question is: how do we get our representatives to fight against this crap?
Yeah, I mean, stop worrying about being offended all the time.
I mean, this is one of my big complaints of conservatives in general, which is fight for what is true and who cares the names they call you.
I mean, you're trying to tell me not a single Republican voted against that in committee?
I mean, I am telling you that not a single Republican in that committee had a backbone to vote against that bill, and that is what disappoints me.
It disillusions me.
They're afraid of people like Scott Weiner and all these other people.
Exactly.
Yeah.
I was going to say that.
Scott Weiner talked about Twitter disputes with Scott Weiner.
Right.
And yeah, he's not well at all.
Well, yeah, I mean, I could tell from his tweet yesterday where he said that there's a bill now in our state legislature proposed by a Republican that would allow a parent to know if their child is transitioning socially within schools.
And Scott Weiner came out and said that this is a Ron DeSantis-style bill that is oppressive to the LGBTQ community.
Yeah, of course he did.
I mean, I got in a whole Twitter dispute with Scott Weiner because he said that I'm the one that was inciting hatred against him because I decided to tweet about those perverted bills that he's pushing in the legislature.
And he says, I'm a victim on all these things.
Like, okay, Scott Weiner, how about you defend the bills, actually, of why you creepily think kids should be taught the most graphic, personal things without parental consent?
But he won't answer that question.
Look, you have to fight.
And I love California conservatives.
I think there's so much fight left in so much of what you guys are doing.
But it's going to be a long-term project, right?
And you've got to find the fighters.
You've got to support the fighters.
And you have to support the ones with the backbone.
And honestly, the ones that don't, ask them, why are you not standing for what is right in the legislature?
The bill's going to pass anyway.
Why wouldn't you stand for what is right?
So, God bless you for your activism and thank you.
Final question.
Hi, Charlie.
I'm gladly not an 18-year-old student here at Davis, but I'm an older millennial student who work with and attend the TPUSA meetings here.
And I also work with LaRouche PAC, who, God bless them, are real true unsung heroes, I would say.
So Silicon Valley Bank, which I'm sure you heard just when kaputz, now it's a fact that their board are all about their agenda is wokeism.
Yep.
Right?
So Christ chased the money changers out of the temple.
And now my question is with Josh Hawley just publicly backed up and is saying, calling for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Bank separation.
That's probably a good idea.
And my question is simply is what is your position on it?
Will you support it?
And the fact that we need to absolutely, rather than fund Wall Street, we need to fund the rebuilding of America.
Yeah, so just so everyone knows, Glass-Steagall was the repealing, or it was the instituting.
I always get confused.
It basically allowed commercial banks and investment banks to become one.
This would make it separate.
Look, I think heads need to metaphorically roll, okay, metaphorically for what happened at Silicon Valley Bank.
The regulators, the people involved, it's wrong on multiple, multiple levels.
And isn't it interesting how scared people are to actually criticize the banks right now, especially in the media?
It's just terrible.
And what the heck was the government doing?
Where were the regulators that are supposed to do their job that are supposed to be checking in on this?
And I'm very afraid of the fragility of the American banking system right now.
And I hope I'm wrong.
I hope that there's the full faith and credit behind it.
Reinstituting Glass-Steagall would be the first step of many, in my opinion.
But I think we need to repeal Dodd-Frank.
Dodd-Frank has been really unfair to small and local banks, which I think is actually their next focus.
They're going to try to get rid of mid- and local banks and try to hyper-corporatize JPMorgan, Citibank, and Wells Fargo as kind of the big three, like almost like the telecom companies, really quick.
Yeah.
Great.
Yeah.
Why I brought up LaRouche Pack is because they endorsed Trump and they're the ones who fought for Glass-Steagall since really 2000.
I'm not familiar with it, but thank you for bringing that up.
So thanks for being here tonight.
Thank you.
All right.
I want to summarize this.
A very important announcement.
There is a fear that the mob might, again, they're not terrorists.
They might actually try to be violent towards you, okay?
Do not engage with them.
Staying Peaceful on Campus00:01:07
All right.
Stay peaceful.
If you feel unsafe, ask a police officer, ask one of our staff.
We want all of you to get home safely.
But this is what they do, especially on the exiting of events.
These people can be really nasty, especially with the experience I've had with them over the last couple of years.
So please be peaceful.
Don't do anything with them.
They're the ones that are doing uncalled for things.
So please keep that in mind.
And it's a good thing this event happened tonight, but it's, I just want to remind, I do not want to live in a country where I have to have this much police support and I have to have my send-off message of be safe on an American college campus because you might have a baseball bat thrown at you.
We are fighting for the moral goodness and decency of speech.
Tonight's speech one, please be vigilant on your way out and stay peaceful.
Thank you for supporting Turning Point USA and God bless you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.