All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2024 - The Charlie Kirk Show
35:02
What's An Insurrection? What's "Pro-Russia?": Charlie and Vivek at Georgia State U.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, everybody, my conversation at Georgia State University with Vivek Ramaswamy.
Enjoy this.
Become a member today.
Members.CharlieKirk.com.
Members.CharlieKirk.com today.
And also, please come to AmFest.
That's AmFest.com.
A-M-F-E-S-T.com.
AmFest.com.
Listen to this promo.
American patriots.
Get ready for the biggest event of the year.
Join thousands in hearing the leading voices of the movement.
Featuring Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon.
Donald Trump Jr. Dr. Ben Carson.
Tim Pool.
Senator Josh Hawley.
Kimberly Guilfoyle.
Matt Walsh.
Michael Knowles.
Ben Shapiro.
Jack Posobiec.
Danica Patrick.
Patrick Bet-David.
Brett Cooper.
Tom Holman.
And more.
December 19th through 22nd in Phoenix, Arizona.
Get inspired and make a difference.
At AmericaFest 2024. Register today at AmFest.com.
Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast.
Get your tickets to AmericaFest, AmFest.com.
I mean, come on, you can't get a better speaker lineup than this.
AmFest.com, A-M-F-B-S-T.com.
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.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you can protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
Hi, I'm Melinda, and I'm here to say that Trump is very anti-American.
He's anti-American, he's pro-violence, and he's pro-war.
Give one example where he's pro-war.
Well, he's very poor Roar when it comes to sewing division within the American people itself.
So, in a recent interview, I think, was at Fox News, he talked about the enemy within.
He's also talking about...
He's been shot at twice.
Five Republicans.
Is that fair to call somebody who's shooting at him an enemy?
Is that a fair game or not?
By a fellow Republican.
Well, hold on.
They were Republican.
They were registered Republican.
Ryan Ruth was not a registered Republican.
Yes, he was.
By the way, it should not matter who their party affiliation is.
We should agree that if someone gets shot at and he mentions Enemy Within, he probably gets a pass on that.
I mean, people also shot at Mussolini, right?
Do you think Trump and Mussolini are moral equivalents?
Well, that wasn't the example here.
No, you brought up Mussolini.
I didn't.
Well, yeah.
The reason why I brought up Mussolini is because obviously we know that people who we call that pro-war – John Trump's quote on that was just – we're leveling just on the same facts.
He said, these radical lunatics are the enemy within.
He has been shot at twice.
I would call those people radical lunatics who are the enemy within.
Do you disagree with that characterization?
By his own side.
He was not shot at by his own side.
Yeah, they were registered Republicans.
No, again, Ryan Ruth was not a registered Republican.
Yeah, he was.
No, he was not, okay?
Yeah, he was.
Anyone who shoots at you is not on your side.
Again, again.
There's also a common talking point when it comes to talking – a common talking point Republicans have is that there was no new wars when he was – Yeah, what war did he start?
Well, when it comes to no new wars, he assassinated Soleimani.
No, no, that's not a war.
That's a specific military action.
What was the war that Trump started?
Well, there was no war that Joe Biden started.
Well, of course there was.
He financed the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Well, who invaded Ukraine?
Was it Russia or America?
How much do you know about the Istanbul meeting five days into the war between Tony Blinken, Boris Johnson, and the Russian ambassador?
I'm not sure, but did America invade Ukraine?
Hold on a second.
Because we actually had a chance to have a peace deal five days into the war, and it was the United States of America that came in and blew up the peace deal in Istanbul, Turkey.
The audience will tell you I'm right.
It was our own government that wanted the war to continue.
So that's Joe Biden's war.
Well, no, there's more to that.
It's a little hot outside, so I can't do my research right now.
But when it comes to...
Why does the temperature impact your research?
I don't understand.
Well, it's hot outside.
I've been here all day, so my brain's a little fuzzy.
So, number one, when it comes to this idea that Trump is...
Anti-war, or there was no new wars under Trump.
He's anti-war.
There was plenty of wars that were going on during Trump's time.
Can you name them, though?
And he's also very pro-dictators.
Like, he's friends with Kim Jong-un.
He talks highly.
So we were on the verge of war with North Korea when Barack Obama left the Oval Office.
The thing he told Donald Trump is, our top threat is North Korea.
I don't care if Donald Trump calls Kim Jong-un a friend or not.
He got us off the brink of war with North Korea, which is actually what I care about.
We were not really on the brink of war when it comes to it.
No, it's correct.
Barack Obama thought we were.
Obama said to Donald Trump, you need to watch out for two things, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and North Korea.
That were the only two things Obama said to him in Obama's own telling of events in that short Oval Office meeting.
So Obama even said North Korea is your number one threat.
Well, I disagree with Obama.
North Korea was not our number one threat.
North Korea is an ant compared to America.
Let me ask you, you're anti-war?
Are you anti-war?
Very anti-war.
Okay, do you believe the Russia-Ukraine war needs to come to an end?
Yes, Russia needs to end it.
Which is the candidate which has said that we need to end the Russia-Ukraine war?
Which is the candidate who said we need to continue funding the Russia-Ukraine war?
Trump is for backing up Trump.
Trump is for ending the Russia-Ukraine war.
That's what he said.
Kamala Harris is continuing to fund the Russia-Ukraine war and said she would continue to vote in favor of it.
Under which candidate was there a major war in the Middle East?
Was there a major war in the Middle East under Donald Trump?
To the first point, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, America is funding the Ukraine because of an agreement we had in, what, 2014?
We're holding up a peace treaty with NATO that if any country who wants to join NATO— We have to give them some type of funding.
Yeah, so look, the NATO treaty that actually says we're going to defend a NATO ally, Article 5, that doesn't apply to Ukraine because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. I know what you're talking about.
Why was Ukraine not a member yet?
Because Russia invaded them.
That's not correct.
Because they wanted to be a member.
No, no, Ukraine should never – do you think Ukraine should be part of NATO? Yes, of course.
Whoa!
Okay, that's remarkable.
Yeah, of course.
So the U.S. actually made a commitment back in 1990 to say that NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany.
Our Secretary of State made that commitment to his counterpart in – actually, it was Gorbachev who led the Soviet Union.
So – We've actually, in some ways, been responsible for creating the conditions that have created global instability, but that's actually gone up under Joe Biden.
So I'm with you on being anti-war.
I'll just look at what were the major wars under Donald Trump.
We still haven't named one.
What are the major wars under Joe Biden?
We have several, from what's going on in the Middle East, Israel-Hamas, to Russia-Ukraine, and I judge based on results.
Clarifying question.
When you say new wars under Joe Biden...
Is that implying that Joe Biden started these wars?
They occurred under his administration.
And supported and subsidized them.
And paid for them.
For example, Donald Trump prevented an Israeli Hamas war.
How?
Through the Abraham Accords.
The Abraham Accords was bringing all the people to the table, cut Palestinian Authority funding, also cut Iranian funding so that the Iran piggy bank could not fund terror throughout the region.
Brought Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Bahrain, and Israel in the room and signed a historic once-in-a-generation peace deal between those Arab partners and Israel.
And that region was the quietest it ever was in 50 years.
With Russia, Ukraine, he told Vladimir Putin, you go into Ukraine, I will bomb Moscow immediately.
It's interesting.
Under George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin took Georgia.
Under Obama, he took Crimea.
Under Biden, he took the Donbass.
Under Trump, he didn't take anything.
Why is that?
Under Trump.
Under Trump, Vladimir Putin did not gain a square inch of new territory.
Why is that?
Trump literally talks about deals or secret meetings that he had.
No, but it's just a very simple question.
If Trump was bought by Putin or was friends with Putin, why did Putin not expand his country under Trump and every other president he expanded his country under?
So under Bush, Russia got bigger.
Under Obama, Russia got bigger.
Under Biden, Russia got bigger.
Under Trump, Russia stayed the same.
Why is that?
Russia didn't stay at the same.
They tried to invade Ukraine.
Not under Trump.
Not under Trump.
That invasion was in February of 2022. But Trump supports Putin.
Well, no, he doesn't, actually.
It's interesting.
He talks about how good Putin was.
No, he believes in diplomacy.
For example, do you believe that FDR was right in partnering with Joseph Stalin to defeat Hitler?
Um, yes.
Okay, so at times you have to partner with really bad people for a broader goal.
That is called- But Ukraine is not the enemy.
Well, we're not saying- You know who is the enemy?
China is the enemy.
And Russia.
Well, Russia's not the enemy, exactly.
How many of your friends have died because of Russians?
How many of your friends died because of Ukraine?
A lot of your friends have died here because of the cartels, and we don't call them an enemy, and they are an enemy within.
So when Donald Trump is talking about the enemy within, he's talking about the cartels that are here that are poisoning our streets with drugs, that are bringing illegal guns into the country.
That is the enemy within.
Yet we say Russia is an enemy.
Russia has never attacked the United States of America.
There is proof that Russia has been funding far-right groups in America – Russia is also very tied to a lot of prominent right-leaning figures.
There's a lot of Russian money funding in right-wing circles.
In order to play that out, first of all, you're talking about a couple right-wing podcasters that received Russian cash.
Not a couple.
Just so we're clear, Hillary Clinton received money from the mayor of Moscow's wife, so did Hunter Biden.
They give money all across the political spectrum.
But I just want to be very clear, because I think it's important.
Can you show me...
One new ground war that started under Donald Trump for his four years.
There was no new wars under Joe Biden either that he started.
Ukraine, Russia, and the Hamas-Israel war started under Joe Biden's watch.
Do you believe it's the job of the United States commander-in-chief to lead by securing peace and reducing risk for the United States?
Do you believe that?
I think you probably do.
Of course.
And do you believe that you should judge a president based on their results or based on their words?
Both.
Okay.
So I judge based on results.
And on the basis of those results, we had no new wars under Donald Trump.
We have at least two major new wars under Biden.
And for my part, I don't care whether Donald Trump calls some other world leader a friend or not.
What I care about is whether he's advancing American interests.
Trump also talks about putting more funding into Israel.
To further the genocide of the Palestinians.
Okay.
We've already discussed that earlier, but I'm guessing you're voting for Kamala Harris.
I'm just kind of guessing.
Am I right?
Yeah.
Unfortunately, yes.
I'm not a Kamala stan.
Okay.
Why is that?
It's complicated, but...
Go ahead.
This is interesting.
Well, no.
It's complicated.
I'm more anti-Trump than I am pro-Kamala Harris.
Hey, this is Charlie Kirk for my friends at besthotgrill.com.
Football is back, and so is tailgating.
I'm so excited football's back, by the way.
Whether it's Friday Night Lights, Saturday, college football, my favorite, Go Ducks!
Or Pro Sundays, Solaire Tailgate Infrared Grills set up fast and heat up quickly, only three minutes to searing hot temperatures, just like the big backyard Solaire's.
A Solaire grill will make you the master of the tailgate with the juiciest, most flavorful food in the parking lot.
And the fast grilling times leave you more time to enjoy the pregame festivities.
They also cool down fast so that you won't miss a minute of the game.
The USA-made Solaire Anywhere, Everywhere and All About Infrared grills are portable and perfect for any grilling on the go.
From picnics to camping to RV to boating, but especially tailgating.
Amaze your tailgating friends with the great food you grill with Solaire Infrared Grill.
Learn more about these fantastic grills and Solaire's try-before-you-buy demo rental program at besthotgrill.com.
That's besthotgrill.com, besthotgrill.com.
What do you think is important for the country?
I think...
Pick your top two issues.
What are the top two issues for the country?
The top two issues for the country is getting...
What do you want to see happen in the next four years?
Getting rid of disinformation and also securing more hope in our system.
So disinformation is protected by the First Amendment, you would agree?
Yes.
Disinformation when it comes to news outlets is what I mainly talk about.
So you and I both agree we should pull CNN's broadcasting license?
More like Fox News.
No, that's the point, is that all of a sudden, CNN has a right to be able to do what they do.
Well, Fox News is actually currently, or actually, I think about a year ago, is going through a deflamatory court case.
Do you think that it should be legal to have different opinions?
Of course you do.
Illegal?
Legal, legal.
I mean, yeah, I'm mainly talking about news corporates or like news outlets and also big media figures who can spin sort of disinformation and that can swing the election.
For example, like Elon Musk targeting people on his platform that are liberal and targeting or like pushing out.
Why should that be illegal?
Because he's trying to sway the election.
So?
He's a citizen.
Should Taylor Swift not be able to speak about?
She's swaying the election.
Well, no.
How is Taylor Swift and Elon Musk different?
She's far more popular than Elon Musk.
Because Elon Musk on his platform is prohibiting information about Kamala Harris.
No, he's not.
Let me just say something.
We're all against disinformation here, but let me just ask you two pieces of disinformation that we know are disinformation.
Where did the pandemic begin?
I don't blame you.
I don't even blame you because the government stopped you from being able to know that.
So right now, we're having a conversation where you believe that the pandemic did not begin, that COVID-19 did not begin in a lab in China, because guess what?
That's exactly what our government required you to believe.
If anybody said it did, they required it to be censored.
What evidence do you have that was created in life?
You now actually have the genetics of the virus to be able to go back to actually the lab that was manipulating a non-human virus.
It was never a naturally occurring virus.
The only way that they now know based on the genes.
SARS is not a naturally occurring virus?
SARS-CoV-2 is not.
It was designed to spread more rapidly, which is exactly why I did.
But suffice to say that now at least every major scientist or medical researcher today who said two years ago that it did not believes this is the most likely origin of the pandemic.
And yet most of the public, including even yourself, believes what the government told us two years ago.
That's actual disinformation.
Let me ask you another thing.
Was the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the last election?
The 2020 presidential election.
There was a lot of compromising information about Hunter Biden found on a laptop that was found about a month before the election.
Was that made up or was that actually true?
Hunter Biden was prosecuted.
Was the laptop story, was it true or false?
It doesn't matter.
Turns out it was true, but you were told it was false.
So we share with you a passion for getting rid of disinformation.
The Central Intelligence Agency came out and signed a letter, 50 of them, saying that this was Russian disinformation.
I lost my Twitter account because I started to share the Hunter Biden laptop during the election.
One in four swing voters during the 2020 election said they would have voted differently if they knew about the Hunter Biden laptop.
That's our own government.
And that's disinformation.
Yeah, but his father...
His dad was all throughout the laptop talking about foreign deals, Chinese cash, Ukrainian meetings, Russian deals.
All that was in the laptop.
Hunter Biden was prosecuted.
Right, that's not the point.
Just like how Trump was prosecuted.
Right, right.
34 felons.
Yeah, we got that.
So I'm going back, though, to the laptop.
Our own government came in and said that that laptop was Russian disinformation.
Let me ask you a question, though.
Do you believe that saying that...
Closing schools during COVID was a good thing?
Yes.
Okay.
That is now widely accepted as being epidemiologically wrong, morally wrong.
Who?
We got a lot of kids who are now suffering from mental health disorders.
You got a lot of kids who have failed to acclimate socially, who are two, three, four years old, that grew up into that and never going to be the same again.
More importantly, should I have been able to say during the pandemic that closing schools was wrong?
You as an individual?
And my media company.
Your media company?
Probably not.
But you as an individual?
Sure.
So we're going to disagree.
I agree.
On this one, we're going to agree to disagree.
We have a Stalinist view of speech, basically.
Charlie, even the labels aside, if somebody believes that you should not have been able to say during the pandemic that schools should remain open, if it's your belief that a media company should not have been allowed to say that...
Then I think if you're voting for Kamala Harris, you are voting for the right candidate for you.
I truly believe that.
Okay, sure.
She is the censorship candidate.
Her belief for the world is that if Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk get too powerful...
So when Donald Trump said that people who nail for the national anthem should go to jail, is that free speech?
Well, he never said they should go to jail.
He said they're not patriotic.
He never said they should go to jail.
Yes, he did.
You can look that up.
He never said they should go to jail.
Yes, he did.
Okay, see, again, you are a victim of disinformation.
No.
Let me ask you just one more question.
Can men give birth?
Can men give birth?
Yeah.
If they're transgender.
So again, the beauty of this country is that she gets to have that view and vote for who she wants.
And I think we have laid out here, this is a Kamala Harris voter.
If you believe men can give birth, vote for Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump.
If you believe that you should not have been allowed to say as a media company that schools should not have closed during COVID-19, that you should have been banned from saying it, absolutely Kamala Harris is your candidate, not Donald Trump.
But this lays out the choice in the election.
Your media companies should not put out this information.
Let me just have one more question.
Who judges its disinformation?
Who's in charge of that standard?
It depends on what it is.
If we're talking about COVID, we should look for the medical scientists and doctors.
Were they wrong about anything during COVID? Some things.
So then why should we give them unilateral authority?
This is where we're different.
This is science, not scripture.
So science can be changed.
Yes, that's how science works.
It always evolves.
We believe that the Earth was in the center of the universe.
Should a media company be allowed to say that climate change is not an existential risk to humanity?
It depends on what type of data that they're putting out.
So if a media company says the climate change agenda is made up on false premises and that, you know what, global surface temperatures will be allowed to go up, should they be banned from saying it?
Should a media company say that bleach is good to drink?
They should be allowed to say it.
First of all, that never happened.
That never happened.
Never happened.
They should be allowed to say that?
And they should be allowed to say it, of course, because the First Amendment protects all speech, hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, and correct speech.
You cannot police...
For individual.
No, and companies.
And individual, like companies, individuals, LLCs.
Companies are run by individuals.
Platforms.
Free speech transcends all platforms all the time, and you cannot all of a sudden...
I think this is useful, because I do think there's a difference in opinion.
It's so illuminating.
And if you have the views you do, I do think Kamala Harris is your candidate.
And the final point is, under your view, last thing, let's say Trump wins and becomes supreme dictator of America.
Why would you give him the power to shut up liberal media?
What?
You believe that the experts or whatever should be able to close disinformation.
If Trump were to win, why would you give him that power to shut up liberal media?
If the liberal media is wrong?
But Trump would say they're wrong, so he'll shut it up.
Is Trump an expert?
Okay, that's the point, is that at some point, that's why you should have First Amendment, because whoever's in charge gets to determine what is right or wrong.
That is what Orwell wrote about.
When it comes to medical and scientific, things like that, it should be...
They were wrong about everything.
They were wrong about six feet to slow the spread.
They were wrong about the vaccine, safe and effective.
And they were wrong about whether the earth revolves around the sun.
By the way.
The heliocentric theory.
They've been wrong for a long time.
Other scientists.
And not politicians, right?
Through free speech and open debate, which we need more of in the country.
Open debate gets you to truth, not totalitarianism.
Thank you so much.
That is one of the scariest I've heard in my 12 years of doing this.
She's a victim.
I mean, I'm not mad at her.
No, I mean, that's the death of the country if you just say I should be able to shut you up because...
I'm not mad at her, man.
I'm not.
I'm just saying it's so...
It's bone chilling.
This is a victim of what's going on in the country.
It's bone chilling.
Okay, so I'll try to be as quick as possible because I have to go to class, but I want to go back to January 6th real quick.
Let's just start with a point of common ground.
Hypothetically, if one of our candidates had insurrected the government, or at least attempted to, do you think that candidate is eligible to be voted upon?
Well, the Constitution says no, but it wasn't an insurrection.
No one's been tried for insurrection.
Do you realize that he's being tried on that?
No, he isn't.
He's actually not.
Well, not on insurrection, the specific statute, but he's being tried for that.
Insurrection is a very specific crime in the federal code.
He is not being tried for insurrection.
Yeah, I understand that.
But he's still being tried on that case, right?
No, he's being tried on the events of that day, which is not an insurrection.
That I word is actually a super important word because that literally means armed rebellion to overtake the United States government.
Not necessarily.
You don't have to be an armed rebellion.
Which class are you going to?
Which class do you have next?
Ethics.
Okay, so it's relevant.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, though.
Insurrection is the word that's used.
Indeed.
So there was actually a rebellion.
There was widespread speculation about whether Jack Smith would bring this case against Donald Trump.
Indeed.
He did not.
Why did he do that?
And the reason Jack Smith didn't bring the case is that he would have lost 9-0 at the Supreme Court if he did.
Well, hold on.
That's funny that you say that.
That's exactly the result that they had with a number of the cases that have gone to the Supreme Court as well.
You say it would be 9-0 the Supreme Court, right?
As it was on the case where Trump could be on the ballot, went to the Supreme Court, it was 9-0, hands down.
This would have been 9-0 as well.
Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
If you ever had a doubt that there's a war on the unborn, you now know beyond a doubt that is the case.
It'd be easy to give up, but you know I'll never give up on giving the truth to girls and women who the other side want to choose death for their baby.
I'm standing for life no matter what the other side says, and we're going to save more babies than ever before to show them that truth will win out.
It can only be shared with girls and women who will make the right choice.
Preborn provides free ultrasounds to girls and women.
It's the truth that they deserve, and it doubles the chance that she'll choose life.
$140 gives 5 mothers a free ultrasound and saves babies.
$280 can save 10 babies and just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than $1 a day.
Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, join me in saving babies right now.
Call 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
That is a $15,000 gift.
We'll provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Go to Preborn banner at charliekirk.com.
I'm a donor and you should be a donor as well.
Go to charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner.
One of Trump's private counsels, one of his lawyers, right?
I believe his name was...
Name doesn't matter.
John Eastman.
Eastman, correct.
Is it not true that he also thought that his plan to attempt to coup to the government, or attempt to, let's say, subvert the electoral process in 2020, would lose 7-2 of the Supreme And then he later amended that comment by saying it would actually probably lose 9-0 of the Supreme Court.
So what is the question you have as it relates to January 6th?
It's very simple.
If one of our presidential candidates had attempted to coup the government, he is unelectable.
Obviously.
Correct.
And you just deny the fact that Trump attempted to coup the government.
No, he did not.
That's not what happened that day.
What happened that day is he had a rally a mile and a half away from the Capitol.
Okay, sorry.
To everybody here, I implore you to read the first section of Jack Smith's court filings or read the Wikipedia page or read the one...
But you have to be honest.
Half of that got thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court on presidential immunity, right?
Do you think that...
Half of it is invalidated.
Do Do you think that was a reasonable Supreme Court ruling?
Of course!
More than reasonable.
You really think so?
Yes, it was nearly unanimous.
Even the liberal justice...
I like that we're pivoting.
No, no, hold on.
It's not pivoting.
You have to be honest.
Do you think Barack Obama should be able to be tried for war crimes?
I don't care.
I have no interest to speak about anyone else besides Trump.
I'm saying, hold on.
Your standard must apply equally.
Presidential immunity means what happens when you do during president cannot be.
You cannot have crimes brought against you if it's in your official code of business.
You agree with that?
No, absolutely not.
There's no precedent in the entire history.
Hold on.
Yes, there is.
There is none.
Absolutely.
Let me finish, okay?
Go on.
Obama killed a U.S. citizen without due process on foreign soil.
That is a war crime.
No, it's not.
Wait, he went to legal counsel, correct?
But legal counsel can be wrong, man.
It doesn't matter if it's wrong.
I could bring that case in any jurisdiction across the country.
He did not get First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights.
They just drone strike a U.S. citizen.
Imagine if the government just does that.
They just come by and pop you in the head.
That's illegal.
And Obama did that.
That's not illegal.
But however, I don't think Obama should be able to go to prison because you should get immunity as president against your actions or else a president would never be able to do anything.
But sure.
Regardless, going back to January 6th, you do acknowledge...
Do you acknowledge any of the voter fraud allegations or any of that?
Do you think Donald Trump committed a coup against the US government?
He attempted to, absolutely.
So why do you believe he left the White House?
What do you mean, why do you leave the White House?
Somebody who's really leading a coup.
It failed.
Why did he call for the protesters to go home?
I just think this idea...
He didn't do that, though, right?
He waited three hours in the White House as multiple...
That's not correct.
Oh, really?
Within 30 minutes, he sent a tweet out.
He said, go home.
No, no, no.
Hold on.
He said to remain peaceful, correct?
He told rioters to remain peaceful.
Does that make sense?
Peaceful and patriotically before anything ever happened at the Capitol.
Okay, he said that one time during his one and a half hour speech at the ellipse, correct?
Well, so you acknowledge he said peaceful and patriotically marched.
I'm not a four-year-old who analyzes a speech, takes out one sentence from a speech and says it's all okay.
When did he ever say do anything violent?
He said to fight, fight, fight, or else you're going to lose your country.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Also, you know who says fight, fight, fight?
Kamala Harris has it as her campaign slogan, fight, fight, fight.
When we fight, we win.
I heard every 20 seconds at the DNC. Wait, hold on.
Did Kamala Harris or the Democrats try to coup the government?
Well, actually, yes.
It's interesting.
Oh, right.
Oh, let's do it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hold on a second.
How did she become candidate?
How many votes did she get?
She was on the ticket of Biden, correct?
Because of a coup, they removed a sitting president named Joe Biden and put her on the top of the ticket.
Who are you voting for?
When you vote on a ticket, who are you voting?
Well, actually, no.
In the primary, you're only voting for Joe Biden, not Kamala Harris.
Hold on.
The people aren't voting for that, correct?
In a primary campaign, Kamala Harris was not on the ticket, and you know that's correct.
Joe Biden received 16 million primary votes without Kamala Harris as her VP. And all of a sudden, they said— Also, I love who we're pivoting all the way out of this.
This is amazing.
I love this.
No, you're the one doing the rabbit hole.
I just want to ask a question, though.
Who died on January 6th?
One person.
Or multiple police officers.
No, actually, one person died on January 6th.
And it was Ashley Babbitt, an unarmed Trump supporter, who got shot in the head by one of— Maybe she shouldn't have trespassed in the Capitol.
I don't know.
Yeah, I know.
It's going to be a hard one.
I will bite that bullet.
Absolutely.
Obama's death penalty now makes more sense.
Yeah, exactly.
So the death penalty for walking through your own Capitol.
No, but you shouldn't be trespassing trying to subvert the election results, correct?
Have you seen the video what happened?
No warning whatsoever.
Absolutely, yeah.
Lieutenant Michael Berg pops her right in the head and this guy says, oh, cry me a river.
No warning?
Really?
He pulled out the gun and she jumped through the window.
What do you expect to happen?
Did you get mad about the death of George Floyd?
I really don't care about any of this.
I don't care.
Go back to the focus.
It's irrelevant.
No, it's not.
You can yell all you want.
The whole country blew up for George Floyd, and yet a Trump supporter gets shot in the head, peacefully and patriotically protesting, and that's basically fine.
I am for all of you to read the first section of Jack Smith's court filing.
No one's going to read that crap, okay?
Instead.
You know what?
I'm not surprised.
I'm not surprised.
But we have gotten to the point where we don't trust the media, we don't trust our legislator, we don't trust the executive, we don't trust anything.
You know why?
BAM earned our trust.
Alright, true.
Let's go to the list.
Hunter Biden laptop misinformation.
Where did the virus come from?
BioLabs in Ukraine.
No, it's exactly...
Yeah, fine.
It's okay.
Go to your ethics class.
Alright, I'm a...
My name is Zach.
I'm 38 years old.
I dropped out of college my first semester 20 years ago, so I'm not indoctrinated.
You won't hear any of that crazy misinformation coming from me.
So I watch you guys all the time.
I agree with 99% of the stuff I hear you all say.
It might have to do with the fact that watching you all helped develop my… Well, 100 would be weird anyway.
So a question for both of you about immigration.
It's kind of on the same… On the same conversation the guy earlier had whose parents were from Mexico.
I know you all say we should follow the laws that are on the books, but a more nuanced question I have is I've got several.
I work.
I'm a landscaper.
I've got several friends that are Hispanic.
Some are here illegally.
Some aren't.
One friend in particular has multiple children that have been born here.
I've got other friends that have kids that they brought with them.
And I'm curious what y'all's thoughts are on that group that doesn't really get talked about, these kids that are brought here before the age of consent.
They're not natural-born citizens.
They don't have the – they're not citizens like kids that are born here, but they were brought here before the age of consent, and then they turned into adults and have lives to live.
I was wondering what y'all's stance was on that.
Yeah, I mean I'm not running for office.
All should be deported back as a family, but again, that's why I wouldn't win an election.
Yeah, so look, my view is we've got to restore the rule of law.
Sometimes it's uncomfortable.
If your first act of entering this country broke the law, then you have to be returned to your country of origin.
Now, for kids, do they enjoy birthright citizenship?
I think if you're here as the kid of illegals, birthright citizenship doesn't apply to you.
And the reason why is even if – I'll give you a different example.
The kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here in this country legally, if that kid's born on American soil, he doesn't actually get birthright citizenship.
He's still a citizen of Mexico.
So if the kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here legally doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship, then certainly somebody who hears illegally doesn't automatically get birthright citizenship either.
So it's uncomfortable on the surface, but you've got to think through it logically, and I think that that's the principle we have to apply.
You can inform me.
Is that aspect of it covered in the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it's a great question.
So...
So I'll tell you section one of the 14th Amendment.
Here's how it goes.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens.
So the and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the part that does the heavy lifting here.
And because of that, the same reason the kid of the diplomat isn't a citizen, the kid of somebody who's here illegally doesn't enjoy that citizenship either.
And so I think that is already contemplated by the 14th Amendment.
It also doesn't apply to foreign invaders.
So if there's a foreign invader that crosses the Rio Grande and then has kids in the United States, no legal scholar in American history believes that that kid enjoys birthright citizenship.
And I'll give you one more example because you're asking a smart question.
Turns out it didn't apply to Native Americans.
So for a while it didn't even apply to the kids of Native Americans.
They had to pass a separate law to make that true.
Even after the 14th Amendment.
So that's why the arguments of birthright citizenship from the left often get distorted and oversimplified to the actual truth of what the Constitution says, and I'm on the side of the Constitution.
Thank you.
Anyone disagree?
Anyone?
Disagreements?
Okay, let's try to get a couple of those.
Yeah.
Do you disagree?
One, two?
Yeah.
And then you?
Yeah.
And then we've got to run.
My name is Reggie, and I'm a proud American born in Chicago, raised here in Georgia.
And my question is based on immigration.
So I agree that illegal immigration is probably the biggest issue that America is facing right now.
I mean, we see that the border crisis is, I mean, just devastating in major cities like Chicago, which is where I'm from, and New York.
But my question is, for people like my grandmother, who is an immigrant from the Caribbean, we had this conversation, and she told me that she never even thought to come to this country illegally.
She came using the law, following the law, and coming illegally never even crossed her mind.
And she worked hard, and she now lives a nice life here in Georgia, like me.
So my question to you, both of you, is how do we separate the people that come with good intentions, that want to build family legacies, and the people that come with bad intentions, like criminals, I appreciate the respectful question.
I respect your grandmother.
She's like my parents who came to this country legally as well.
Here's the way you separate it.
Do you come following the law or do you come breaking the law?
That's the simple distinction.
And if your first act of entering this country broke the law...
I think it is legitimate for the United States of America to treat you as a lawbreaker.
Now on the question of legal immigration, who should actually be able to come in?
My view is you should only be able to come in if you benefit America, that is the American citizens who are already here.
So that means if you're going to be a customer of the welfare state, Medicaid, welfare, etc., you shouldn't be allowed in.
If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed in.
If you don't know the first thing about the United States of America, you shouldn't be allowed in.
And if you're not willing to actually work and make contributions to the people who live here, you shouldn't be allowed in.
And I think it's that simple.
I don't think we need to make it much more complicated.
It's that simple.
I respect the question.
Yeah, but like my grandmother, she came from a very poor country.
She didn't have any resources.
She didn't have a lot of resources, but she worked very hard to build what she has today, so she wouldn't be able to come in.
Well, I think if she's going to make contributions to this country and she fits the criteria people are going to assimilate into and love the United States, that's the kind of people our legal immigration system should select for.
Today it selects for, you know who it selects for?
People who are willing to lie.
Right.
The number one human attribute that our legal immigration system selects for isn't who's smart, isn't who's going to work hard, isn't who loves the country.
It's are you willing to lie to the U.S. government or not?
If you are, you get in.
If not, you don't.
That's the way it works.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
▲
Export Selection