The Charlie Kirk Show - A Special Message From Mrs. Erika Kirk

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

In lieu of today’s regular show, Erika Kirk delivers an important message to the country following Saturday’s latest attempted assassination of President Trump. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter.

Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

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 could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noble gold investments.com. That is noble gold investments.com. You guys are welcome to ask anything. Open mic. Disagreement, most welcome. If you disagree, come to the front of the line. If you disagree, come to the front of the line. If you disagree, go to the front of the line. You guys know how it works. You disagree. You can go to the line. We'll have a great conversation here. Who are you? My name is Charlie Kirk and I love a miracle.

Why are you here? Because I love talking with people I disagree with. What have you done for your country? Started an organization that's now in a thousand-plus campuses to save the greatest culture and country ever to exist. I loved talking to people. I disagree with. When people stop talking, that's when you get violence. That's when civil war hangs. Seems to me that nothing will ever be enough for the evil in this world. Our country has become unrecognizable. These people have perverted the truth to the point that they motivated the murder of my husband. they have continuously tried to assassinate the president and anyone who stands in their way is labeled hateful, racist,

fascist, and every other trigger word that is grossly dishonest. We want the best for our country. They don't. This is why Charlie started Turning Point USA in the first place. He didn't trust the radicalized liberal teachers. And this past Saturday, it was a school teacher of all people, a school teacher that attempted to change our history for the worst with bullets. And everyone is asking, why I even went to the White House Correspondent Center?

And it was because many of the journalists in that room have attempted to dehumanize me, and I wanted to meet some of them face to face, quite frankly. Why have a conversation about me when you can have a conversation with me? So, for example, a journalist from the Daily Mail came up to me, she introduced herself and she was saying she was very gracious she was saying you look so beautiful I'm so sorry for your loss to which I replied it is so nice to put a name to the face especially with all of the slander the lies accusations that are out there surrounding my husband's murder and myself and I said to her you know what's so interesting this is my first time at the White House

correspondence dinner. And I find it so fascinating the dynamic that is going on right now because everyone is all dressed up and you guys are co-mingling in and out of each other's cocktail parties. And so for one night, you are able to put aside all of your differences for the sake of freedom of speech. And then by Monday morning, things will go back to being an absolute bloodbath between all of you. To which she replied literally, she said, I know.

Now, isn't it special, right? Isn't it tonight so special? And following that conversation, it was time to take our seats and we went into the big ballroom where the dinner was. And one of the first things I noticed when I walked into that room was quite literally the proximity

of the opposing outlets to one another. So you have one table here that's Politico and another table here that's Fox and another table here that's WAPO and you're all crammed together, elbow to elbow. And to make the night even more of a spectacle, every single 10-person table had 10 bottles of wine. And the president of the White House Correspondents Association, she did a great job of trying to make the evening have that feeling of Americana. You know, we were in a room celebrating freedom of speech despite our differences.

And the U.S. Marine Band performed the national anthem so beautifully. and then shortly thereafter, gunshots rang out and total chaos ensued. And you guys have all seen what happened next because there are a thousand videos of it. So let's discuss that fact for a second. If you were in that room, you had no way of knowing what the status of the shooter was. How many there were, or honestly really anything. It was just utter chaos. And so during an act of shooting, these journalists are using their phones to find moments to capture for clips.

They were so concerned about getting a video in a room with an active shooter that they could have accidentally and quite literally filmed themselves being shot. Many of those people have become so desensitized that fighter flight became secondary to the opportunity of putting themselves into the story, which ironically breaks the number one rule of journalism. And again, ironically enough, the shooter was a teacher. You have these people who are supposed to be teaching our children, the future of this country, and he's so unhinged that he is able to teach children by day

and then attempt to murder the president of the United States by night. And in his manifesto, he starts by contextualizing himself by saying, I am a citizen of the United States of America. And while we may have big problems with illegal immigration in this country, I have to tell you we have an even bigger problem when it comes to the systemic indoctrination and radicalization of our own citizens. This is what got my husband killed. This is what has led to three legitimate attempts on President Trump's life.

And I can speak firsthand to that unbearable toll that this must take on our first lady. There has never been a president who has faced this many assassination attempts in Americans' entire history. And after each one, the reaction from the far left has been, at best, a shrug, and in some cases a sick disappointment that the shooter was unsuccessful. We are all human beings. And if you can just, if you can just pause and just take a minute and ask yourself, how would you feel if even just one person made cruel jokes about the attempted murder of your loved one? That is what Jimmy Kimmel did to the first lady.

He said that she had the glow. of an expected widow, the glow of an expected widow. Just 48 hours before that nightmare almost became a reality. In this culture we're living in, absorbs disagreement as a form of personal betrayal. It turns having an opposing viewpoint into a moral crime worthy of punishment. And here's what I've realized through all of this, truly, having lived through quite literal hell these past seven months,

if you strip someone of their humanity long enough, you will arrive at the chilling conclusion that they don't deserve to exist at all. Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me. I have comedians dressing up in whiteface. I have people saying I'm not fit, to be CEO, and I have Candace Owens claiming I murdered my husband. And the list goes on and on and on. There is a serious epidemic of dehumanization plaguing this country. The most unthinkable tragedies

have now become commonplace in our daily headlines, and yet the media finds a way to conveniently explain away violence. This is what we're up against. This is what we're up against. This is what we're up against. What is happening right now is something none of us can afford to ignore. The evil forces working to divide us, to distract us, and to pull us apart has never been stronger. This is a moment for Americans to come together and decide what kind of country we are going to be before we lose our country altogether. In Romans chapter 12 verse 21, it says, do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. And this is why my husband, to Turning Point USA so we could have civil discourse and debate and open dialogue because when we

stop talking to each other, bad things happen. I am choosing to fight for America, for my children, for your children, and for our humanity because we all need to do our part. And by the grace of God, we will succeed and America will remain what she was always called to be, a shining city on a hill, a light to the world. So let me give you a perfect example of how it's done. My husband did it best and left us the blueprint on how to have uncomfortable conversations with those who disagree. Fuckle up everybody. Here we go. So my sense today is on immigration. I think that immigration contributes a lot to America. So my parents did come here legally and they right now are in the process again and it takes a long time. No, they came here

legally like they came with their visa and now they're renewing it and it's a different process right now. But so I'm really religious. I'm Catholic. My parents grew me up that way. And in Matthew 2, 13 through 15, it talks about how Jesus had to flee Nazareth, or no, Bethlehem, sorry. He had to flee because someone was going to die. And they were looking to kill him, and he had to flee his own country and leave everything behind because the angel spoke to Mary and Joseph that they should leave. So a lot of people do that. That's why they immigrate to the United States. A lot of people have to leave everything behind because not everyone just wants to pack up all. other things and leave. Right now I personally would hate if I had to sell my car, my house, leave my parents, leave my friends, and leave everyone. So I just want to know what your stances on that, just because in the Bible it talks about that.

Right. So first of all, Jesus actually didn't emigrate. He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire because Egypt was actually under Roman jurisdiction. That's a separate point. But there are plenty of verses that says you should welcome the stranger, and so I will grant you that. I guess the first point

I would have to ask is, should immigration always benefit the home country? I think so, yes. And that is one thing that I looked into. So there are immigrants right now working here, correct? And they get some of their paycheck cut off, right, because of Social Security and all those benefits. But they don't get those benefits because they're illegal immigrants. So do you mean legal or illegal immigrants? That distinction is very important. Illegal. They don't get those benefits. So let's just be clear. If they have a Social Security number, how'd they get that? The right way. They stole it. You don't get a, you don't get a Social Security. number has an illegal period. It does not happen. They stole it. Okay. So that's an act of theft.

So they stole an American Social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages, which drives down opportunity costs. But even beyond that, we just have to look at their action. They were not invited to come to this country. They broke in line, they cut in line, and we should not reward line cutters or border jumpers. We should reward people like your parents that actually came here legally to this country. Yeah, I understand that. point. I really do. But sometimes people generally need to leave their country because in like my mother's case for instance, there was like a terrorist attack on my family. And that's the reason my mom had to come. And thankfully, she did get it immediately. But now I've heard of so many stories where people have to wait like 10 years, 20 years, even 30 years. Like my grandma right now is trying to get the process.

And thankfully she is now. But it's taken her about 10 years now. And she makes enough money in her country. And she just wants to come here as a tourist. That's the main reason. And I do understand. that I think that my main point is that how we should implement more money into the immigration system because Trump's zero tolerance policy, that just felt cruel because there's a lot of people here that are doing well and zero tolerance. They just have to leave the country.

I feel like that was infamined of him. Yeah, but it's not their country though. And that's the, so let me just, here's it. If I went to Mexico without being invited or allowed and I took a job and the Mexican government found out, what would the Mexican government do to me? I'm not sure.

They would send me back to America. And why was the reason you left the U.S. first? So reason, that's an interesting thing. Is there ever a legitimate reason, in your opinion, to commit a crime? No. Well, then the reason doesn't matter. Because under that, say, so can you rob a bank because you wish you had more money? No, you work harder.

Then why doesn't that moral standard apply to immigration? Because the system isn't doing its job. That's why I think we should implement more money. because there is some people, like I do get it. You know, some people come here, and then I do admit some of them commit crime, but not all of them. No, no, but they're all criminals if they came illegally. That's the distinction.

By definition, they're breaking federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1312. Just their presence here is against the law. Would you be okay welcoming 500 million people into America? That's why we should implement the system to understand each person's case. Do you think 500 million people would be too many people? 500 million? I don't even think that would fit the United States. I agree.

and that's the point, is that if everyone all of a sudden declared that their life was in danger, we'd have to let in like all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, almost all of Venezuela, the standard all of a sudden starts falling apart. And we find that people lie about this, they deceive it. Here's my perspective. Why don't we try to empower those people to make the countries they're coming from greater and stronger else this problem will actually never be fixed at the root level? Does that make sense?

It does make sense, and I wish it was that easy. So for instance, I am part Peruvian and in Peru. So they were having a presidential election. And the president who was going to win was better for the country and would help out a lot more. But since it's corrupt, they made the other president win. They sent him death threats. Nearly almost killed him. He had to fake his death and leave and they jailed her.

They jailed her completely and they let the guy win. That is why it's corrupt. It's hard to fix a country when there's no help towards it. So Peru was. They were rooting for the good president. They were rooting to build their system back up. But the other president, it was rigged. It was completely rigged.

So does it make it better or worse if millions of people leave that country? For Peru? Can you, like, what do you mean by leave? If three million people left Peru, does Peru get greater or weaker? Stronger or weaker? Neither. I mean, it's in a weak state right now. I mean, it's pretty obvious.

I'm trying to even say that mass immigration is bad for everybody. It's bad for America and it's bad for the country. that people are leaving from. The only difference is that they send back American money through remittances that actually subsidize this entire thing. Let me ask one final question. If somebody comes into America without invitation and they are illegal, what do you think the penalty should be? I think it's humane to look at their case and why they had to leave everything they've ever known. We believe that we should send them back to their country of origin. I just want to make one more final point. So I do understand that, but my final point is that,

Do you agree that we should implement more money to the immigration system? No, I think we should have no immigrants in the country for the next 10 years. We have way too many people in this country, and I'll prove it to here in California. Your hospitals are overrun, your schools are overrun. Do you guys agree that you have a crowded state right now? We are a, California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained, and we need a pause on all immigration, in my opinion, to metaphorically digest. the major meal that we just ate, or else we are going to have a major, major assimilation problem,

cultural problem, cohesion problem, all sorts of issues. And I know this is a provocative thing to say, but immigration is something that you use as a way to benefit the homeland. You don't have to have immigration. But just as an example, my parents came here, like I said, legally zero dollars, and they have benefited so much to the country. They have made so much like hundreds and thousands dollars. Praise God, that's the American dream. It is, and it's just like a hard thing to do. And I want American boring young people from UC Riverside to also have that American dream

and not have to compete against foreigners for that. Thank you for your time. Can I say one point? We have a long line. Thank you. Can I really quick, though? Okay, again, what is it? Sorry, okay. I understand the American dream is hard. My parents, my mom was pregnant, working two jobs one day, and she sacrificed everything, and now she has more money than the average American.

Praise God, that is the American dream. you very much. It's hard work. Thank you. I want to talk about the debate of abortion. So I know that it's something very controversial. Some people are pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. Before I start, I want to make sure that I understand your opinion fully so I don't take, you know, what I've heard online. What is your stance on abortion? Life begins at conception. Okay. So where do you, so conception, so is that when sperm enters the egg? Is that during... When new DNA is formed? Okay, when new DNA is formed. So the egg by itself you don't think is anything. Sorry. The egg of a woman by itself, do you think it's anything? Well, it's something, but it's not a life, correct? Okay. That's, okay. So my question is,

when you talk about abortion and why you think you, why you support it, why you don't support it, sorry, why you don't support it. What do you use as your evidence? You use scientific evidence. Do you talk about the Bible? Do you use both? Mainly self, scientific and self-evident reason. Okay. So are you someone who's a follower of the Bible? I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion, but we could talk about it if you like. I find irrelevant because when I'm going to talk about abortion, there's quotes in the Bible that I think support pro-choice, in my opinion. Exodus, Exodus 21, 22 through 25, when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her child come out, so miscarriage. But there is no harm to the woman. The one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him.

and he shall pay as a judge and to determine. But if there is harm to the woman, you shall pay life for life, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, striped for stripe. So I know that that can be interpreted different ways. The Bible can interpret in many ways. There's different types, different interpretations. But this says if a person causes a miscarriage through a woman, that they will pay for the abortion. So they will pay. Another one will punish them.

That is not what this law says, but let me just ask, are you a Christian? Yes. Okay, then continue. Do you believe in the inerrant word of God? Yes. Okay, good. Yes. So it says that as the woman's husband shall impose on him and he shall pay as the judge is determined.

So the judge is determined, and it's talking about the husband, so therefore it's talking about a person, not God himself, not his judgment. So it's saying if someone has an abortion, we have the right to choose what to do to them. Didn't you say it was a miscarriage, not an abortion? It says when man strived together and hit a pregnant woman, so that's causing her to lose the baby. That's an outside cause. Outside cause. Therefore, it could mean abortion because some people find that

aggressive abortion is through violence, such as hitting because not everyone has access to medical abortion. Was it the intent for them to kill the baby? It's unclarified, so that I cannot tell you. It's unclarified. However, what I will say is that it says that it's the judges determine, the husband determines. So God's not making the choice for us what to do with a person who does that to someone's child, does that to their own child. But it does say that if the woman is harmed, her herself, not the child, then they are liable by God, their life for her life, their foot for her foot.

So what I'm saying is if somebody needs an abortion for health care, let's say a woman. woman's baby's not going to make it and if the baby stays in her womb she will die and they refuse her an abortion they refuse her that health care and she dies should the doctor be liable under god first of all those instances don't happen so let's just be clear no see you guys are so propagandized by this that only happens in a very rare case of the breaking of the uterine wall so it does happen but no but where the baby is already dead and that's the point is that the baby is already dead that's a removal of a carcass of a baby that's also still medically No, it's not. That's incorrect. No, it's not. No, it's not. A removal of a carcass of a baby is not an abortion. Those are two technically different things. It is not a DNA. It is not. A DNA is something completely different. But then, if you want to talk about scripture, do you think we are bound to all 613 Levittical laws? Yes, if you're a follower of the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow. Oh, so, so do you eat kosher?

You cannot pick and choose. Do you eat kosher? No. Well, I thought you were bound to all 613 laws. I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner. Everyone here's a sinner. But if you choose... Are we bound to it? Do you think Christians should eat kosher? If you choose to follow the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow. Of course, but we do believe in a new covenant and old covenant. So there's three types of Old Testament laws, right? They're ceremonial, they're civil and moral. So ceremonial laws, we do not honor. Civil we consider moral. We absolutely do. Why do humans decide what to follow in God's the one and it's God's word?

It's not us. It's not humans. So Paul actually authored in the book of Colloquial. That's a human. Right. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, which wrote the Bible. The ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross. Secondly, Christ our Lord repeated nine out of ten of the ten of the Ten Commandments. And he said all the laws of the prophet hang upon the two teachings, the Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 6.

But now I equally have to challenge you with Scripture. In Luke 1, when Elizabeth came in contact with Mary and both were babies, what did it say that John the Baptist did? I cannot tell you that. He leapt. Okay. Do non-babies leap? I don't understand the question.

I'm going to be honest. Isn't it a baby then worthy of protection if they're leaping? I suppose. Yes. And it was the Greek word brefos, which literally means baby, intentionally used throughout. Hold on. In Jeremiah, it says, I knew you before you were in the womb.

In Psalm, I think 139, it's one of the most. intricate verses about the detail of our formation process as human beings. And finally, because of science, because of biology, we know that human life begins at that spark of new DNA. And God says do not murder. And it's incumbent on Christians that therefore protect that life. Okay. So my biggest question is, I'm not saying that all abortion is valid.

I feel like that's up for everyone to decide. But in the most, even if it's very small percentage, in the very small percentage that a baby, is alive, but it has to be aborted for the sake of the mother. What do you think is the right thing? C-section. What is a C-section? A C-section is when you cut a mother's stomach away. Why don't they do that instead of the abortion?

Because it could be equally as dangerous. Wrong. It's much safer than an abortion and quicker. Do you have evidence? I mean, yes, it's self-evident. Can you tell me? I mean, again, there's plenty of people. He has plenty of people that are in medicine can tell you, but like, to be very clear, think about it.

Every hospital is equipped to do C-sections. You have to go to a specific place for an abortion. And a C-section, one-third out of everyone in this audience was born by C-section. C-section save lives. They do not terminate lives. And so when they say, we must abort the baby. Thanks to modern technology, that's actually a false choice. You could take the baby out of the environment and try to save its life as a C-Syrian section.

What if when the C-section happens, the baby's not able to survive on its own no matter what? Okay, well, then that's a separate circumstance. It's like saying if the baby has a heart attack after the C-section. That's not a reason not to terminate it. What do you mean? You have to give everybody a chance at life. You don't kill the baby in the womb just because you think that it's going to, well, it could hurt the mother. You take it out of that environment.

Okay. But what I'm saying is if they take the baby out and they know it's not going to survive regardless, how do they know that post-22 weeks? You don't know that. There's miracles that happen every day in the neonatal. It's true. Hold on, in the neonatal intensive care unit, there's miracles that happen every day in NICUs. And I agree.

There's definitely, they don't know 100% for sure, but there's definitely probability through science, through biology, that they know, hey, this is more likely going to happen. We don't do morals on probability. I'm not saying it's morality. I'm saying probability of a baby is going to survive or not. It doesn't matter. You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival. Oh, you do? interesting. You guys murder people based on probability of survival? Interesting. So somebody on a ventilator

should just be murdered? I mean, it's such incredible morality. Would you keep someone on a ventilator for the entirety of everything else then? It depends. There's two different things. There's no more and not yet. Once you reach the level of no more human interventions can improve this person's life or bring them back to a full life that is a separate moral decision than not yet. When a human being is at not yet, which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life. When a human being is at no more, it's a completely separate moral dimension and decision to make. No more and not yet are the ways to look at pro-life decisions. That makes sense?

Yes, that makes sense. Well, thank you for debating with me. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I agree to disagree. I have a friend named Thomas Sheedy. He is the founder of an organization called Atheist for Liberty. He is openly conservative, but he's mostly interested in atheist activism and normalizing atheism in all sex, including the conservative movement.

He seems to be under the impression that a lot of conservatism, including you, are more hesitant to work with atheist organizations. Is there any truth to that? Yes and no. I mean, if you're an atheist and you want to be part of the conservative movement, go ahead. But you must be an honest atheist and acknowledge that morality is definitionally subjective without a belief in God. You cannot be an atheist and believe in objective morality. It is an impossibility. And true atheists will acknowledge us.

At some point, you have an ought claim. well, things ought to be a certain way. We as Christians are we that believe in the divine. We have is claims that murder is wrong, whereas an atheist will say, well, murder ought to be wrong, because you can't have an objective definition if there is not a divine eternal power over you. So look, if an atheist wants to fight alongside of us to end abortion or to try and end the mass occurring of our kids, that's called gender affirming care, if an atheist wants to march alongside of us to say no men and female sports, They're more than welcome to be able to do that.

But atheists for liberty is an interesting phrase because I don't believe you can have liberty without God because liberty is not man's idea. It is God's idea. That's just my own personal belief and it's also the belief of everything that built this nation. But yes, I know a lot of good atheists. The question, though, is how do you know they're good? It's because you're appealing to a moral authority above just the secular material realm, one that is transcendent we would believe given by God. Well, I don't believe in objective morality. I do know there are plenty of atheists who are moral objectivists.

Are you an atheist? Sorry to interrupt. Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay, cool. So let me just, can I ask you a question? And I don't mean, I know this is your first time at the mic, so I'm just going to try to be tender in doing this. Okay, I appreciate that. So you don't believe in objective morality, right? I personally don't.

Okay. Was the Holocaust objectively wrong? Objectively, no, but it had been better if it didn't happen because most people won't want that to happen. So that's where we, that's where we are on different planets. And that's okay. I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm trying to be graceful in the way that we're going about this. Do you think Hitler was objectively evil? No, because it's subjective. But I just hope all of you guys understand he's being an honest atheist to your credit

because as an atheist you're not allowed to say anything is objectively right or wrong. I come from a worldview that when you butcher six million people, that is objectively wrong no matter what. and it's a very important, it's a very important truth claim because when you do not have objective truth anchoring your society, then it becomes a power struggle. If you do not have truth, then power will reign. Whoever can get the most amount of power, then ends up having the most amount of say over society. We believe what is objectively right, true, good, and beautiful should be transcended over society. Your thoughts. So do you believe objective morality specifically comes from the Bible? Yes and no. It's also, it's in nature. and the Bible explains nature. So objective morality can be discovered in many different cultures and societies pointing towards what we believe is the ultimate objective truth, Jesus Christ.

C.S. Lewis explained this the best in his book Abolition of Man, which is that almost every religion talks about a certain way to live, a Tao or a path that we should be on. And so more simply than just the Bible, we believe in what the founders believed, which is an ethical monotheism, that there is one God, he has a general way that he wants you to live. For example, murdering is bad, kidnapping is wrong, defense of the innocent, and we should do our best to try to live alongside of that path. Okay, well, I think those are very interesting examples. You bring up the founders, you bring up Hitler,

but Hitler was his help-proclaimed Catholic, and he called Nazism a Christian movement. Yeah, I would be careful saying that. He was not, that's okay. He called himself a Catholic. He specifically said in 1927, our movement is Christian, had on the belt buckles God on our side. Yet, they said to the almighty God.

Atheists were not trusted to be in the SS. Even if I grant you that, despite the fact that he killed a lot of pastors and priests, and of course you can pervert things in the name of God. No one denounces that. Just as a side note, though, far more people died under the banner of atheism than Christianity in the 20th century. Mao was an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Believing in no God actually led to the,

destruction and the murder of well over 100 million people. And that's fine. So again, if atheists want to come alongside us as conservatives and fight for what is good, that is great, but I will never acknowledge that atheists can tell me what is objectively good. They can only give me a preference. They cannot tell me what is right. And preferences eventually will lead you towards moral and societal decline. Okay, so I think you just listed a bunch of communists, and it's worth acknowledging the vast majority of atheists or not communists, just like the vast majority Christians are not theocrats who don't support the divine right. It's also worth acknowledging that the founders were actually inspired by Enlightenment values, not by the Bible.

America was founded as a second nation. We were the first, quote-unquote, Gallus Constitution. Again, I've done this so many times, so I don't know if we want to waste our time doing this, but 55 out of 56 of the signers of the Declaration were Bible-bel believing church attending Christians. 9 to 13 of the states of the time of ratification required a declaration of faith in order for you to serve in the states. We were our birth certificate, which is the Mayflower Compact, said explicitly, we are here to spread Christianity throughout the land. It was the first great revival that led to the American Revolution of Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Mayhew and George Whitfield that preached all across the eastern seaboard. John Adams famously said the Constitution is written solely for a moral and religious people.

It's wholly inadequate for the people of any other. We were a Christian nation that was able to embrace the idea of a free society. God has mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence. Not only that, Jesus Christ has mentioned in the Declaration Independence, where it says we appeal. to the divine judge of the universe, which of course is a direct appeal to Jesus in the book of Revelation. Yes, they were rationalist, enlightenment values that informed some of the founders, but it irrefutably was a Christian nation. Maryland was Catholic. Pennsylvania was Quaker. Almost every state had their own, like, specific type of Christian preference. The idea of an atheist

or not believing in any God was an idea that was so foreign to the founders, even Thomas Jefferson, the great deist, he revered the Bible, albeit with, you know, some significant edits. However, The idea of believing in no cosmological or no axiological or no teleological or no ontological being would be a concept that our founding fathers are not just fine form. They would find it extraordinarily dangerous. Why? Because the French Revolution was happening simultaneously as the American Revolution, which was explicitly atheists. They actually recreated their own gods and had, they said, we are going to appeal to what?

The God of Reason. And this is my final contention is that when I talk to atheists, the French Revolution is a great example. They literally tried to change the Gregorian calendar to a 10-day week. They went and imprisoned people of faith. They put priests in jail, all these different sorts of things. They said, we are going to appeal to the God of reason. Well, how did that work out? It worked out with the guillotine and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

The French Revolution was one of the greatest disasters in human recorded history. Contrast that with the American Revolution. Why did the American Revolution create the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world? And the French Revolution resulted in a lot of blood and even the killing of their own once leader, Maximilian Robespierre. It's because we were anchored on Christian ideas. If you are not anchored on Christian ideas, then don't be surprised, and all of a sudden, there is no fruit to the harvest that you're trying to create. I'm an atheist, so I disagree with your religious claims.

Do you believe in absolute truth? I'm not sure you can provide me just positive evidence that there is absolute truth. So the answer would be, I'm not sure. Are you absolutely not sure? I'm not sure if I'm absolutely not sure. See, this works if you say no, but it doesn't work if you bottom out in the I'm not, I don't know question. Right, no, but saying you're not sure, You are not even sure if you're not sure.

So at some point, you're just always have to make a truth claim, yeah? No, you can just be not sure about everything all the way down. I don't see why you can't. And my answer would be, I think truth is instrumentalist in theory. I think it's a thing we choose pragmatically. For the purposes of discussion, I think you can say, yeah, I think truth exists pragmatically. Regardless of that, I don't see how you get to God. Are you alive?

Huh? Are you alive? I think I'm alive, yeah. Think you're alive? Yeah. Is the sun shining? I think it's shining, yeah. From my frame of reference, it is shining.

Notice how none of this... I mean, notice how you've gotten no steps closer to proving God. No, I'm asking questions, man. Yeah, okay. Yeah, but... Are you sure we didn't? Yeah, I'm sure... Are you sure we didn't get close to God?

I'm sure in the pragmatic instrumental sense. How sure are you that we didn't? In the pragmatic instrumental sense, absolutely sure. I see truth as a utility. So there is a truth that's absolute? No, it's instrumentally true. But you just said it was absolute. No, absolutely sure.

In the instrumental... sense of the word truth. This is a philosophical tradition that dates back hundreds of years instrumentalism. Yeah, which of course we don't subscribe to it. Obviously, yeah. So do you believe that murder is objectively wrong?

Epistemologically objective or ontologically objective? Morally. See, you didn't answer the question, but... Both epistemologically and ontologically. But for the purpose of discussion... Okay, so by what you mean, no, I don't think it's objective.

Was Hitler a bad person objectively? No, if you... mean by, by the way, by the way. Dude, dude, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, but he's being honest. At its core, atheists cannot say that Hitler was bad. Wait, wait, wait, can I make the claim now? Notice who here is relying on feelings and knocked facts? Your argument is I feel that Hitler was objective.

No, no, I know. No, no, you feel that way. Can you provide me evidence of how you know? Can you provide me evidence that morality is objective? No, of course I can, because, well, first of all, morality is both reason and revelation, and it's built within to us that murder is wrong. Wait, okay. Where's your evidence of that? Wait, wait, I'm so sorry.

Is that a claim? That's a claim. Okay, we could spend multiple hours, but in the Western tradition... So notice how you're saying by tradition, by those standards, these are all claims of non-truth value. Hold on, yes, they are. We believe that truth was revealed to us. We believe, claim.

By God, hold on. But let me... You can keep on interrupting us. Okay, keep going. But let me prove to you how silly your viewpoint is. Okay. and how self-evidently wrong. Okay.

Is it objectively wrong to kids? When you say objective, what I mean by objective, once again, once again. Do you can I ask you something? No, no, no. Notice how you still haven't given me dispositive evidence and morality's objective. You're merely saying, my answer is I feel that way.

Sure, I feel that way. That's all I can know. It's objectively wrong to the laws of nature. What law of nature? The self-evident nature of existence. Where is there a proof that itself? Show me the logical proof. that is self-evident. Okay, it's in your reason

that God gave you in the consciousness and the soul that you have. Prove that God gave it to me. Okay, but again, your existence is proof of that. Again, we can get back down to the first principles of this, but again... We can, but you don't want to because you know it doesn't look good. No, it looks actually really good.

No, because you can't give evidence for it. Built within, again, interrupting does not make you right. But you keep repeating your point. I get your point. No, I don't. So let me ask you a question in closing. Since you can't objectively say that Hitler was bad or that child is wrong. So how did the universe come into existence? I don't know. Okay, but science says that it was a big bang or a beginning point, right?

Okay. So using logic, which you believe in. Is this the Kalam cosmological argument? Well, hold on. Again, you keep interrupting. Using logic, if space, time, and matter had a starting point, then logically, shouldn't something outside of space, time, and matter have started those things? How do you know that cause is personal? How do you know that cause is worth praying to? How do you know anything? That's not the question. Wait, wait, wait, okay, sure, there is a cause. Oh, that cause is God because it's outside of space time and matter. Wait, wait, no, no, no. But you believe in different things about God. You think that God is personal.

That's not what we're debating. No, we're arguing about God. We're arguing about Christian God. Yeah, religion. Hold on, no, no, we're not debating it. We're debating whether or not there's a God or not. No, the Christian God. I said religion, that you're a religious person.

You're a Christian in nature. You follow a religious tradition. Calm down. You said you're an atheist. Wait, no, God historically, Aquinas even defines it this way. It's a personal god. You still haven't gotten to me to prove that it's personal. I'm happy to get to that.

Okay, then get to it. Look, here's what I find with atheists. They don't want to worship or acknowledge God because many atheists think they are God, and you embody that really well. I didn't know you were a mind reader, Charlie. This is news to me. It's not a mind reader.

I can tell by your behavior. I will say this. I hope that you give your life to Jesus Christ. I hope you do. I hope you can find evidence. I hope you can find evidence. You know what's interesting. There is evidence.

There is evidence that Jesus... Hold on. Last thing. Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real historical? historical figure. Yes. Do you believe that the Gospels are historically accurate and we can prove them with archaeological evidence? Some parts are, some parts are metaphors, some parts are allegories, some parts are literal. It depends. Some parts are attempts at history. It depends which book or gospel. Using rational analysis, why would the disciples lie about the resurrection of Christ?

Okay, we can talk about this. People, they can be mistakenly wrong about it. So they would be mistakenly wrong up to the point where they get marty, burned, and crucified? The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe it's true. All the way up into the point of death? The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe it's true. I understand your position. Your position is that the 12 disciples who knew Christ best saw him die and then they all believed a mistaken conspiracy for the rest of their life.

All of them together as a conspiracy. Yes. Yes. There is no first-town account from the 500. The Gospels are all written by these people. People have died for crazy claims in the past that we know aren't true. These are all facts about history. That's not correct.

Okay, one of the Gospels was written by one of his closest associates, Matthew the tax collector. Luke was a fact fighter that was hired by... No, I didn't say the Gospels weren't written by them. I said there's no evidence from the 500 that he appeared to. There's no first-hand accounts. Again, that's not correct. Thank you for your time. We'll get to the next question.

Okay, you can not answer. We will pray for you. Thank you. Be respectful, guys. You can do what he wants. Oh, can I start now? Nice to meet you, Charlie. I'm a big fan.

I think you're very beautiful, man. I admire you physically. but no homo no homo no homo I did have a question something I don't find very interesting about you something I find kind of repulsive is that I believe you said that the Civil Rights Act was bad

and that we shouldn't have that okay well thank you I appreciate that I don't like you as much as Charlie though first of what's your name oh sorry I don't want to be like filmed and stuff I'm anonymous number one anonymous guy

Okay. Well, hello. Nice to meet you, anonymous guy. Thank you. Thank you. Nice to meet you, too. Yeah. I believe in part of the essence of the Civil Rights Act went way too far, way too wide.

Oh, how did it go too far? Well, for example, it created an entire Civil Rights Leviathan that gave us affirmative action. Civil Rights Leviathan? What do you mean? Yeah, so if you can let me finish three words in. Sorry. It allowed the Department of Justice to go after people that have different skin color, aka white people, and prevent them from getting jobs in college admissions.

You have a job. I'm sorry? You have a job. No, you're right, I do. Right. But just until Trump came around, until the Supreme Court decision, thanks to the Civil Rights Act, if you have white skin color, it's much harder to get into a college than if someone has black skin color. Much harder.

You have to get higher test scores. It's a much harder pool, largely thanks to the precedent set by the Civil Rights Act, not to mention all the trans stuff that we're seeing. We're seeing men be able to win trophies and medals from women across the country, and they use the Civil Rights Act to justify it. Okay. I think I see what you're coming from. So you think that it's harder for.

white people because of black people, they could have lower tech scores. That's not what I think. That's what you're saying. Okay. Well, I guess what I would say, too, I think perhaps, you're familiar with the term equity, right, where different people have different circumstances. It's Marxism.

I reject the frame of it. Whether you reject it or not. I think it's a prescient concept in this argument. Because what you have to understand is that when you're, for example, you're born in like a black name. You're born in like Oblock or something, like a very, very, like a, oh, you know, O block is?

Oh, well, if you're, if you're born there, if you're born in a very poor area like that, with like very low opportunity, very, very, very poor schools or very low ratings, where the average test scores much lower. When you're in that environment, you have the whole system up against you, right? So, uh, it, so when you say in that kind of circumstance, when you're facing the whole, I guess, Leviathan of systemic racism, so. So, do you say that's, sorry, let me just, no, no, sure. When you say it's fair to, for example, lower the standard because knowing,

that their circumstances were like that, perhaps based on what they had, was presented to them, they had the correct amount of merit to get into a school. Okay, so are you a student here? I'm guessing you are. Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm a pretty good student.

Oh, yeah, I would say I'm a good student. I have a pretty high GPA. Okay, can you give your GPA to her because she's a woman of color, please? Oh, well, you want me to give you a, I mean, I can. Would you be willing to do that? Yeah, sure, yeah, sure. You'd be cool with that?

Yeah, I'm fine. Wait, wait, you mean, like, tell her or, like, give it to her? No, by force. So, let me tell what I'm going to do. By force, white man. Okay. I'm going to take your GPA. I'm going to give it to a woman of color.

Okay. You're cool with that. I mean, yeah, I can just work back up. No, there's no working back up. I can pull myself up on my boots shafts. No, there's no working back up. What do you mean you can't work back up? That's the whole point of conservatism, isn't it?

I'm going to keep on taking it from you because that's equity. And you're cool with that. What? But that's not equity in practice. Equity isn't taken. Equity is applying the equal standard. If you give, how do you get? You must take and then you give.

Wait, what do you mean? That which is given must first be taken. Well, what's being taken? Well, in this case, grades from you to grades to her. No one's taking my grades, though. That's not what affirmative action is. Hold on a second. No one takes your grades.

Hold on a second. If you only have so many, you only have so many positions at University South Florida to come in. Right? There's a set number. Let's say it's 20,000 people, okay? And we're going to say we're going to lower the test standards so that somebody that's a woman of color can come in. And therefore, it's harder for you. So it's a higher bar for you, lower bar for them.

definitionally, it's a redistribution of test scores to somebody else. Just by the definition. And you're okay with that. Well, I guess I would ask then, if we were to do what you're doing, I guess that's what's happening under Trump, right? Well, no, it's actually been happening in the last 40 years. Okay, actually, yeah, whatever. Okay, so when you say that, if you do that,

then a lot of people aren't going to get into school, and then they won't be able to uplift themselves. They won't be to have prosperous families. They won't be able to equalize the economic status because you need to give them a little jump start. You know what you have a car, right? How is that? How is that?

Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's good. But no, how has that worked the last 40 years? We've had robust affirmative action. We've had hiring practices. Has it made Black America more successful? I can answer that easily. It's because, oh, sorry. It's because, sorry, what am I going for?

I don't know. You're a funny guy. So what happened is, even after the civil rights act, you know what I believe, I believe the term is massive resistance? It was a movement in, after the abrupt, Board of Education in Virginia were essentially the legislature, which was still white supremacist, which is still extremely racist, they decided that no, we're going to do everything that feasibly possible within our means to stop black people from going to white schools.

You even see this in, I believe it was the Little Rock Nine, right? Even after it was legalized at the state level, white supremacist mob still mobilized to prevent it. So even if it de facto, it's gone. Did you, it still exists? Let me ask you a very simple question, a term you keep on throwing around. Got you. What is racism?

What is racism? That's a very complicated question. No, it's not. I mean, there's a simple answer, and then there's the highly theoretical answer. Give me the simple. The simple answer will essentially be because... Because we have, like, different skin colors that he's treated a different way than me. He has, like, a different...

I'm bringing to me... No, no, no, but what is racism? Oh, it's discrimination. Based on the color of skin. Got it. Thank you. So isn't it racist then to then penalize white people to... come into college or to get jobs based on the color of their skin?

Wouldn't that be racist? So you're arguing for a very racist policy, which is that we should actively discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, which is affirmative action in DEI in practice. I just don't, I just disagree with the premise that you can do, like, anti-white racism because, uh, because... Wait, can you be racist against white people? No, bro, I'm a cracker, bro.

What the f***? No, you can't be racist. It's like, bro. There's so many crackers here, bro. There's your clip, bro. There's your clip. You're going to do political violence to me, bro? Why are you saying that to me? You're making me scared.

So let me tell you what we believe, because you tell us what you believe. Your worldview is indistinguishable from the KKK, that you want to organize the world based on skin color. We want to organize the world based on merit and character, based on how hard you work, what you bring to the table. I believe it's destructive and wrong to say that, people are going to be organized or have their future set based on the color of their skin. I think it's tribalistic. I think it is divisive. And I think it hurts the excellence of a country.

You asked a question, well, how are we going to help other communities? You know how you help other communities? Stop pandering to them and start treating them like individuals made in the image of God, not tribes to be organized for political purposes. Okay. So do you think like when Trump is a, now and not he's president, now that racism is gone now because Trump is back and we're no longer pandering, right? Do you think that the conditions of black people have, like, do you think O'block is going to become, like, a much nicer place? Do you think that these very downturned sort of black neighborhoods

that have been sort of left behind? Do you think they're going to become revitalized now? Is that what you think is going to happen? Yeah, they'll do better for sure. You think they're going to do better? Now that we've stopped helping them, they're going to do better. Well, see, that's an interesting thing. Because that seems like contradictory to me, just on basic logic.

Well, actually, black Americans under Donald Trump in the first term, saw the greatest economic renaissance that they saw since the 1950s. Do you don't think that's due to Obama though? Lowest unemployment, revitalization, amazing investment in their communities, opportunity zones. But that's when we had affirmative action.

So why wouldn't that be bad? Well, again, we actually got rid of affirmative action now. It's going to do even better. Those are unrelated things, though, just to be perfectly clear. They don't seem unrelated to me. Well, affirmative action is... A affirmative action is... I'm sorry.

I don't mean to interrupt you. No, you are. I'm sorry. Affirmative action is large. largely federal government hiring practices and the adjacent institutions. I think that all communities will do even better when we stop living under the soft bigotry of low expectations. Inherent in your argument is that we have to pander to certain communities based on the color of their skin because they can't do as well as white people.

I reject the premise. I think that we should try to say, I don't care about the color of your skin. I care about what you bring to the table. And stop pandering to people based on special criteria, points and acceptance to college, saying that we're going to make it easier for one group and harder for another group. I don't think it's pending though. I think it's understanding.

Okay, but let me... Do you think that... Do you think that we should have black-only dormitories in America? No, why would I want that? Okay, well, there's hundreds of schools that have those, actually. What do you mean black-only? Like, white people are not allowed in Adolf. No, white people are not allowed.

White people are not allowed it. We have black-only graduation ceremonies across the country. Well, those are from a... Well, I believe you're... Those are most likely at, like, like, HBCUs, right? No. The University of Michigan has one. Yale has one. Harvard has one.

So we're agreeing that that is wrong. That is the furthest extension of hyper race obsession. So you can choose one or the other. You can be race obsessed or merit obsessed. We as conservatives decide to be merit obsessed. To build a country based on how hard you work and what you're able to deliver. Okay. So wait, here.

Just I was a final point? Yeah, final point. Sure. Okay. This thing's a little close. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend your wonderful setup here. Yeah, so I guess I'll just restate my point that I don't believe, you mentioned all-black dormitories, right? I mean, I don't really comment on that.

I mean, I don't know if that's real. To me, that sounds fake, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. It's very real. Okay. But I just think it's very irrelevant kind of like aesthetic focus. It doesn't really affect the material conditions of like black. But if you heard there were white-only dormitories, there'd be marching in the streets, right? Oh, well, because, okay, I get it.

The difference is, like, for example, if we want to go back to segregation, the all-white dormitory was nice as a all-black one was shit. So if that's, if that's, if that was brought back, okay, if we were to do it all-white dormitory and all-black dormitory. I'm not recommending it. I think actually segregation is wrong and evil, and we're heading, until Donald Trump, we were heading in that direction. Until, but like, okay, I'll go back to,

because I did let, I let, let's slip by, but you mentioned that, like, in the early years of the Donald Trump presidency, right, that the conditions, the employment and stuff are going, out for Black people. Well, I would say is the economy works up slow. It works at like a time dilation for policies initially enacted. So, well, I would probably assume based on what you said to me is that it was the Obama-era policies that actually led to that and not the Trump policies because stuff like

tax cuts. I just love it. It doesn't really help. In a year from now, we're going to have the greatest economy ever. They're going to say it's all Biden. It's all Biden. Well, I mean, if we, I don't think that's going to happen. I personally, I think the economy is going to shit with what Elon Musk is doing.

But if that, if that was to happen, I mean, I guess my whole. World view, but I'm pretty certain it's not going to happen. What about Elon's doing bothers you? Do you not want to see the government efficient? The government is efficient. He's just firing everybody. It looks like he did the Twitter, Brad. Y'all see what happened?

The Twitter Brits braces us. That's the Nazi haven. It went from a pretty accepting place to like what, like, where like the average blue check market is saying, Hail Hitler. Like, Elon Musk himself has replied to like, well, he did the Nazi salute.

Like, we're not going to forget about that, are we? No, he did. What do you mean? Y'all have seen that clip, bro? Y'all see what he did that? All right. Oh, okay.

And by the way, I just want to thank you for something. You're welcome. I want to thank you. Do I get a portion of like the TikTok revenue that you get from this? I want to thank you. I want to thank you for something. Oh, yeah. You are a perfect reminder why we want in November.

So thank you for that. I really appreciate it. Thank you. So you would say I'm a misinformation machine. That's fine. Yeah. Fine. You're a teacher.

Yes. What is a woman? What is a woman? Oh, buddy. All right. So we define gender as a set of preferences that you have. Excuse me. Gender.

Gender is a set of preferences we have. Woman. Woman is a social construct that we've agreed upon. Typically, we imagine womanhood as makeup or whatever. It is, there is a difference between the word woman and being a biological female. Woman is a social construct that we use. Listen for a second. I'm telling you what it means.

woman is a social construct. We agree on these set of preferences. If I tell you that I'm a man is because I want you to know that I like these set of preferences. If I tell you I'm a woman, it's because I want you to know that I agree with these set of preferences.

Can men get birth? Can men or can males? Because males can't. Listen for a second. If you listen to your bio professors, you'd understand there's a difference between biology and what we think about. So I want to thank you for proving a great point.

You are why we should eliminate the Department of Education. Thank you very much. You are here making a Trump's. Am I? This is a pro-Trump speech for you. This has nothing to do with genders or children. I'll talk about anything you want to talk about. You're sitting here telling me how much you love Trump.

Thank you. Have a great day. God bless you. I'll pray for you. Oh, my goodness. That will help a lot. Prayer is a powerful thing. Yes, it is.

It has done horrendous things to this point. Prayer has done horrendous things to this. It has through Christianity and through a lot of other religions. Narrow-minded religions have caused a lot of pain and suffering on this planet. More people have died over the last 100 years under the guise of Marxism and stateism than any other ideology, not even close. More people have died. A hundred million people died under communism the last hundred years. A hundred million?

Yeah, 60 in Mao's China. 30 in Stalin's Russia. Two million in Pol Potts, Cambodia. At least 200,000 in Cuba. I can keep going. I'm not preaching communism here. No, but I'm saying more people have died under state. Nothing about children.

You're telling me how much you support Trump and how much communism sucks. I'll talk about whatever you want to talk about. It's your conversation. So what do you believe? I believe that there's a remedy to situations and not a political battle. I believe that if we work together and open our minds instead of militarizing ourselves, we could come up with a solution. Isn't talking how we come to solutions?

Sure. But getting mad and making political. political stances on who you love and what the president's doing is so great and what the comments are doing so bad. It's not a conversation. It's a statement. Well, I'll have a conversation. Maybe we could have a conversation in the history building sometime. About what? Maybe we could have a conversation in the history building sometime. Yes, history will tell us that when government grows too big, people suffer and die. Yes. That's what the history building should tell you. History will also tell you that we live in the

greatest country ever to exist. History will also tell you that Western civilization is the greatest miracle that humans ever created. Western history will tell you that. Any history will tell you that. Any history is a fall of you. I have to be in class, so I would really love to continue. God bless you. Thank you. Do you say it's a lie? Change your mind again? Change my mind? We're just kind of talking, yeah. Similar. Someone talked about, like, has it changed my mind in that? It's similar, yeah. America is the greatest country ever to exist. Not even close.

What country would you say is the greatest? What makes the country great? Most productive, most accepting, most generous, most benevolence. Most accepting? Yes. We take in half the world's immigrants every single year. How is this not accepting? What does that have to do about not being accepted?

Who are you? My name is Charlie Kirk, and I love America. Are you there? Because I love talking with people I disagree with. started an organization that's now in a thousand plus campuses to save the greatest culture and country ever to exist. Hires Vets. And Hires Vets. And Hires Vets.

And I've had thousands of hours of conversation about these ideas. Well, considering I've been assaulted, followed, stalked, and had things thrown at me, the greatest protection I have is cameras. It's a public space. Okay. One second. One second. One second. I want to grab this up and just.

It's all good. But what country would you say is greater than this one? I just said, I mean, we take in half. I mean, we are the... You say that the union has always made the greatest decision. Because nobody's perfect, right? I never said America was a perfect country ever. Nor have we, we've made a lot of mistakes.

No, no, no, no, no. That's not what I've said. Because from an objective analysis... Objective analysis. Correct. A world history. Hello, how are you? We are the most creative, the most accepting, the most benevolent, the most generous, most forward-thinking and productive country ever to exist.

We are a country that sent 37,000 of our own citizens to die on the Korean Peninsula so South Korea could exist, and we asked for nothing in return. No country's ever done anything close to that. We sent a milk... Reading history? How is that not true what I just said? No, but what am I saying that's untrue? Americans gave away $500 billion to charity last year, voluntarily.

We taken half of the world's immigrants, half. Do you know that only 5% of the money that you put into a non-profit or a charity even has to be used? So most charities and most foundations will use 90 plus percent of the net assets they get every single year. What? What? No, you can look at the IRS website. You can look at the IRS website. I understand what I'm saying might bother you,

but we're also the most accepting least racist, most diverse, multiracial country in the world, by far. We've been in... Okay, how? Look at the United... We've taken half the world's immigrants every single year. So? So...

Most America's not living in poverty. Yes, really. Are you educated on that? We're the richest country in the world, by far. We have an American middle class is a uniquely American concept. You ever walk down the street and see all the homeless people? Excuse me.

I grew up in a gang, gang infested neighborhood. So you want to talk to poor people. I'm talking, and we're talking to you from a perspective. You know that America's poor actually in the richest 1% in the world. A remarkable amount. The richest 1% of what? Of people in the world. What I'm saying is that a very poor person in America is relatively extraordinarily rich by world standards.

Yes. Hello, how are you? I don't want to understand. What's this been called? I go around universities and have challenging conversations because that's what is so important to our country is to find our disagreements respectfully because when people stop talking, that's when violence happens.

You could see that happen all across the world. And I'm not really interested in being found, so I understand I'm in America and that's right to do that. Where are you from? I'm in Australia. Oh, great, okay. And I just want to get an understanding why you can do that. So I've been in Tennessee, different universities. I've never seen someone do

this. Yes. Well, it's a growing trend because people like me are facing violence, assault. The left. Yes, the campus, Antifa. I've been stormed out of restaurants. I've been assaulted publicly. Multiple death threats.

Well, the campus left has been incited by death. democratic leadership and trained to go after people like me. Okay, so that part of the society, what motor is you to come at here? Well, because I love talking to people I disagree with. Because in America we have a tradition for public discourse and dialogue, going back to the Lincoln Douglas debates, going back to Teddy Roosevelt screaming at political opponents, going back to how the U.S. Congress should exist. Okay, so what's your goal in this?

To... To... By the way, you told, because you should be... I'm freezing. We're in the shade. You should have popped yourself out in the sun, so you're going. No, this is where that we have to be. My goal is to...

Why do you have to be here? Well, because you have to have permits and stuff to do this. Yeah, this is a... Despite the First Amendment, they relegate you to a certain area. But also, number two, there's more people that agree with me than some people would actually believe, and they come out of the woodwork when I do stuff like this. And finally, we record all of it so that we put on the Internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking,

that's when you get violence. That's when Civil War happens. Because you start to think the other side is so evil and they lose their humanity. Marriagees break apart when you stop talking. Churches fall apart. Businesses, companies, friendships, relationships. Can I, can I say you one thing? Sure. I have to go. Yes.

Some people from the university here, there's just one thing that I've seen as you've been sitting here, shivering in the cold. Is that you really, you probably have some really good points to say, and that's mine. And I'm trying to listen and understand as I'm here, because I'm going to go home and Saturday and I'm away from all of this. But you really quickly sleep into a rhetoric.

Into what? Into what? I don't know what that word means. Rhetoric. Oh, rhetoric. I didn't hear it right. Okay. That makes you,

you kind of start to tip off things and the points that you're trying to make. I'm sure you know your arguments really well, but from the people I watch standing here, they kind of get defensive towards it. Do you think they hear that stuff commonly, though? Well, I don't know if they hear the way you present it. That's all, because I think you become quite lecturing.

And it's not a criticism. Sure. you're comfortable with it. But if it's a conversation that you want, I think for your approach, like you can... Yeah, but at least 10 or 12 things I told that I said that were factual.

That's your point, that you told. Yes. Telling is what a conversation. But they can walk away at any time. Conversation takes two people. You told me that's not what you want. But they didn't hear it. For example, I said 90 plus percent

of Border Patrol agents support building the wall. They immediately dismissed it. They never heard that before. So I'm saying things that are not commonly discussed on a university. I'm all I'm saying is that is a radio. which way you say it sometimes. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. So much. I appreciate it. Thank you. I'm technically a Democrat, but I have very conservative views because I'm faith-based all the way.

So I have a question, which is also kind of a disagreement, but I want to build it up, okay? So, of course, you just said Jesus is the most important thing for everyone out here. And so can you please explain to everyone out here what Jesus stood for, and especially, the qualities of love, how to love your neighbor, even if they don't agree with you. So what is your name again? Talise. Talise. That's a beautiful question.

I'm glad you came up to ask it. But I want to also just add something, because you're right. Jesus fully embodied two things simultaneously that showed his divine and his godly nature, because not that Jesus said good things. Jesus is Lord. Christ is king and Jesus is God on top of just being a guy with a lot of good ideas. So John 8, if I'm drawing, from memory correctly, best embodies both Christ's mercy and love, but also his commitment to

truth. And sometimes in the modern gospel, we overemphasize the grace and we under-emphasize the truth. And so we are far too willing to say, hey, Jesus loves everybody, but we don't get to the second part of the conversation and says Jesus doesn't want you to live in sin. So this is, in John 8, it's best embodied, right? Almost every Christian in this audience would be able to tell you the first part of this, which is a bunch of Sadducees and Pharisees are sitting around, standing around with rocks and they're about to stone the prostitute woman. And Jesus

comes up and says, let the first among you without sin cast the first stone. And everyone starts dropping the rocks. But what comes next shows that Christ is not just grace-focused. He's simultaneously truth-focused. He goes up to the woman who had a career in selling herself

for sex and said, sin no more. Now, imagine today how much trouble you would get in if you would go up to somebody and say stop sinning that you're being too judgmental no no you're actually being christ-like so jesus stood he was 100% grace and truth and that tension is very hard in a modern world because we want to over-emphasize grace when in reality christ loves us too much to have us continue to live in sin he wants us to try to elevate our actions to glorify god and all that we do i agree 100% um and so to build all my

question, I really want to talk about DEI. And so with our Christian, I will agree with you a lot of, I read the Bible for myself, so I knew what that scripture said. But my question is, how can Christian teachings on love, equity, and justice inform and shape discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion in today's society? And so to also, Jesus hung out with sinners. He did not judge. He told the truth. And so I think that a lot of people in society today, when we talk about political views that are opposition, we judge them because we think, oh, because you voted for Trump, you agree on everything when that's not the case, right? And I want you to talk about that. Very good. So, and then I'll connect to the DEI, and I'm going to make a case, and I don't know if it'll

be persuasive to do why I think DEI is unbiblical. And I'm going to try to make that case, okay? But first, let me comment on your astute point, which is that Christ wants us to be around people that are not like us. This is why I go to college campuses, but, But more and more, I go to college campuses, I'm getting a lot of big crowds. So it's kind of unusual. I used to go here and get heckled and have very small crowds. But let me demonstrate this in an unusual way. Almost every person in its audience would say Christ wants us to be salt and light.

Now, what are the two characteristics of salt and light? They change the environments that they come in contact with. They do not affirm. They do not conform. They change for the better. It's very important, everybody. We as Christians are called to change the environment that we come in touch with. How's it going?

So I'm a boring getting believer in Jesus. But I want to hear your thoughts, Charlie, because sometimes I really struggle to align myself with the conservative side of the issues in our country. And multiple experiences in my life, whether it be it was just conversation that somebody picked up or whatever, how I look, whatever it may be, assumptions, my political views or where I'm leaning have blocked and gotten. in front of what I really believe in, which is advancing the gospel. And so my issue sometimes is that I want to be patriotic.

I want to, you know, vote for and be public about that which I think is best for my country. But I don't want it to get in front of my main goal, what I feel like I've been placed here on this earth for, which is advancing the gospel to all people, not just conservatives, not just people who are comfortable walking in the church, but the far left of the left who are in their season of life for reasons I don't know. And I don't want what I believe to be best for this country to get in the way of what's going to ultimately grow the kingdom of God. It's a great question. What's your name? Matt. Matt, thank you. Let's repeat what you said because it's correct. The most important thing in the world is to know Christ and make him known. The second most

important thing, though, is to make sure you can do the first thing. That's where I come in. You're focusing your life the number one. I'm focusing a majority of the majority of the most. I'm focusing a majority of order to my life on number two. What I mean by that? During COVID, they called the church non-essential, yet they left strip clubs open, marijuana dispensaries, Home Depot, and Lowe's, but they said the bride of Christ was not essential. They always say separation of church and state. Why is it then that the state could come in and shut down the church? You see, what we see is that when we stop caring about politics, is the government that's so big, it starts persecuting our religious liberty and our freedom. And it's not a contradiction. In fact,

if you look at the conservative agenda, it is, it is far, it's a, it's a, it's a far greater fit with a biblical worldview than anything on the left. And I'm sure you agree at that, right? God created man and woman. When does life begin? Strong borders. It says in the scriptures, Jeremiah 297, demand the welfare of the nation that you are in because your welfare is tied to your nation's welfare. So we should care about our nation. In fact, Daniel fasted and prayed for his country. Esther, Mordecai, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Joseph. In fact, we are called to be counselors to the king. We're called to be the moral conscious of a nation. And so if we want to know Christ and make him known, we must have one ingredient of free society. It is hard to know Christ

and make him known in countries where the gospel is not ought to be told on the side of the street like China or North Korea. And that's not an exaggeration. When Christians failed to care about politics, politics will start caring about Christian. And we must understand that we are the recipients and the inheritors of a country that was founded by Christians so the gospel can spread. And so I don't think it's a contradiction at all. I don't think that it's what's best for the country, I think, is actually best for the kingdom. And let's pretend America falls. Let's say

America collapses. Do you know that well over 90% of all international mission funding comes from the United States? Yeah, I can believe it. That most missionaries come from 5% of the world's population here. We are populating the earth, in Africa, in South America, with people who love the Lord that come with money, that

come with resources, that come with, you know, clean water equipment. If America were to fall, the gospel would not spread as far. In fact, the world is becoming more Christian because of America's wealth, our generosity, and our track record to say that we're going to stand for our fellow man and love our neighbor as ourselves. So I don't see any contradiction. I just see a difference in the same mission. Your mission is first and foremost to win people of Christ.

I try to do that every day. But my mission is to make sure that you can do that without being arrested or thrown in a gulag. Thank you. God bless you. And I just wanted to ask you, because I'm a big Catholic, I wanted to ask you how important do you think religion is in this, in this day and age. Very important.

Yeah, I mean, as America becomes more secular and as the country becomes less godly, we become less free, more miserable, more depressed, more suicidal, more anxious, et cetera. Yeah. So is this, so I see that you really do try to push religion. You're a Christian, right? Yeah, I am a Christian. Did you grow up that way? Yes.

Or did you just recently kind of? No, I mean, I grew up in a passive Christian home, gave my life to the Lord when I was in fifth grade. Yeah. I'm wondering what your intentions are. Sorry, I'm new to you and this, and I was just intrigued. Hear from different ideas and see where we agree and disagree. Yeah. What's like your purpose, though?

Like communication, yes, but like what ideas are you trying to bring or like help people understand? Conservative ones, traditional American ones. Oh, okay. Like traditional conservatism or like modern conservative right wing? Because they like switched. I don't like labels, so you can ask me about a topic. Oh, cool. Yeah. Okay. Um, I think there's only two sexes, no genders, infinite personalities. Life begins at conception. We should deport all the illegals, right? The MRNA gene altering shock called the vaccine killed a lot of people and is currently poisoning a lot of people. Yeah. So these are just some of my opinions. So you think it'll like make the country better? Like what are you? Yeah. I mean, I hope that number one, I want to support our amazing Turning Point USA chapter here where they feel outnumbered and isolated. Number two, we're promoting our event tonight. So I hope you guys show up. Where's our event? It's like a

the Montezuma Hall or something? Yeah, that's great. Montezuma Hall, Montezuma, whatever. And number three is, I want to see where I might be wrong, strengthen my arguments, and anybody can say anything to me. I think that free speech is the last best hope we have in Western society. Nice. Okay, then I have a question about, like, women's rights in America. I just want to hear what you think. Like where you think we're at, how you think we could better them. Can you, just so I know where you're coming from, can you tell me what is a woman? Oh, that's a great question.

I would classify a woman as somebody with a womb and or a vagina. Sometimes people are born with either one or the other. Good. We agree, yeah. So as far as women's rights, I don't separate rights based on sex. So you have to tell me what you mean based on that. Okay. Oh, that's interesting.

So do you believe that there's a difference right now in like people's rights and no no i mean there's male female differences but there are no male rights or women can you give me an example okay like patriarchy that's what i'm getting at do you believe that we live in a patriarchy and it negatively affects women no no yeah so for example men are more likely to commit suicide yeah more likely to die at work more likely to declare bankruptcy yeah women are far less likely to be in credit card debt far more likely to graduate from college yeah far more likely to get a high paying job Do you think that the, that's a really good point. Do you think that the suicide rates or the depression rates and the bankruptcy rates that you just mentioned

regarding men have to do with the fact that men are pushed to be less open about their emotions? They're less available to being able to communicate how they feel with others. They're taught to be more violent and be more physically harmful to themselves and others. And do you think that pushes them towards suicide, depression, and bankrupt? I think it's the opposite. I think that we're teaching men to be metrosexual versions of their former selves. What does metrosexual mean to you? Indecipherable between a man and woman. Oh. What's a man and woman to you? What's the difference between them?

Well, a man is in, you're looking at a man, and I think I'm looking at a woman, if I'm not mistaken. Nice, yeah. That was funny. Yeah, thank you. There's characteristics, archetypes, but we have differences. Yeah. There are significant male-female differences. I think those... Like what? Well, men tend to be more assertive. Women tend to be more agreeable.

Innately or taught? Innately. And I wouldn't say taught. Innately based on what science? Well, just for example, if we look at artificial intelligence scanned over 10,000 brains using a spec scan. Yeah. And was able to determine male-female differences 95% of the time of different brain functions based on basalganlia, amygdala, cerebellum. Do you know the age?

Because interestingly enough, ages 14 to 22. Okay, 14 to 22. I read a study recently that before the age of 10, brains are, neuroscientists are unable to be able to tell the difference in gender based on the brain. But at a certain point, the social implications that children are taught start making them act differently. But it's been shown that if a man or a woman were given the same, okay, have you heard that men are, they have more spatial awareness like in their brain? I think that's probably true, yeah. Yeah. So we learned that if women are given a month of the same practices as children that men are given or allowed to do whether it comes to what they're playing, the media they're intaking, like what they're told and how they're told to act, that women have the same spatial awareness ability as men.

So we're finding that innately the brain is the same, but because of the social constructs that we're taught on men and women and how they're supposed to act, their brain ability to activate certain parts changes. So by 14, the brain does seem different. You're raised kids? Tell me. Have you ever raised kids? No, I have six nieces and nephews, though, men and women. You couldn't be more wrong. If you're even around a two-year-old boy and two-year-old girl,

it's not a matter of what they're taught. The girls are running to the dresses, the boys are running to the guns. You know who agrees with me? One of the leading feminists of the 60s and 70s, Gloria Steinman, who wrote feminist mystique. Yes, I read that. Even she, who was like a hardcore gender is taught when she raised her kids. she was like, oh my goodness, there is a fundamental innate difference between men and woman.

And it's not just brain structure. It's testosterone, it's estradial, it's estrogen production, it is hormone levels. It is all. And I could just prove if you sit down to a young, with a young lady, they're far more likely to talk about microtopics. And men are more likely to talk about macro topics. What's the difference between micro and macro topics? Great question. So if I sat down with a young lady, she'd be much more likely to talk about friends, relationships,

and things that are very intimate to her, a young man. be more likely to talk about the weather, sports, or the stock market, or politics. And that's not taught that is innate that is innate into our bioprogramming. What is bioprogramming? How we were designed. What do you mean how we were designed? I mean, how we're designed us and that were fearfully and wonderfully made. And you might not agree. I was just like how you were born, I could even say, just to come to common ground on that. Okay. So the creator chose that men and women have separate roles and it's innate. Well, not just separate roles, but made different roles. But made different and out of being made differently, you get different roles.

Right. So if science proves that the other way, do you rely on creator over science? But science has done the opposite. So, for example, in a Harvard study, they put 50 women in a room alone, and they put 50 men in the room alone. What age? Not relevant, but around 25, right? Relevant, but okay. No, sorry, I'm actually having so much fun.

Okay, sorry. Keep going. So if you really, I'm fascinated you think that eight-year-old's brains are infinitely neuroplastic. But we'll get back to that later. No, no. When they're like babies, by eight years old, you're already going through school and you've had so many relationships. They're definitely affected. But again, if you were right, John Money would have been proven

right. But we'll get to that later. So, which that test has been replicated so many times. And even the Dutch who are like the most progressive on this have gotten away from the idea of tabula rossa that boys and girls are boring similarly with brain differences. But we'll agree to discrain that. But anyway, 25-year-olds were put into a room, okay? And they said, men, what do you think about when they're alone? No surprise

sports and sex, right? Young ladies, what do you think about in the room alone for 30 minutes just by themselves? They replayed prior conversations that they had. For the record, no man in the history of the species has replayed conversations that we had and thought about them when we were alone in a room. What conversation, what was this person said? Women are far more relational, micro than men, and that's just based on how our design is. Whoa. I think that you just lied that all men don't think. That's such a...

It's called a joke. I'm sure there's a man somewhere that recollected on a conversation. Well, I didn't know that in a dialect that's a debate based on science and you're talking about a study that would you implement a joke that's based on a truth. Yes, humor is a tool of a rediterician to try to get people, you know, to chuckle a little levity. So, yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Let me ask you a question. Do you think testosterone? and estrogen play into people's ability to have drive, ambition, feelings, and do you think testosterone and estrogen are important? Yes. Okay, so then if women are lower in testosterone and higher in estrogen and men are lower

in estrogen and higher in testosterone, wouldn't that independent of society's framing play into the idea that there are natural differences between the two? I think that it definitely plays into the idea that there are natural differences, and I think there are natural differences. I just think to an extent that as a society, we've decided that men because they have more testosterone and we've known testosterone makes people more aggravated that or what's aggravated I'll just leave it aggressive aggressive yes sure I'll take aggressive yeah thank you that it makes people or men more aggressive that we've decided that that means

that men are not in control of their moral ability or their ability to to choose what they're going to do so it becomes like men have more testosterone but they still have the ability to to choose to treat people better or with less aggression. Like, it's not, it's like, oh, men don't have the ability to make those choices. That's almost like downplaying men's ability by saying that they just have to give into their aggression. I'm not contesting that. The mark of a true man is one who can control himself. Do you think that you could, do you think there's a problem of trying to turn women too masculine?

Turning women to masculine. What's masculine for you? Well, let's just say not agreeable, forceful, aggressive, aggressive in the best possible term, forward thinking, more macro, more visionary, less feeling-based, more rational, more yearning towards reason and dialogue and less towards compassion or the ethos. And what's feminine to you? The inverse of that, so more on the emotion side, less macro, more micro, much more deep. So women are just what men are not? No, they're different sides of a species coin, right? So you have a human species, you have a male and female, and there's differences.

So I could also posit it separately. A woman is more compassionate, a man is less compassionate. So there's two ways to word it. But do you think that there's a problem about trying to force women to be too masculine? No, I don't think there's a problem. Okay, well, I disagree. We have a crisis in this country. I'm curious, why do you think that we have so many unmarried young 30-something women?

it's the most in the history of recorded data that's a good question i don't know if i've ever pondered why we have unmarried why do you think that it's the young women are the most depressed alcohol addicted and psychiatric drug addicted in history is that true oh yeah the most miserable they've ever been i'm just curious what why do you think that is yeah i guess i would i would say that i think it's because um like the society that we live in right like capitalistic consumeristic where there's like constant processing and overconsumption that includes like drugs, alcohol, like the over-consumption. So women going into the workforce a lot could create a lot of depression for them?

Yeah, same with men. Okay, but then shouldn't women, like, I don't know, stay at home and have children and do what they're designed to do? Men are also... Wouldn't that make them happier? Have the most depression that they have right now in this country. So you can make the same argument for men that you just made for women. Shouldn't they go home and be out of the workforce? Maybe the men are upset because the women that they're trying to date are more interested in taking care of cats.

and trying to become partner at the local law firm. And they say, I don't want to get married until I'm 30. And maybe that creates a sense of despondency when a young male being raised in this country sees everything rigged against them. So do you not believe that women should be working? Of course. I believe in liberty. I'm just asking, has there been an unintended tragedy

where we have the most financially successful 30 to 35-year-old cohort of young women in history? And men? Well, again, the women... In history. Like men and women. women are the most sick and depressed. The women are far more depressed than the men.

The men are depressed. But you just said that the men were more depressed, and that's why they're suicide and depression rates are higher. They're largely more suicidal. So they're more suicidal, but they're less depressed? No. They're more successful at committing suicide than women. Oh, that's a big difference. Okay.

Yeah, women commit suicide. No, it's true. Women try to commit suicide more, and yet women will go through three or four attempts in suicide attempts. Men usually only one. You can look it up. It's just the way it is. But I'm just curious, what is it about the 30 to 30, 35? five-year-old female, do you think there might be something missing? Do you think that there's

like this biological urge to get married and procreate that we might have been suppressing? Because it is the least child, it's the childless, least married cohort in the history of the country. Yeah. I believe that marriage and reproduction are beautiful things. I do. Do you think we should encourage it more for young women? I think we could encourage like a deeper understanding of people's individual sense of self. and then through that, if people can better understand their wants and needs and become more self-aware about who they are and what they need, that ultimately they would lead them to, like, better and more efficient decision-making for themselves. Okay.

Whether or not that means marriage. Last question. You posited this. How would you define the patriarchy? Oh, the patriarchy. So patriarchy, like the epistemology of the word. Or just like, do you believe it exists in the country today? Yeah, I believe patriarchy exists.

Patriarchy comes from Paterre, right? Potter means father in Latin. So patriarchy is father over or men over. So it's like a men ruling, right? So we see it in the fact that God or the divinity is represented as men, which only happened like halfway through the history of humans. So it was like a matrilineal matriarchy society for a while. We see it in the fact that women take men's last name.

We see it in the way that. that in the way that men are viewed, or like men view women, and how women kind of have to adhere to the way that men want them to be portrayed. And I agree with you that porn is, what did you say? Toxic, yeah. And I think that's an aspect of the patriarchy, right? Like, if you go on a porn website, which I'm sure you haven't in a while. Not in a while.

I used to be addicted, though. Yeah. Well, congrats. And I encourage everyone to break free of that addiction. It's terrible for you. Yeah, me too. That's great. Proud of you for that one. Yeah. But if you go on a porn website, you can see that like the view of all of the porn is from the perspective of a man and it's of a woman.

And these kinds of aspects show that right now we live in a society where it's a man's view. It's men over. So like we're all taking on. Yeah. Thank you for that. First on the porn thing, 85% of people that consume porn are men. So they're obviously going to shoot it in a way that is more attuned to. men. For example. What if women, what if it was shooted for women and then they started watching porn more? Then they would change the perspective because they're in it to make money. The same reason why Lifetime movies don't have rock and roll music and they tend to be very like uplifting, flowery, emotional based and

hyperfeminine in the writing because most people that watch lifetime movies are women. What's Lifetime movie? Okay, a Lifetime movie is like a feel-good movie on cable TV that has like a very poorly written narrative and usually ends in some sort of overlay. Like Hallmark? Yeah, like Hallmark. Yeah, that's the best way I could. Got it. But thank you for the dialogue.

I appreciate it. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, you too. Thank you. Good luck. Thanks. Sorry, just to clarify, I'm not a very big fan. I'm aware of Turning Point USA, but I don't watch a lot of stuff.

I don't really have like a theological or political question. I have more of a question about like dialogue and like the purpose of kind of these meetings. Because looking into Turning Point USA is really just an organization that's meant to like spread awareness of like your political beliefs. being like pro-Christian, pro-Republican party, more Trump, I guess. But my question is, do you think that this platform or like this discussion of like politics in this way is useful? Because like, for example, the guy that you talked to a little bit ago about vaccines, you had a lot of stuff to say to him that he couldn't really counteract in that moment. Because just coming from it, you are a professional that this is your job, you walk around doing this.

and so you just have more facts readily available that aren't necessarily verifiable. So it's kind of hard to argue a point whether it's right or wrong and whether or not you have the equipment to do so if you just automatically have points that we can't really verify. You guys are welcome to bring phones or notes or phone a friend. Well, yeah, but you're going to bring a professor too. That's a good point. No, go bring a professor. Bring two. Bring the hole. I'll debate them all. No, go find a professor, bring them down, and let's debate whatever you want.

Okay. Meaning like, yes, to answer your question, you're coming this in a good way. I do think this is effective. Look at the crowd who've already assembled. And I think that free speech is a bedrock of American society and to be able to pursue truth and find out where we agree or disagree or have my assumptions challenged. And I do this all from memory. I don't have any notes here.

You guys are well, you're not professionals. You're able to bring whatever you want. But yeah, look, I think that on this campus, especially, it is a predominantly homogenous left-wing campus, especially amongst the professors, and to have a conservative be able to sit here and take adversarial questions. I think it also gives confidence other conservatives here on campus

to speak up when they might hear something they disagree about or give them conviction to maybe say, hey, I don't agree at that. And so I think that has a lot of value. Okay. Just one more question on the meeting itself, because I understand the point of like kind of validating conservatives' ability to talk.

Obviously, we don't want to just kind of shut them up. That's not a very good course for dialogue. We agree. Yeah, but I think at the same time, it's also, these are all posted on the internet, right? Well, they're posted in its entirety, yes, yeah, correct. As long as, unless somebody says, you know, something that you can't. But usually, again, as someone who doesn't watch Turning Point USA, the only thing I see from talks like this and similar to, like,

I don't know if you associate with like Stephen Crowder or, but he has very similar, like, come and talk, talk about these things. the only thing I ever really see from that is more sensationalized conversations, like shutting down, and sometimes I feel like this dialogue can become right or wrong. Again, you could look at my YouTube channel. We post hour-long clips of these deals. So you see the clips because they lead to the longer form, but both are posted for sure. Do you think it's because it leads to the longer form or it's easier to watch and more entertaining?

I mean, look, you're competing for eyeballs against literal pornography, Hulu, Netflix, and sports. So when people are want to engage with content around politics, you're trying to win people over, right? But also we want to have integrity for the conversations that we have, which is what we do with our lot of our YouTube videos and our longer form content. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Keep watching, man. Thank you.

Oh, are you a Satanist? No, I know Satan's not real. I'm not that. Oh, okay. No, Satan is very real. But yeah, you can put the mic up. Satan is very, very real. That does relate to what I wanted to ask.

I wanted to ask, well, first, are you a Christian? May I any chance? Very much so. And I want to ask, like, why is that exactly? Jesus saved my life. I'm a sinner. Fall short of the glory of God. Gave my life to Christ.

Most important decision I ever made. So you believe the Bible is real? Yes, I believe the Bible is true and real. Why is that? Well, I could give you the technical answer. There's never been an archaeological discovery that has contradicted the truth of the Bible. We know everything in the Bible, as far as the kings,

as far as the succession of Israeli rulers, to the Jewish people being put in exile, to be put back into the land of Jerusalem, to the destruction of the temple in 80, 70. all that checks out. There's never been a discovery that's contradicted it, from King of Hezekiah to King Cyrus to Nehemiah to Zerebabel to the destruction, the creation

of the Second Temple. And then of course the wisdom. There's not a truth of the Bible that if you apply to your life, your life does not improve dramatically. And then finally, we have the most accurate and transparent the most historically robust account, I should say, that one can have

of the most important figure ever to live in the history of the world, Jesus of Nazareth. And Jesus of Nazareth, who was born a virgin birth, what we believe is the incarnation, perform miracles all throughout Judean Samaria, eventually confronted Pharisees, led to a death that he did not deserve, was in the grave for three days,

and then rose from the dead, and the resurrection is the pinpoint of my belief that Jesus did rise from the grave so that we may live. So what about the stories of Greek and Roman mythology? Do you think any of that is real? No. So then what makes Christian mythology real?

Well, give me an example of Christian mythology, that I can, like creation? So like Genesis 1. Like story of like David and Goliath, for example. Okay. Well, that one's actually pretty easy to deconstruct. A sling is actually a rather lethal weapon, especially for someone in a Judean tribe

that's trained to use a sling of a young age. And Goliath was a rather clumsy individual. And if you're able to pinpoint a rock right between the temple lobe, you can effectively kill or lobotomize that individual. So that's hardly mythology. All right. So what about the story of Satan's fall then? What about that is real?

In Ezekiel. Yeah, so that's not mythology, but that is theology. So in the story of Satan's fall in the later books of Ezekiel, we are told that God created the heavens in the earth, God created the angels, and there was a rebellious angel, Lucifer who led a rebellion against God and brought one third of the angels with him and then created what is now as the underworld

is the best Hebraic interpretation of that, which we now know is hell. I could go through every single story, Jonah and the whale, parting of the Red Sea, right? Ahab on Mount Karma with Elijah. Here's my answer. If Genesis 1-1 and the resurrection is true, anything in the Bible is possible. You're looking at the greatest miracle. The greatest miracle is creation.

The fact that we have an ordered, intelligible world where we can exist and that human beings are able to flourish, that is a miracle. In the beginning, in the beginning, in the beginning. And then the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and I say, how do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? Well, show me another historical piece of a story where, so many people willingly died a brutal death for a lie. Every single person around him had everything to lose, and yet they

went to the absolute death from Paul to Peter to the half-brother of James, saying that Jesus is Lord, Jesus rose from the dead. Not to mention, if you were going to fake a story, you would not use female witnesses in the ancient world. In the scriptures, it said that the women were the first one to see Jesus Christ. If you're trying to fake a story, you would never do that. Not to mention the 500 people

that saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, doubting Thomas, and then the later church that lived under persecution under the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God. One last question. Do you think Christianity should be forced onto everybody? No, no. I don't believe Christianity should be forced. Then it's not love, it's rape. So we believe that God loves you, so he will not force you. And so if you reject God, you will go to hell. I hope that's not the case for you guys, because you can give Jesus Christ, you can live life eternal. But it's a love story, not a force story. And so it's this option in front of you.

Will you surrender in front of the cross? The cross is this idea that the person, that the perfect, the divine, came down and took a human form and died the most brutal death the ancient world knew, the most torturous brutal death that someone could possibly know, and then rose in the dead to defeat deaths that you could live forever. And so it's a gift. They're right in front of you. If you take that gift, it transforms you from within, changes your life. You have joy and happiness that you otherwise would not have. But you have a conscious choice to reject that, and I hope you don't. And if you reject that, then you will go where you want to go, which is in absence, the furthest distance one can be from the divine.

I go to college campuses and there's a lot of error. We're all sinners. We are all live in error. We as Christians are called to go into the public arena to correct error with truth. What is God's plan when I go on to college campus? I just believe I will only tell truth. I will not compromise and I'll love on the laws. Purpose will give you happiness.

You see, we live in a country where they think that happiness is pleasure. We know that purpose is above all of this, serving God, that we are made in this image, that there is a struggle of good versus evil. Every day you get to fight for what is good and what is true and beautiful. God should be the most important thing in your life. Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, most important thing. But then beyond that, it's getting married, having children, building families, leaving a legacy, doing big and great things.

But sometimes the difficult road is the way that you should configure your life. Getting married and having children is a difficult but deep decision that I hope every single one of you make because for every single one of you, there are a couple thousand students that wish they could speak out like you do. Encourage is a choice. We are no longer going to accept comfortable losing. We are no longer going to accept excuses from our elected officials. We have more combined political power than they have ever allowed us to believe. We are the party of people that shower before work and shower after work.

The people that get their hands dirty. The people that protect our streets. The people that built this country. What can I do to save the country? You answer that question every single day. You are doing the work to save this beautiful republic. You are doing something that is bigger than you. America is the greatest country ever to exist, period bar none,

is the greatest country ever to exist, right? For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.