Charlie Kirk Hands Out Huge L's at University of California San Diego

We're honored to be partnering with the Alan Jackson Ministries and today I want to point you to their podcast. It's called Culture and Christianity, the Alan Jackson Podcast. What makes it unique is Pastor Alan's biblical perspective. He takes the truth from the Bible and applies it to issues that we're facing today. Gender confusion, abortion, immigration, Doge, Trump, and the White House.

Issues in the church. He doesn't just discuss the problems. In every episode he gives practical things we can do to make a difference. His guests have incredible expertise and powerful testimonies. Each episode will make you recognize the power of your faith and how God can use your life to impact our world today.

The Culture and Christianity Podcast is informative and encouraging. You could find it on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes. Alan Jackson Ministries is working hard to bring biblical truth back into our culture. You can find the Culture and Christianity podcast, sermons, and other thought-provoking teachings on our Pastor Alan's YouTube channel, at Alan Jackson Ministries.

It's a big crowd for California. All right, you guys know how it works. We're going to do questions for a couple hours here. If I really like your answer, you get a hat. We'll be signing hats as well. And God bless you guys.

We're going to have a great time.

Thank you.

Okay. Hello.

Yes.

Hello.

My name is Yardo. I have a small YouTube channel. I'm a political commentator as well, much more than you are. I just wanted to thank everybody at Turning Point USA, USD for having this debate. And also I would thank the Turning Point USA, San Diego State, because they gave a voice

to one of my dear friends who was a victim at the October 7th Nova Music Festival and his name is Amit Muzai. I really appreciate that you guys did that, and you have my sincere gratitude. I'd also like to quickly state that this is a message for the far left first, and then we'll get into what I highly disagree with you about but I just read Hassan Piker's New York Times article where he claims that he did not stifle free speech in his chat. I do not believe that's true because I was banned

multiple times for having a simple disagreement with him. That is one thing on the right that you guys do far better is not creating echo chambers and this is a a complete amazing thing you guys are doing right now. And I just want to let you know, right now, Hasan Piker, I will donate $5,000 to Palestine if you debate me. Now, I 100% mean that. And I will make sure that that is as public as possible.

My question for you, Charlie, is I just want to make it clear, I am against affirmative action. Of course, I do not believe, as a disabled person myself, I do not believe, as a disabled person myself, I do not believe that affirmative action is the entirety of what DEI entails. That being said, I would be fine with DEI gotten rid of

if it meant a true meritocracy in the United States. But why would I trust Donald Trump to create a meritocracy when he himself has appointed the least accomplished and the least, essentially yeah perfect word, the least accomplished cabinet in US history, at least in my opinion. If you disagree I can explain why I feel that way.

Well first of all one thing doesn't have to do with the other but I'm going to reject the premise that it's the least qualified cabinet ever so we could talk about that but even if it was just Donald Trump picking his family members, it has nothing to do with the merits of DEI, or getting rid of DEI, right? So that's a red herring.

They actually have nothing one to do with the other. One's a repeal of a policy, one is your critique of a cabinet. So which one would you rather debate? or Trump's cabinet? It seems like you have more problems with Trump's cabinet because we actually might be on the same side of meritocracy, so want to talk about the cabinet? Whichever you prefer.

Yeah, we can talk about it. I personally don't see it as a red herring,

but we can talk about that.

Well, yeah, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, right? I mean, you can personally that I see it is that when you a lot of people talk about like when they're talking about Their choice to vote for Kamala or Trump instead of Kamala They talk about the personal aspects of Donald Trump that make them want to trust him, right? He's a a lot of people trust him. You can see the way that people look I mean everybody's wearing the MAGA hats people trust him. Why would I trust him? Okay. So yeah, that is your contention. So yeah, what about his cabinet is unqualified? Let me just get ask you a couple examples

So I mean Scott Besant who's one of the most accomplished bond salesmen and individuals in the hedge fund space ever, right? That's not unqualified Pete Hexer. Who's actually a frontline warfighter Unlike Lloyd Austin who never fought a war in his life, right? We have Christie gnome who was an accomplished Congresswoman and Governor from a major state running Department of Homeland Security. You have Howard Lutnick, who is a very famous and well-known

financial mind and Titan from Wall Street, running Cantor Fitzgerald. Marco Rubio, who was a very well-respected U.S. Senator on Foreign Affairs, who is now doing a great job as Secretary of State. So build out your argument why you think this cabinet is unqualified. Seems to me very, very qualified actually across the board. Okay so the first thing I'm gonna start with, I mean this is the most obvious one and I have many

other examples that I'd like to get into but Pete Hexeth you mentioned I think that that is kind of I don't really understand why you would mention somebody that leaked war chats to a liberal journalist. To me, that doesn't seem like the kind of person that I would want to be. Well, hold on, time out. He did not leak it, first of all. Okay, well he added the person. The person who actually is responsible was just removed as national security advisor today. Oh, he added somebody without his knowledge. Okay, so why wouldn't he see him? Why wouldn't he see the person is in the chat before talking about war policy? So, timeout. Just so we're clear, I'm sure you've been added to group chats with 30 or 40 people

sometimes and you enter in with trust that every acronym is actually a government official. Obviously, that will not happen again. Just so we're clear, Signal was an approved chat by the Biden administration. I know that. It's an approved secure channel by the federal government. I'm not talking shit on Cigna. However, timeout, let me ask a question about Pete Hegseth. Would you rather have a warfighter or a bureaucrat run the United States military? I would rather have somebody that doesn't have a history of alcoholism. I'd rather have somebody that, I mean, realistically. So do you think probably start talking about how there's higher enlistment numbers under Pete Hegseth.

Yeah, not only that. So, recruitment in the military is up majorly. Thank you, Pete Hegseth. He's doing a pretty good job. Number two, procurement. We're saving money.

Estimates are that we'll save hundreds of billions of dollars in efficiency. has increased by 30%. This is a military town here in San Diego. They have a massive increase in people wanting to join the Navy, want to join the military. That wasn't happening under Biden. Morale is actually 30 points higher now that Pete Hegseth, a warfighter's warfighter, is running the US military. We have a complete difference. We'll never get to agree on this. Not to agree, but show me, then prove the evidence. What is one number that is worse with the US military

now that Pete Hegseth's in control?

The numbers that you're talking about are numbers that I actually actively do not care about because I think that we have an overly powerful military and I think too much of our money goes to the military.

I know, but tell me one thing he's done, like numerically, like empirically, judge his performance, right? What is one thing that you could say, wow, the Pentagon is in a worst place because of Pete Hegseth? I would say his inconsistent foreign policy where he backs on statements depending on whether or not Donald Trump has heard them or not. Like in the beginning, we were talking about what happened with Ukraine and Russia. Like they've had disagreements already within the first couple

months of the administration. What? But first of all, the president is the commander in chief, so he executes the running of the military. I'm just saying that there has been. He's the operational's manager, right? I understand that. And so when you want a military,

you have recruitment going up, you have war games going up, you have morale going up, you have, by the way, how about this? Do you agree brought physical fitness standards to be the same for men and women Lloyd Austin didn't do that Mark Milley didn't do that do you also agree that we should not have like transgender

pronoun type policing of our military members on the front lines of combat see the thing is he has gotten rid of all that but I'm saying you're trying to make a contention that he's not qualified the military is in a much better place thanks to him only after a hundred days, man. And that's the, that is the weakest example of all the ones that you have in the cabinet. You didn't address Rubio. You didn't address Noam. You didn't address Besson. You didn't address Lutnick. You didn't address Bobby Kennedy. You didn't

address all these people. So I have to ask you the question. Okay, well the Department of Education that's been completely defunded and somebody who literally was a- I'm so glad it's being defunded. Okay, I bet you are, but guess what?

Most Americans aren't, and that's the reality.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Donald Trump- Okay, yeah, just because you have a bunch of people it to you. Donald Trump ran on a pledge to get rid of the Department of Education. We can agree with that? No, yes or no? Yes. Yes. He won a popular vote. The vast majority of people voted knowing that the Department of Education was going to get eliminated. If you truly believe that the vast majority of people were educated enough about the fact of Donald Trump's opinion. Oh, voters aren't very smart. Now that's what we're going after. No I'm simply just responding to what you said. What you said is that you... Insult the voters they don't know. No a lot I know a lot of

people that voted for Trump who had absolutely no idea that he was going to defund the and of course this is just an anecdote but I know that this is the truth not everybody look when they vote looks at every single little thing and every little aspect like you and I might of why we would vote for somebody like we're both political commentators. Right. So but fine. And as a political commentator, then I will I will argue more forcefully against you because now you're not just like a college kid searching for this.

Has education America improved or gotten worse since the Department of Education was formed? It is literally been three months. I have absolutely no sense. The Department of Education was formed in the 70s. We now have 50 years of evidence. Has American education gotten better since we've had a

Department of Education, or has it gotten worse?

I personally don't think that that has to do with Department of Education.

I —

Well, when you spend — when you've spent over $4.5 trillion with one federal department, and we have 30 schools in Chicago where a fifth grader cannot read at grade level. We have 35 schools in Baltimore where kids cannot do math or reading at grade level.

We cannot find a single school, not a single school in downtown Detroit where by the time they graduate high school in the heavily black areas that they're proficient in reading or math. We are now like 31st in the industrialized world of education.

We spend more on education than almost any other country per capita and yet our results are worse. Maybe it's because we've sent all this money to DC to overly centralize the way we educate and the Department of Education has been a complete disaster. And so I just, we can do it anywhere you want with this discussion.

So you, okay, so you, I'm just going to say one more thing about this and we can move on. And thank you for talking to me for this song, I really appreciate it. But you're talking about people that are coming from poor backgrounds where education in their families is not a part of the way that they're raised.

Of course, they're gonna be the ones that have a lower... Oh, no, no, no, that's not correct. You see, I highly doubt it. same area that do it for two-thirds less money, almost all the kids can read by the time they graduate middle school. The Press And where does that money come from? Mr. Kudlow Well, sometimes from charter schools,

taxpayers, or from private donors. So take, for example, in downtown Chicago or downtown Philadelphia. The private Catholic school can educate a kid for around $12,000 a year. Philadelphia, it's about $30,000 a year, and none of the kids can read. So the local religious schools, they have kids that are less likely to be unruly,

less likely to commit crimes, they're more likely to graduate high school and college, they can read and they can do math, and yet the local public school spends triple what the local Catholic school does and they can't do any of that stuff.

Why? Because a government-run program of education has been a failure in this country. And that's what President Trump is doing by abolishing the Department of Education. Okay, so how, if there's no public, I'm not saying that the public education system is perfect. I'm saying that, like, having,

I think the privatization of public things

in general is bad, and obviously that's a very.

Why would you say that? So, I mean, that's just, we can go through the list of that But because it's not because getting rid of for example di or getting rid of and again. I'm not super pro Do you grow up? I grew up in I grew up in California. I'll put it that way I'll try to apply it to your to it work. Okay. I grew up in a very one of the most expensive towns in California Okay, Montecito. I don't know. I'm guess. Yeah., something like that. I don't want to talk because I'm a political commentator. I'm not saying my name, but I will tell you.

Fine, but. Seeing that we had three 82 inch TVs in my school for a public school when other kids in Compton

had absolutely nothing.

And I know a big part of that is because.

So why is that?

It's property taxes, right? which is that in San Diego, are the private schools or the public schools more desirable?

It's kind of complicated because we have charter schools that are public, like most, like we have like

high tech high, we have.

People pay money to go to private school, right? For a reason. So what is our perspective? The money should follow the child, you should have school choice, you should be able to go to whatever school

of your choosing, and it works super well. But the good private schools that you're talking, you talk about these ones in Chicago, with cherry-picked data, when we're talking about San Diego, they cost about $40,000 a year. It's not cherry-picked data.

It is cherry-picked data, talking about a single example of a Catholic school that's publicly funded, or funded by donors.

There's hundreds of these examples, right? is that the majority of them, you have to pay an absorbent amount of money in order to get into them. Right. So OK. But then what is per pupil in San Diego, what do you think they charge per student in the public school? Anywhere between $25,000 to $35,000.

I have no idea.

And I don't think that it has anything

to do with the debate we're having.

No, it has everything to do with it. So there's 21 million people that work for the government in this country, 11 million in education, 11 million in education. How many of the 11 million do you think are teachers?

I see you're just coming up, look,

say, can you repeat your question?

Cause I thought we were gonna continue, cause we barely talked about anything

I want to talk about.

Well, no, I mean, we did freewheeling. That's what this is, right? So there's 11 million people that work in education in America. How many would you guess are teachers?

I'm assuming that it's very bloated, and I'm just going to guess that 2 million are teachers.

Yeah, it's about 2 to 3, it's like 3.5 to 4 million. So that means that 7 million people that work in education are unnecessary administrators and paper pushers. And why is that important? Because we've not been funding teachers or education the last 30 years. We've been funding unnecessarily bureaucracy in our education the last 30 or 40 years.

And President Trump goes to abolish it. Thank you for your time. I got to get to the next question.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Hello.

Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think overall I was going through different policies and in general I agree. Ultimately I think, the topic of my question is how to approach politics in school and in general with this function. I've found that a lot of times when I talk to people who are on the other side of me, they are surprised to find out what I think

and my ideas are not that crazy. It's like when you actually get into the meat of it, it's like, oh actually maybe it does make sense. And so I think it's really valuable to start giving these ideas to the world. And so this is one of these options.

But I guess my question is, is this the best way? Because when I hear, for example, on Reddit, they're like, don't approach him. Don't do this. He's just doing that, he's using all these tactics, and so I wonder if you've considered, not to say that this is a bad way to go about it, but if there's maybe a slightly better way, because I think what you're saying

has a lot of value in this world, but it's proponent, like in this school specifically, it is thought of as evil and is like not like a valid way to think.

That's a UC San Diego problem, not a Charlie Cook problem, right? No, and it's not to say it's a problem of you, no, no, no. And I read there was some op-ed journalist where they said, ignore Charlie, ignore him. But what they're saying is that they are not either smart enough or they're not intellectually mature enough to have a discussion with a conservative on any issue.

I have literally almost no notes. I have a couple charts to show you if the topics come up. You guys can use AI, you guys can use Grok, you can do whatever you want. You can bring a professor, you can bring five of your top libs together.

Debate me, right?

Yeah.

Other side? Okay, thank you. And you guys can debate me at any time. I fail to understand why, well actually I know the reason. Speech is not a left-wing value and they do not believe in freedom of speech, they believe in totalitarian control. There are exceptions to that so if they have a problem, I think this is one of the best ways, not the best way. I literally could

not be more open to disagreement. I say if you disagree you go to the front of the line. Yeah. And I mean how often do you as conservatives get a chance to challenge liberals on campus, right, and being welcomed?

Ever?

Absolutely almost never.

Definitely not in class.

Because speech is not a left wing value.

No, but to say that, I mean, with all of that being said, it is very true. But ultimately, what happens here is I see a lot of the ideas just being like bubbled against and so like when I talk to my friends they're not their ideas aren't chained from these conversations

and so I wonder if you would be surprised I started interrupt what we what happens here gets seen hundreds of millions of times on social media the crowds are growing and so look some people are gonna remain closed-minded they're not gonna you know have their horizons open but that's on them right they have to actually want to pursue the truth and not just have their horizons open, but that's on them. They have to actually want to pursue the truth and not just have their own worldview confirmed.

And then I guess that's where I disagree, because I think fundamentally there is truth within anything. And I believe that maybe I would ask you to see that you have a big role in this. You have a big fan base and a big media base

that you can make, you are making incredible change. And to take it one, just one step further would be really trying to push the narrative against this being like a place where people are just like debating.

It's more than that.

What would you like to see?

No, I guess maybe it's more of a question. I guess, I don't know, moving forward, trying to maybe, to see that instead of using these really fast tactics and to really try to bring it down, not to say someone is, no, no, not to say that they're,

no, no, no, no.

I disagree with all that, that's fine.

Yeah.

I mean, you're thinking way too much about libs on Reddit. I care about normal people, so. No, I, sorry. I guess that's true. These people are not well socially adjusted, right? I talked to the 90% of the American people that actually want to make something of their life and have kids. No, and I couldn't agree

more with that stance. I guess maybe stepping away from Reddit, it's to me the people on this campus. This is a school I go to and almost everyone I'm surrounded with has a completely different view from me and I love.

Not everybody.

No, no, and this is like, but this, like the people here, to find them, it feels like you're like sifting through a needle in a haystack.

You want a hat?

Sure.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Next question. Disagreements, come to the front of the line. Yes.

So I have a couple points that I want to talk about in a legal immigration. Is it okay if I write if I say all of them with no interruption? Okay cool. So first, illegal immigrants power our economy. They're 50% of US farm workers harvesting the food on our tables and fill 70% of construction jobs in states like Texas. They pay 13 billion annually in taxes including 2 billion to Social Security that they can't claim.

Deporting them would slash agricultural output by $60 billion and raise food prices by 6%. Why gut our farms and wallets when these workers fuel our prosperity? That's my first point. Second point, they strengthen our communities

with lower crime rates. So in Texas, undocumented immigrants have a 26 lower percent homicide conviction rate, which is 2.2 per 100,000 versus 3 for native-born citizens. Nationally, immigrants are incarcerated at half the rate of native-born, where it's 0.85 percent versus 1.71 percent. That's

according to Bureau of Justice statistics from 2019. So if safety is your goal, why deport people who make our streets safer? This is my third point. Mass deportation tears apart American families. Over 4.4 million US citizens' children

have an undocumented parent. And in Texas, one in seven kids lives in a mixed status household. This is my fourth point. Deportation is a fiscal nightmare. Removing 11 million people would cost 315 to 400 billion. More than the entire homeland security budget and shrink our GDP by 1.7 trillion over 10 years. And this is my

last point our Immigration system is broken pushing people to cross illegally Visa waits Mexicans can exceed 20 years and the asylum blockage is 1.3 million cases with hearings four to six years out Okay, you done. That's pretty much it. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So without looking at the phone look at me

What should the penalty be for breaking into America?

I think there should be a system where it's more merit-based. So if this person...

No, penalty. So what is the penalty?

So what should happen to you? Yeah, well, it's a felony.

It's not a felony. It's a misdemeanor. That is correct. That is not correct. I googled it, dude. To illegally go across the southern border with the well intent to come and to harbor yourself into the interior of the United States to violation of 8 U.S.C. 1312, which is a felony in the federal criminal code. Now, it can be enforced as a misdemeanor or it can be upwards to five years in prison. be? Well, my opinion these kinds of like laws are not are usually they're they're

they're um what do you call it they're um sorry usually the like the Sorry. Can I check my phone real quick? I apologize. Can you repeat the question? Sorry.

What should the penalty be for someone that breaks or comes into America illegally? What should the penalty be? I think there should be a merit system where the people... That's not the Alright, that's not the answer. It's a very simple moral and legal question. Okay. What should the penalty be if you come into America illegally? Okay

so since it's a misdemeanor not a felony. Misdemeanor? I just told you it's not.

You can look up on your chat GPT what is 8 USC. Look up what What is 8 USC 1312? No, I know. I've already looked it up. Yes, which is a...

When it's your second time crossing the border illegally, then it becomes a felony.

It can be, and it is enforced as a felony, and it usually is done as a misdemeanor citation because no one has the stones to do 20 million felony, you know, applications.

Okay.

So I just want to ask,

what should the penalty be then for someone that comes into this country illegally? Usually there's three ways that go about this when there's a penalty. There's either a fine or there's some kind of public service that this person does. Or you send them back. Oh, send them back.

Send them back, I agree. That's what we should do.

Okay, okay. So, this is interesting. So, one of the statistics that I read said that illegal immigrants don't cause as much, they don't break the law as often as people who are native born.

Well, hold on.

That is a statistic. No time out. But every single one of them are criminals.

They're all criminals.

OK, sure.

By law.

By law.

OK, no, by law, of course.

Of course, you are a criminal. If they commit less crime and they're all criminals, wait a second, by definition, they all have broken the law. You can't break in or harbor. That's what the federal law says. So by breaking in it's not just the only law they broke. Every second you remain here you're also breaking the law. So that

statistic is invalidated by just them breathing here they're breaking the law.

No of course not. Of course not. So of course it makes sense for them, when they're here, they're breaking the law because they're illegal immigrants, obviously, obviously. But once they're, okay, yeah, of course. So once they're here, once they are here, what kind of harm are they actually doing? When you look at the numbers, statistics.

A lot.

No, no, that's not true. Black wages have gone down. In Texas, okay, in Texas. DUIs have gone up dramatically. And I let you go uninterrupted with your whole soliloquy, right? So let me just, let me ask you a question now. So if it is correct that illegal aliens commit less crimes, which of course it's not correct.

That is correct. Look it up. In Texas they made a study in 2019. Is any crime, it's just not correct, but I'm not going to debate that.

I just proved it at its face because they commit a crime by being here every day. That is a crime. Okay, once they are here, what kind of crimes are they committing? Which is, they're 26%! 26% less!

Do you know the name Laken Riley?

No, educate me.

Oh, you don't?

No, no, no.

Do you know, wow. Do you know the name Rachel Morin?

No, I don't.

Wow. No, I don't Wow So Lake and Riley was a girl at the University of Georgia There was a peeping Tommy illegal alien that was deported five times prior and Biden kept on letting him back in He hunted her down raped her sodomized her and murdered her on a hiking trail University of Georgia Okay, Rachel person doesn't represent all not a second Every person who was killed by an illegal alien is one that should not happen every single one

Everyone and so that's the point is that it's not a matter of the rate

The rate even if I accept your premise, which is incorrect. The rate is irrelevant. The number is what's relevant There should be zero illegal aliens. There should be zero Americans being killed by illegals So not to mention there's six other problems of the illegal aliens. They steal social security numbers, they depress wages, they are heavily involved. By the way, not to mention a lot of people that cross on the southern border are also smuggling girls, weapons, and drugs alongside the southern border when they come. It's the largest slavery operation in American history that many illegal aliens helped make possible on

the southern border. And I guess the final question I'll have is, should a government serve its citizens first and foremost?

Yeah, of course.

Of course.

Well, okay, there's been many people who are like very political leaders who have said that this place is built off of immigrants.

Oh, is it? Well, hold on. Let's think about that.

Sure. that was um was um first of all it's legal not illegal but was America founded by immigrants or settlers settlers that's not an immigrant yeah yeah okay my point my point is that you brought up the nation built by immigrants yeah we're actually because the political leaders have said that this place is built yeah and they're wrong they're wrong leaders are wrong George W Bush is wrong all these political yes I've built yes by the way the first person to say that was that wrong when immigrants may I just they grow the economy okay allow me again allow me to build it out for you

sure immigrants have helped at times in American history but we are first and foremost a nation founded by settlers immigrants come to a country already built settlers come to a barren place and build something new right this land was barren when people came in the 184040s gold rush, this was not an easy place to live. California was not exactly industrialized. There was not immigrants coming west to California. Those were settlers building a new place around, you

know, Western values. Finally, I would just ask the question, do you see a

moral distinction between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant well the argument is that they're cutting in line like their argument is that they're cutting in line in the 20-year process that it would take for someone to be to cross it's not 20 at most it's 20 at most it's 20 right now there's around like 1.2 million people who are currently waiting that would take well weeks to seven years for a hearing and by the way no one has a right to come to this country just let me stay on track of what I was gonna say okay so so people people who come here usually

almost all the time when they come here it's they benefit society they benefit society there's studies that have done this not necessarily okay not necessarily but overall in general but no I don't mentally disagree with that you can't

disagree with a fact hold on a do you think Ilhan Omar has enriched the United States of America?

I don't know.

Do you think Rashida Tlaib? I mean, I could go through person by person by person.

I don't know these people. Are these people who have like are illegal immigrants that have caused harm?

Yeah, again, if you don't know, I don't mean to pick on you. It's fine. mean to pick on you it's okay but I guess the final question is do you have any concern that there are too many people coming into this country and we're a nation of strangers not a nation of neighbors if the people who are

coming are creating America making it more growing like the economy is growing then what harm is that doing especially if the people are more than an economy

though aren't we we're a culture we're a language yeah of course okay so let's

talk about that front when they come here They don't have any kind of they're not committing as more crimes than the people who are already here That is we've already dispelled that but that is not you can't tell a foreign

It's a California, but you can't do you think there's anything wrong that a majority of young people in California speak Spanish not English

Is there wait?

Sorry troubling to the fact that a majority of people under the age of 30 here in the state speak Spanish not English. Is there a problem with that?

Well yeah everyone should be able to have a ability to communicate with the rest of the crowd. So I guess I don't know what the big issue is.

See I think it's a huge problem when we have a nation where you can't communicate with your fellow neighbors.

Sure, okay simple solution, teach them how to speak English. What is your point? Yeah, and our schools don't do that actually. And also, I have a better solution. Don't import a bunch of people that don't speak English. You mean importing people who actually grow the economy?

Again, I reject your premise. That's not a premise. That's a study that's been done. Do you know what a premise is? I don't actually care as much about economic growth because we're one nation under, we're one nation under GDP, we're not one nation under GDP, we're a nation under God. When we lose social cohesion, and you import a bunch of people that don't share our values, that don't necessarily always assimilate,

that's a major and serious problem. And we are a people first and foremost with a creed, and that creed is falling apart. Mass migration has not helped that creed. Yes, they might buy more trinkets. They might help depress wages. Mass migration, of course, can help them. All good things, all great things for America. Well, they help major corporations, but you know what they also do? They keep down the wages of working people. If you are a plumber, yes, of course, if you think about it, you're a plumber,

electrician, or a welder, and you have to compete against someone from Nicaragua who's willing to for five bucks less an hour, that depresses the wages of the American citizen. Right, yeah, so there's been studies that have done that.

I'll also counteract that. Illegal immigrants only-

Well, let's use our reason.

No, let's look at our studies.

Let's use our reason.

How about statistics?

How about our reason? So we've had mass migration for 20 years. Have wages gone up? I don't know. No, they haven't, actually. So forget your studies. For 10 years, we've had 30 million people come into America. Wages have gone down dramatically. Maybe there's a reason why.

Okay. Okay.

So, what I encourage you to do, just because there's a study that confirms, you should use your reason and look actually at self-evident truths. Be like, huh, does that make sense? Can you name a-

Statistics are self-evident truths.

Well, not always. Statistics are very misleading. Yes, like for example, I could say, did you know that 600 people a year die because of seatbelts? Well, that's a misleading statistic

because over 100,000 lives are saved by seatbelts.

That's an incomplete statistic. Okay, so where's the so that's a gray area So where's the gray area where people are talking about where 26% of illegal immigrants who come here commit less crimes and native?

Okay, we have how many times I've been over this that's just not correct. That is true, right? That is every single crime. It doesn't matter that was done in Texas the most diverse again It's like a second most diverse state every crime in illegal commits is one that should never have happened. It is a period. They should not be here. So I don't care about the rate. The rate is irrelevant. So let me just ask one final question. The rate is relevant. Someone broke into the country and cut in line, what should happen to them? Well, they get

their given, ideally there's a system. Ideally there's a system that's merit based where these people then become part of the citizen, like they become a legal citizen. Yeah, I mean, we have clarity but not agreement. I say deport them all back to their country of origin and put Americans first. That's not an appropriate solution. Well, the American people voted for it and it is appropriate. It isn't appropriate because most of the people that do come here illegally contribute positively

to society. Again, not again, dude. Statistically, everything backs this. You're not listening to anything I'm saying, and that's fine. They take jobs from Americans. They depress wages. They steal Social Security numbers. They commit a crime every single day that they're here.

They flood our public schools. They flood our social services. They flood our hospitals. They are a burden on the taxpayer. They should go back and make their own country great again and apply and become a legal immigrant

if they want to live here. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next question, yeah.

Hi.

Wow, that's aggressive.

All right.

Okay, geez.

Perfect.

Get that guy a Valium or something, Xanax.

Geez. All right.

Good morning.

So I am concerned about the fact that there are a lot of people who are saying that they

are not going to be able to get a job. Get that guy a Valium or something. It's Xanax.

Good morning.

So I am conservative, but there is one thing that I did want to debate you on. So you say that college is a scam and that so many students go hundreds of thousands in debt and useless degrees. I completely agree with that. My question is why is it on the institutions and colleges and not on the students since

we as conservatives always focus on personal responsibility when a quick

great question yeah it should it should also be on the students as well all right

is there any thing about the universities and universe universities

should be doing then since it is a capitalist society and they are trying

to get profit yeah I think that I mean I don't know what the endowment is here but I think that the endowment should be used to help repay kids' student loans that they scammed. I think the fact that Harvard is sitting on $55 billion, I think that we should take the endowment money from places like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale and help kids pay off their student loans because they've been so severely scammed by the system.

And what can students do? I mean, there's Google, there's tons of things that I think personal responsibility is a huge issue that a lot of students that I know are blaming it on the universities when they pick degrees that don't have much money or job opportunity or things like that. What should students be doing?

Say that again, sorry.

What should students be doing since it is a personal responsibility and a lot of students

are blaming the universities and colleges for tricking them when a quick Google search would suffice.

Yeah, it's hard to say. I mean, again, that's why I don't think as many people should be going to college. So, yeah.

All right, thank you.

I'll sign your hat. Thank you. Yep.

All right, disagreements, you guys can come up.

Yes, if you guys disagree, come on to the front.

Hi, Charlie, thank you so much for coming here. I think it's really good that you come to campuses and talk to people who disagree with you. I also think it's like a testament, like you've like gotten a really big following and it's a testament to the fact that capitalism works and merit-based societies work, that we can actually grow our influence.

And yeah, so I agree with you with a lot of things, but I do disagree with you with two or three particular points. And I hope to go touch on all of them. Firstly, it's about morality and the fact that your claim that objective morality exists. I disagree with that.

I think morality is relative for everyone or subjective and it kind of like grows as with the culture and as the culture changes. So yeah, what are your thoughts about that and how do you justify

objective morality? Do you believe in absolute truth? What do you mean by absolute truth? Absolute truth, like that there is truth absolute for all people. Yes. You do? Okay, that's objective morality. That's objective facts. I won't say that's morality. Okay, so do I have permission to ask you a provocative question? Sure. I know what you're gonna ask. Okay, fine. I mean, was Hitler objectively wrong? No.

So I do... So what was the Holocaust objectively evil? I do, I do...

What was the Holocaust objectively evil?

I do, I want to like make a distinction between like my personal views that I do feel that it is wrong, but I can't say that it is like objectively wrong because I don't believe that objective morality exists. Like why, can I ask you, like why do you think objective morality exists? How do you like ground think objective morality exists? How do you, like, ground that objective morality in?

Well, first, of course, we believe that the Lord of the heavens and the earth gave us that objective reality through revelation.

Okay.

But secondly, we believe it's written on the heart of every human. You know, in Nuremberg, it's very interesting. When they did the Nuremberg trials, and the Nazis basically said, well, in our country it was right, therefore it's right.

Do you know that in Nuremberg they rejected that? They said no. Every human being knows that killing six million babies and kids is wrong. And so do you think there's anything built into us of a moral compass that prevents us from doing evil and we have to try to stifle it.

I think there are moral intuitions that everyone has, but again, those moral intuitions can differ from person to person, right? I might say that, I don't know, doing something is wrong, but someone else might say, oh, it's fine in this situation. So how do you distinguish? It's obviously subjective, right like everyone might have their own

Opinions and what is right and what is wrong? So, how do you know? How do you make a framework that says that? Like these are the rules of what is right and what is wrong and like how do you ground the more important question is do?

You believe in God, which I guess you do not I'm agnostic Yeah, okay, so yeah, that's where, okay, so if you don't believe in, this is actually, what's your name?

Sorry.

Abhinav. Yeah, well, you're making a great argument, and your argument is totally correct, which is that if you don't believe in God, then you cannot say that the Holocaust was wrong. In order to believe that, in order to believe something is objectively wrong, you must believe in God. Because if you believe in God, then you believe that there's a transcendent moral order that is over all of us.

And you're proving that point, and it's not even a criticism, you are being consistent. And to your point, which is that, so we believe that there is a God that has rules for life.

We believe that was given to Moses, primarily at Mount Sinai, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, and that every society and every culture lives under that natural law. And so, but it's very interesting that if we get away from the idea of a belief in God and the transcendent, you can see how dangerous

that is for society, right? I wouldn't say it's dangerous because it really depends on what the morals the society adopts and like what their constitution is, what their values are. I don't know why that needs to be grounded in religion.

Well, so let me ask, okay, so would you say that murder is bad? Yes? I would say

that. By what standard do you measure bad? I would say that it's based on my environment, how I was raised, what my cultural beliefs are, how everyone else's morality has influenced my morality. So I believe that it's, for example, I think you brought this up in some other debate, some tribes might like, are OK with child sacrifice or cannibalism or things like that right so for them that

is okay for me it's not right it's really depends on where what society we

grow up in I think yes so you so child sacrifice is not something you think that is objectively wrong I just I'm just trying to understand how do I pay attention up here guys. Let's

How do we ground what is objective and also you brought up a point that like if you do believe in God Then we do have objective morality right and you obviously believe in Christianity But my point is like if for example a different religion has different morals How do you determine which one is objective because both will think that it it's objective, right? So how do you make that determination?

It's a great question. Well, first you have to look at, sorry, there's just a side show going on here. You have to look at the proof and the fruit of which that moral system has delivered. Okay.

And so, are you from India? I don't mean to offend you by any way, but do you think that the moral system of India or the moral system of America, which is better?

What do you mean by moral system?

Like, can you give me some?

Caste system.

Yeah, I disagree with the caste system.

Got it, so you disagree with it, but is there something objectively evil and wrong with saying that 200 million people are permanently in poverty?

Again, I want to ask you, like, how do we ground objectivity? Like what, like, for example, like for scientific theories, like we can conduct experiments and say, okay, it's objectively true. But like for morality, like it depends, for for example people living in India at that time for them It might have been okay, right?

So like how do we ground objectivity like you have you have to believe in God you have to believe in a power more specifically a monotheistic one Okay, why is that? Well because if you have many gods polytheism you have many moralities and what one God one morality So that's why ethical monotheism founded America. And so of course it's a faith claim in some ways, but we can use science also to get us pretty close to believing in God, from space-time and

matter, from the teleological argument for God, for how all the fine-tuning of our universe exists. But then in order, once you believe in a God, then you can then say there is an objective morality. If you don't believe in

God, your position is correct. It's all just context. I do disagree with one thing that like because there are multiple religions, right, multiple monotheistic religions. So how do you

determine which monotheistic religion is true? So well, why is mine true? Because the resurrection is the most documented, followed, and proven fact of history. Of all the different things. Is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is by far the most compelling event in human history besides the creation of the world. Is that we know Jesus existed, we know that he was killed, we have extra biblical sources that prove it, from Josephus, from the Talmud, to the historians of the day.

And there are so many facts surrounding the resurrection that cannot be explained other than that Jesus actually rose from the dead. From why use female witnesses, we know that he was in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, we know that the tomb was empty. Where did Jesus' body go? For example, if you wanted to disprove Christianity, why didn't they just march through the streets with Jesus' corpse and say, "'Nope, actually he is not risen from the dead.

"'Here he is right now.'" From all these different elements, we stake all of our chips as Christians into the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Amongst many other things, that the Bible is materially true

every time that we do an archaeological discovery in the Middle East. The more that we discover, the more that we search in the Middle East, the more we find out that the Bible is true.

Okay, so your belief is basically based on the truth value of Christianity, basically, right? And like the fact that like, you believe that your religion is true, and therefore that's where you derive your morality from, right?

Partially, yes, but even before that, you don't have to believe in the resurrection to believe in God. You can believe in God and not believe in the resurrection. So if you ask me why I believe in Christianity.

So for example, there are a lot of arguments, for example, the cosmological argument or teleological argument that you mentioned, which do not really like, like do not refer to like a particular God, right? It just refers to God in general. So how do you derive morality from just the existence of God

without associating it with a particular religion?

Yeah, so that's a great question. So you can use reason that if there is a God, then God would want us to live a certain way. And which way is best, which way is most efficacious? I'm not, this is not my argument for it, but this would be a more deistic morality

that some of the founding fathers had, that if there is a God, well then he probably wouldn't want us to screw up this place too much. He wouldn't want us to hurt each other, right? You can use your reason to get to that.

Does that make sense? Yeah. It's not a perfect fit. And a lot of what we consider to be correct moral thinking is rooted from a belief in objective morality

That's fine. But like then you would have to contend with things like the problem of evil, right? Because that would be like a Problem, right? Because like for example the Christian theistic like the God is like all good, right?

Yes, but it's hard to interrupt but atheists have a problem of evil, too Do you know what the problem of evil is for the atheists? They can't tell us what evil is. That is true. So we have a problem of evil, which is to explain evil. We struggle with that.

Atheists have a problem with evil, which is they can't tell us what is evil or good.

But that's because they don't believe in objective...

Exactly. objective. Exactly, so but that's a bigger problem. So they can't even use the problem of evil against us because by what definition do they consider something evil? They can use a problem of suffering. Because suffering is objectively measured, right? Pain or struggle. So yeah, I mean look, the problem of evil, I don't have a great answer, I'm not gonna like give an answer that no one's ever given. Evil actually you could argue is the absence of good, the same way that dark is the absence of life. But look, we as Christians, we have a couple things that are very hard to answer, right? Problem

of evil and like why kids die. I mean, amongst many other things, right? Atheists have to explain everything else. They have to explain why we're here, how the earth was created, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, everlasting life. And so we do have an answer in, you know, the Christian faith that God uses all things for good for those who loves him. God works in mysterious ways is the old thing that we say. But also we also believe in original sin. But all of that actually appeals that there is a transcendent good. Evil itself does not disprove God. It might question what you think of God and the nature of God

But itself does not necessarily disprove it

Okay. Thank you. I did have like a one more point. Yeah, and then we get to the next question. Very good, though Yeah, very quickly. Like I like you mentioned that like we like the previous person also talked about you believe that Like university is a scam, right? I just wanted to ask you specifically, what aspects do you think are a scam? Do you think all majors are a scam, all universities are a scam?

Not necessarily, but half the kids in this audience, if they get a job, they'll end up getting a job that does not require a college degree. So, you think about that. I mean, by the way, the national graduation rate's only 59%,

41% of people that enter college do not graduate. I do agree with you that the tuition part of it can, like nowadays on the internet you can find almost any information. I do believe that the utility of universities is the networking that you can do with peers as well as industry professionals

and also the resources that universities provide, especially for the STEM subjects. And I wanted to ask you, since you.

Really quick, yeah.

Yeah, I would, last question.

Last question.

I wanted to ask you, like, since you did not, like, go to university and, like, you built this entire big organization yourself, how did you tackle those networking challenges and, like, how did you, like, step-by-step build up to this?

Phenomenal question. You find somebody you want to go meet and you go find them. You don't need to go to college to meet important people. You literally can be like, okay, what do I want to do? Who's the best person in my local area? Find out what charities are involved. Call their office, show up at their office. You'd be amazed at how many people are willing

to work with you and meet you, but you don't need to necessarily go to college to be able to it up for him. That was really good, everybody. All right, next question.

All right, so I would like to ask you about for abortions, right, how do we explain to those who are for it, how do we explain that even, I don't know if you believe this or not, but in terms of like a rape or unintentional or really unconsented pregnancies, can we say that we should still be anti-abortion

in that scenario?

Yes.

What's your grounds for that? And how would I explain it to someone else?

Sure, it's a good question. Let's say I have two ultrasounds here. One is an ultrasound of a baby from a loving marriage. The other one is a baby conceived in rape. Which one is which?

We can't exactly tell.

So they're both human beings?

Right.

They both deserve human rights.

Okay, but then what is if someone pushes back against

with the idea?

Do I? Oh

One of them was willingly conceived while the other one is was a force consumed

Yeah, that that's a fair argument. The question then should be when if ever in your moral universe is it okay to do something evil after an evil act to try to make that evil act correct. But how about for in terms of what if we're in the position of the mother and she is I don't want to take the risk of illness death or whatever to have this

child. Sure so it's a little bit of a false choice because they're acting as if the termination of the pregnancy will have no Consequences or costs a lot of women that get abortions have regret women die when they get abortions They have a lot of their health issues. It's not just like getting a haircut So it's a little bit of a false choice, but we come after it from a very basic moral argument There are two lives involved. There's a little life and a grown life and

No one has the right to eliminate a human life

in utero, period. So then at that point, now we're forcing someone to do something that they never consented to, never wanted to do. How, isn't this violating their human autonomy? Well again, but

eliminating the human being would also violate the

baby's autonomy too, wouldn't it? Well then we would have to ask, right? Maybe in future years we will have the technology to be able to extract a fetus and grow a fetus outside of the uterus, but given our state of medicine right now, we do

not have that. Sure, I mean, but again, no one is delighting or rejoicing in these circumstances. I mean, it's a terrible situation, I want to reiterate that. But you have a you have a unspeakably difficult choice that is very morally, you know, clear though, which is that you don't eliminate a human being because an

awful action happened. Are you saying that as someone who can get... Well, I guess my pushback against that would be then if we say that it's entirely wrong,

right?

We are, I guess, we're sacrificing someone's choice for someone's life, which is admirable,

but... It's also morally correct You don't get you don't get to murder someone smaller than you if it makes your life difficult

But then we can't exactly see

Do you the fetus does not have autonomy cannot exist outside the universe?

Human dignity does not does not correlate with dependency So dignity and dependency are not two things corrected. You have human dignity because you're a human being, not because of how dependent you are.

So would you say that viability happens when?

Viability is irrelevant.

So then at what point does human life begin then?

Conception.

Conception, not even sperm or eggs?

That's conception. Okay. That's conception.

Well I just wanted to get that basic... When an egg is fertilized, human life begins.

Okay, so then when it's still a single cell with both chromosomes pairings, right?

Well, it creates new DNA, right? So once the sperm and egg meet, literally something magical and inexplicable happens, where new DNA is formed.

Okay, and then what happens? So then...

Then it attaches to the uterine wall, and I can go through the whole gestational process.

Alright, so then we have the basis of human life. Now what is if within the uterus, now that life is still alive, but is unable to proceed to, like, let's say actual birth, due to some medical situation that has happened?

Well, has the baby died without outside intervention or with outside intervention?

Let's say that the...

Is it an ectopic pregnancy or what? You got to be very clear about the type of...

The amniotic sac has ruptured.

Yeah, that's an ectopic pregnancy, right. So yeah, you can remove the baby from that situation without aborting it. The baby will die outside of the womb, but you do not have to abort it. So those are two different things. The removal of a baby is what's called the cesarean section. You can do that very early on. Now ectopic pregnancy is very real. It's very terrible, but you can you can solve an ectopic pregnancy outside of having an abortion. But okay, so then what creates an abortion? Is it, maybe you don't. They literally will break the back of the baby's skull,

right, they will insert to the back a syringe of cyanide poisoning until the baby no longer, I mean, this is one of the most gruesome things. Everyone who's pro-choice, in my opinion, has a moral obligation to watch a video of an abortion beyond inexplicable. But yeah, look, really quick, what's the final question on this? Because I want to keep moving.

Oh, sure.

So you didn't really finish the question of when can we do that procedure, right?

If there's still a heartbeat.

I don't think we should ever do that procedure.

What happens if like now the mother's life is going to die in like the next 15 minutes,

but the baby is still having a heartbeat. What do we do at that point? Again, I don't want to speak to every specific. Some OBGYNs say abortion is never medically necessary. I'm not a professional enough to say that, but it depends how far advanced the woman is. If she's past 22 weeks, have a cesarean section. Try to have the baby live in NICU. So there are situations where are okay, right? Well, no, I'm not even saying okay. Again, I don't know enough about, some OBGYNs that they can defend their statement here, they will say abortion is never medically necessary. I'll allow them to defend that.

I don't know enough about the details there to be able to say that.

So you're saying that you do not have a statement

of whether abortions can never be true or always?

It is murder. can prove to me, of which there's a lot of debate, it is ever medically necessary. So take for example, if a baby is 26 weeks and the baby's, you know, the mom's life is in danger, deliver the baby by C-section. Don't terminate the baby. Does that make sense?

Yes, I see.

The baby can survive outside of the womb.

Okay, at that point, yeah.

Thank you very much, appreciate it. Next question. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Charlie.

Hello.

Oh, thank you. Yeah, that's fine. Good to go? Thank you. Let's start off by laying some things that I think you and I would both agree on first.

I'm sure you like our Constitution. I'm sure you're a big fan of our Bill of Rights, the habeas corpus inclusion in the before even the Bill of Rights in the Constitution itself. When we look at the current League of Deportations that's happening, particularly when it predates to Kilmar

Abrego Garcia, right, he is a man who hasn't had his due process he

never had his day in court that's you know that's not true you know that he spent four years in court from 2017 to 2021 in fact so much so that the judge even ruled on his immigration status saying that he could be deported at any

time for any reason he that lap that court order actually elapsed so it wasn't valid at the time of his deportation. If we want to go through these, we need people to have their happiest corporate rights. We need people to have the ability to show up in court and actually exemplify their, uh, uh, have their case be heard in front of a judge, be heard

by a period of their cheer, uh, jury of their peers, pardon, and yeah, have a chance to be... Okay, but again, I've done this so many times. Let me just pause, and I don't mean to pick on you. How hard the left is fighting for this MS-13 scumbag is just remarkable to me. It's like, it's unbe... It's like, I'm not trying to pick on you. No, no, no.

Let me make a broad statement.

He could be the worst person in the world. He could be an absolute, like a trash bag. Is he a US citizen?

No.

Oh, that actually changes things.

It does, absolutely.

And so it's-

But it does not change-

Due process? Yes, it does. The Alien Enemies Act says you do- No, no, It is not correct. So they invoked the Alien Enemies Act. What does it take to invoke that act? A signature from the President of the United States to say that you are being invaded by a foreign power or assisted by a certain force on enemy ground. He was part of MS-13, which is a paramilitary arm of the Venezuelan government.

So, but in order to enact that act, don't we need a war declaration? Oh, yeah, yeah. No, that's what he did on day one. He said that we're being invaded.

Does he have that power?

Yes.

I thought that was a congressionally approved thing. No, that's not correct. The President of the United States has an ability within a 90-day emergency clause window to say that we are being invaded. And we have been invaded, by the way, by MS-13 and Trende Aragua. It's a material fact.

The Press. Considering — okay, one of the things that's super important when we consider law is the spirit of the law. And do we really believe that these laws were enacted with the spirit in mind of gangs being associated as arms of a state?

Mr. Zients.

Potentially. MS-13 and Trinidad and Tobago are not Venezuelan arms.

They're not. No, MS-13 is, that's not correct. But let me throw it back at you. MS-13's El Salvadorian and also Venezuela. Yeah, Trinidad and Tobago is Venezuela, MS-13 is El Salvadorian.

He signed declaration of invasions against both. But let me challenge you on this, coming after this in good faith, was the First Amendment written in the spirit of Facebook posts?

Can you clarify a little bit?

The First Amendment.

Yeah.

Part of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. Was it written in the spirit that it shall apply to tweets?

Not to private corporations.

Well, no, no, meaning like, do your free speech rights apply also to the Internet?

So it applies to public squares. The question that we're having now is, is Facebook a public square?

Are Twitter public squares?

Or are these spaces? It's a separate issue. The issue is that we would all agree that you have a First Amendment right to express yourself and the government can't throw you in prison regardless of where you have it. Whether you write a newspaper op-ed or whether you do a Facebook post, right? You have a First Amendment right to do that. The point being is you say, well, the spirit of the law

in 1798, it doesn't matter if a law is old, it matters what moral claim is the law trying to make because times sort of change, but people do not. Human nature goes unchanged. And so the point being is the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked four times in our nation's history.

War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II. And I believe totally appropriately invoked here. It's been enjoined by the Supreme Court right now, so we'll find out its future. But when you have 15 million people come into your country in a span of four years, that is

definitionally an invasion.

I guess an invasion requires a certain commitment from a state, right? It's the big difference between an invasion and an immigration wave is whether there's a state operating.

Hold on, or a force. The cartels, man, the cartels operate like a state. The cartels are the reason that a lot of these people are able to make it up to the border. They pay money to the cartels. The cartels are using drones, they're using speed boats,

they're using helicopters. The cartels act like a government. In fact, the cartels run the Mexican government. The Sinaloa drug cartel is more powerful I would agree with labeling these terrorist organizations. I think they have the funding, they operate, they have such – but there's a key distinction

between a government entity and a terrorist organization.

Hold on. Hold on a second. We declared war on al-Qaida. What government was al-Qaida?

We can declare war on terrorist organizations.

No, I know. That's what I'm saying. So, if we sign the Alien Enemies Act against Al Qaeda, it would have been perfectly fair and appropriate, obviously. And Al Qaeda is not a government. What I'm saying, though, is that the cartels, the MS-13 and Trinidad and Tobago,

they are being supported by governments. They're harboring governments. These are enemies here on the mainland of America doing harm. And Kilmar Abrego-Garcia is a member of MS-13. He was a wife-beater, a child abuser, here illegally. He had a deportation notice on his head, and now he's back in his country of El Salvador, and we should be happy that he's home.

So, I can grant you that he might be all these things.

It does not mean that he doesn't get a day in court. But as a non-US citizen, though, the Alien Enemies Act allow us to expeditiously remove him. It's just the way it works. I mean, is it?

No, you're right.

But I get it.

And now that's not the case.

We can argue whether that was a correct invocation, right?

That's where our disagreement is. But that's irrelevant. The Supreme Court has now said no more, The only argument you might have is that the judge says you could deport him anywhere except El Salvador. So we should probably should have just like deported him to, I don't know, the Congo and everyone would have been happier. Hilariously, they said, oh, he's in a foreign jail. No, he's not in a foreign jail. He's an El Salvadorian in his own country. He's not an American.

If he would have went to Gitmo, that would have been a foreign jail.

OK. And then, let's see. Thank you. I think that's it for me. Thank you very much.

Could I ask you for a red hat to sign?

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Thanks.

Great question. Charlie, give me a hat. Charlie, sign mine.

Charlie, sign mine. Charlie, Charlie. Charlie. Charlie. Charlie. Charlie. Yes, sir.

All right. Hi, Charlie. My name's Gabriel, and I'm a senior in high school. And I want to tell you this. I don't know much about this topic. So I'm here more to learn, but I also

want to provide a point of view. So I wanted to speak about Trump's tariff policy. So since January 20 2025 Trump has had one of the worst presidential terms concerning the economy and There's statistics to back this up S&P has dropped 8% Dow Jones has dropped 7% the Russell has dropped 12% The way I understand it tariffs are attacks that are passed on to consumers They impede upon the world free trade and increase the cost of imported goods but also has dropped 12%. The way I understand it, tariffs are a tax that are passed on to consumers.

They impede upon the world free trade and increase the cost of imported goods. This not only has tanked our economy, but is actually putting small businesses across America out of work. Middle class Americans that voted for Trump

believing prices would drop are now having to close down their small business because they used to rely on outsourcing. Now I understand that Trump's goal with this tariff policy is to bring back jobs to America. However, this is an unrealistic reality. Even though some corporations are moving production

to the US to avoid tariff, in reality most would rather pass the cost on to consumers than financially pay billions of dollars in building new plants in America and paying higher wages. With all of this, I wanted to ask you if you could please defend Trump's tariff plan.

Sure, great. First of all, the market's recovering, but you're right, it has gone down. The market is not a necessarily good indicator of the economy. We have an economy, and then we have a market.

Half Americans don't own any stocks, just for the record. And that's a very important thing, right? There's a lot of Americans that have money in stocks and stocks and are losing money every day. Well, actually, okay, you're in high school, so I'm just gonna be like super gentle. Like, the market's been up the last couple days, right? Markets go up, markets go down. The more important question, though,

is what type of economy is going to survive the next 40 or 50 years? When we do not make our own vitamin C, we don't make our own antibiotics, we don't make our own drone parts, parts and it's all made in China, we should try to redomicile it. It's tempting to blame this all on tariffs, but there's actually no tariffs that are

in place right now. You know that, right? There's still a 10% baseline tariff, and even though there's a 90-day pause, they're gonna come back. That's the

reality. You know that better than I do, right? Yeah. Well, I'm trying to be super like you're in high school. It's fine. You know Trump's talking to South Korea and Japan and Vietnam We're gonna get massive deals with India and we're going to fix the trade imbalances and here's the core of it Can we at least agree that Trump ran on the idea of tariffs did and people voted for it? Yes should elected leaders do what people vote for them to do? Yes

But okay, but I I agree that he's doing what he said he would do. What I'm asking you is how can you defend what he's doing? Because what would you say to the middle-class American that has a small business that now has to shut down their business because they used to outsource to China and now they can't pay due to the high tariffs? That's my question.

They were outsourcing to China?

Well, even though some small businesses don't outsource, they get a lot of their production from big companies that do make their products foreign. And so now those prices are being jacked up and small businesses are running out of customers

because they're having to pass the cost on to the consumer. I see no evidence of that happening and I believe first of all...

Well what is the definition of a tariff?

Well the tariff is a duty on an imported product. How do you avoid a tariff? You move to the US. Yeah exactly. So wait, hold on a second. Are most companies moving to the US? Actually yes. You know there's over six trillion dollars in investments announced in the last two weeks in the United States of America? Six trillion dollars. But what what happens in the last three months. Right, again, so I'm going to try to be very gentle with this. Stock prices are not always a reflection of reality.

That is an inflection of investor skittishness, right? So if NVIDIA's down 20%, they might have been hyperinflated a couple months ago. Let me just kind of close with this. Do we both agree we should make more stuff in America? Mr. Earnest I agree in certain cases, yes. The Press Okay. I mean, yes, I think with critical manufacturing, critical industry, we have massive trade imbalances with these countries.

The President is going to actually say you have to buy more of our product, buy more of our liquefied natural gas. And I believe coupled with that small business that you talked about, they're about to receive the largest tax cut in American history. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, and a massive middle-class tax cut.

The Press But if we can produce goods foreignly for less money, why are we moving it back to the U.S.? And my other point is, by moving it back to the U.S., what are you, making more factory jobs? We're moving into a time where tariffs are behind us.

Factory jobs are behind us, factory jobs are behind us. Soon AI is going to take over these factory jobs.

Mr. Earnest And this is where you're totally wrong, man. We have 11 million manufacturing jobs that we need to fill in the next five years that don't require college degrees. Advanced manufacturing jobs, highly precise, who's going to build all the robots, who's going to build the drones.

There's an insane amount of hardware infrastructure that needs to happen. Factory jobs are not behind us. In fact, we have more hardware needs now in 2025 than we even had in 1985. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm gonna be honest, but you're like a like this conservative like Trump supporter dude, okay? And and you'd consider yourself a Christian I Just how do you consider yourself like a serious Christian if you support Trump after he raped Jean Carroll. So you believe he raped her? Yes. Really, was he criminally indicted for that? I believe he was.

No, he wasn't. For sexual abuse? No, he wasn't. He was civilly found liable for slander in a slanted Manhattan jury. Tell me, what year was she raped? She doesn't know either, either actually when she was asked.

The court found that she was guilty. No they did not. A jury found him liable for smear and slander around this topic. Do you know that E. Jean Carroll said, quote, rape is sexy? No. She said that on air on the Anderson Cooper show. E. Jean Carroll says, do you know the facts surrounding the case? A little bit. Tell me. No. No, all right, all right, all right, all right.

Okay. Tell me. Trump was, I don't know, indicted, found guilty for sexual abuse over her. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Because he fingered her unconsensually. He was never, ever indicted. He was never, this was a civil case

that was around smear and slander and defamation. Again, according to E. Jean Carroll's recollection, she can't remember the year, but she says, some afternoon, Donald Trump took me into a Tiffany's store at the height of his power, at the height of his popularity, when he was on the front cover of Playboy magazine

and decided to go rape E. Jean Carroll? Really, we're supposed to believe that?

I've seen pictures of Donald Trump and Epstein hanging out.

Oh, yeah. Oh, Epstein. You know he kicked him out of the Mar-a-Lago club. What's the next point?

Because Epstein raped kids and shit.

Yeah.

You have to kick him out if he rapes kids. Like he can't have that personal. Got it, so what's the contention?

I don't know, he raped kids.

Trump did. Trump raped kids? Yeah. Jean Carol when she was 13. She wasn't 13. This accusation was one in her late 20s, not when she was 13. 13. Your typical liberal, everybody. Give it up for him. Thank you very much. The government. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Charlie.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for letting me speech.

I'm studying abroad from Italy for this semester. I sorry. I'm studying abroad from Italy for this semester. I'm sorry. I'm studying abroad from Italy for this semester. I'm sorry.

I'm studying abroad from Italy for this semester.

I'm studying abroad from Italy for this semester. I, sorry? Yeah, from Roma. I've seen your videos online and I really respect what you are doing here. I have a question because in Europe you are facing the same problem with illegal immigration and what are your stance on illegal families who came here many years ago and now are working and paying taxes in your country?

Every person who has come here illegally must be returned to their country of origin.

And I completely agree with you. I'm here to say something. I really like the speech that JD Vance did in Munich after the terrorist attack.

Do we like JD Vance, everybody? Isn't JD great?

Well, I'm not American, but I like him too. If I were American, I would have voted for him. However, in Europe we are having a big problem with illegal immigration. People are coming, they don't respect our laws, they're raping women, stabbing, it's dangerous to go around. So I don't understand when people come here

to talk to you liberals and democrats saying that they want to welcome them because you don't know who is entering in your country.

Amen, and I'll tell you, we need more legal immigrants like you in this country, I'll tell you what.

And it makes me upset that for me for me is difficult. I'm respecting the law. I'm here if I I have to be here legally I'm gonna go back to it because I can now work and it makes me upset seeing someone that comes here illegally and That's what everyone's that's it. God bless you

You want a hat if I can have a white one because I already a a red. Make Italy great again, OK? Very good. I wish.

Yeah.

Can I shake your hand?

Thank you.

Thank you. Good job.

Thank you.

Hi, Charlie. I'm a senior in high school named Trevor. And I want to start off by saying thank you for coming to this beautiful city of San Diego One being the photo of Kilmar Garcia's hand that Trump held up and him advocating in an interview the other day with Terry Moran About it not being photoshopped in any way. I want to get your thought. I mean it wasn't photoshopped

It was labeled right, but he didn't say that he said said that the literal letters and numbers MS-13 were on.

No, they are. I mean, I have the picture here.

Yeah, it's photoshopped.

There's a, there's a.

No, no, no, no, no, it's not. That's called labeling, not photoshopping.

Right, right, I can look it up, literally means MS-13. I completely agree that those logos were on each of his knuckles. I'm saying that the letters MS and the numbers 13 were not on there, but in the photo that Trump held up, they were,

and he advocates that they were on his hand, not that they were labels.

I don't know what you're talking about,

but sure, what's your next contention? And then I want to just get two things that you disagree with Trump that he's done in his current presidency.

Canada should not be the 51st state.

Okay.

Okay.

And I think, not even a disagreement, I think we should have caution to try to go to war with Iran.

Okay.

We should be very careful about bombing the Houthis and getting closer to a war with Iran. That's all I have, thank you. Thank you very much, appreciate it. Thank you.

Can you sign my hat?

Yes.

Can you sign my hat?

Who's up?

How are we doing, Mr. Kirk?

Yeah, hi.

This is, you know, I'm not going to sit here and act like I'm going to be like a debate

king here, you know. I had a quick question though about an abortion if that's okay with you.

Right?

So, I think when we talk about abortion, I think we really get into this idea of like when we should assign personhood, right? So you clearly believe that life begins at conception and I think it would be better if we shift that metric to a more based on sentience and I believe that like and the question I have for you is that like since you believe that life begins at birth let's say we have a person that's going to old age and they have died and they have

they have absolutely showing no brain activity at all would you believe that like you know shooting that person that that dead person is the equivalent of

like a human life yeah I mean it is a human life but those are two totally separate things one at one is no more and the other one's not yet. Right. So not yet is different than no more. If someone's at the end of their life and there's nothing more we can do to continue their life that is a different moral conversation than someone that has not yet been completely grown as a human as you. Two totally different moral

circumstances so you can't conflate the two. Right. But I think they both have the same problem where

it's about the presence of consciousness, right?

No, it's not a problem. One consciousness will come. One will not. So they're two separate things. One has potentiality. One does not.

So you can't conflate the two together.

OK, let's say, let me use a different analogy then. Let's say I have a blueprint to a building right and I have the materials for the building and you destroy those materials That the materials of the building isn't the building in itself

Can we both agree that there's a difference between those two is the building building itself in real time and is currently being Constructed and it's going up Adding value to the fact that we're creating the bad analogy a blueprint Because the blueprint it not itself is not the building right exactly so I'm saying like human DNA is not just agree on that though the blueprint is not the building so there's probably different moral qualifications no they're not I'm saying though that the baby is the building so you're incorrect okay so

the baby so building is following the blue so when you're looking at like like I don't know like a fertilized egg you're telling me this a picture of this fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human life right now. What's the difference? The different stages of development. So why should stage of development give you more rights?

Well I mean, okay, you're acting like this is not something that's done in society. Like for example, we do judge based on different stages of development and

cognitive capabilities, right? I'm not letting a fetus drive a car.

A fetus can't drive, can't drink alcohol and whatnot. Apply the right to life to your stage of development.

This is a little bit different.

So I guess a different question I would have to ask you is, so I'm assuming your two qualifications here are the fact that it's a unique cellular organism that has the potential to live. And it's human, which inherently has dignity. OK, so I guess then this brings up a question,

because I know there's another scenario where this occurs, right, where a fertilization of an egg occurs, and they're on track to development, correct? And this other example that I'll think of is like animals, right? I think, do we give, why do we not give the same moral consideration to animals as we are to like a zygote in this situation? Because animals aren't human beings. Okay, so but why is human beings a just location? Human beings have a soul and animals do not. Have a soul, so levels, so exact, so this is my point.

No, soul is not just consciousness.

Soul is a conscious experience. No, it's not.

Let me prove it to you.

You are engaging in it.

This is honest, this is honest though.

Let me prove it to you. that a woman still menstruates if she's brain dead. So consciousness is not human worth. There's something else going on beyond consciousness that exists in a being that is the soul.

Okay, so now we're getting into a conversation

on what the difference between a soul and a consciousness is.

No, they're totally different. The soul is the something beyond, consciousness is your narration to yourself, your ability to reason. There's something above reason. All of us know what that is when it kicks in. You ever hear the expression, words can't describe, I am speechless, you know why? Speech is reason.

When you see a sunset that takes your breath away, when you see a newborn life that is born, you don't even have the words to express it because it transcends your reason. That is your soul.

So I mean, that's a good point. Like when we give, so what you just labeled there is like when a child is given, born, when they're born, moral significance to that, not the fact that like they got infertilized by an egg. I don't want to celebrate. I want to sort of, I'd rather celebrate my birthday rather than like, you know, the day my parents had sex. That's kind of a little weird situation. You know what I mean?

Like if life begins a conception.

Well, it's called your birthday for a reason. Right. You were a living being. It seems that like society kind of of an actual human being existing that gives moral value, right? One is your entrance to the world. The other one is the actual creation of your being. Two different things. Your birthday is when you entered the world.

For example, your birthday could be at 28 weeks, not 36 weeks. So everybody has a different day when you exit the womb, but it's not when your worth begins. That's not when your value begins. That's simply when you exit the womb.

Right, right. So I have a good question. I really want to get back to this idea of like you give more moral value to the level of the fact that like that humans that are developed have a soul in comparison to like you know a zygote that or actually no animals. Or a coyote. Okay so is that not the same comparison to like a zygote to a developed human being in the sense that like like we are a higher functioning conscious being in comparison to this other thing that we can just actively kill whenever we want. It doesn't matter. Can you actively kill a one-year-old that doesn't have as much acuity as you do or consciousness?

Right, yeah, but like... Can you? Can you kill a one-year-old? That's the same thing because this is of consciousness. Oh, so one's bigger. One's more developed. One's older.

No, not the one more developed.

The consciousness is completely irrelevant.

Sure.

Because just so you know, that one day old out of the womb doesn't have a lot of consciousness at all.

OK, sure.

It can't speak. It can't really. I mean, like, well, to a certain degree, I agree with that. But like, but there is a meaningful difference between a fertilized egg and a conscious human being.

What is it?

One is less conscious than the other. Oh no, well, one has more skills. But like, what's the innate moral difference?

And prove it to me. Because it seems like we do give, we restrict rights,

and we do actually change rights based on development

and consciousness. No, about life. life so like a four-year-old right what is the innate moral difference of a four-year-old and a zygote one is more conscious okay got it so I think that's irrelevant I think they're both human beings deserving of protection

consciousness alone is not a marker of dignity okay but so then what is your marker dignity is being a human being being a human being so your argument a little bit circular though there's like it's just because we are we deserve rights because we're human being? Yeah, of course. I mean, it's self-evident. We are human beings with a soul, therefore we have rights. So it's, we deserve rights because we're human beings because we're human beings. So like, how am I supposed to win against this argument?

You can't.

See, okay, yeah, exactly.

So it's inherently- It's called a self-evident truth. So, so, yeah. is irrefutable, is that because you have to posit human beings have rights. And that's that, and that is not a kind of a concern that like we base all our entire ideology on this one illogical circle that... Oh it's not illogical, it's incredibly logical. We are human beings and we believe that they matter.

What I'm interested in is that like if you were to remove this circle here,

then you would have to actually be pro-life in the sense that you'd be pro-life to all life. Right, so, no, no, no, no, but animals, you know, but we don't believe human beings are... I'm not like a vegan or anything, I'm not vegetarian, but I think... But human beings are not the moral same as a bird. It's not the same thing. For multiple reasons, because a human being has characteristics and qualities, and most importantly, we believe as Christians, human beings have a soul that a bird does not have. Okay, so characteristics and qualities like... Let me interrupt one more. The West, whether you agree or not, sorry to interrupt. We believe the human being is the only thing made in the image of the creator, a Mago deck.

Okay, so when you say characteristics and qualities, what does that mean to me?

What does that mean to me? Well, first of all, not just the ability to reason, but also the ability to sympathize, empathize, feel, predict, plan, conjecture, have mercy, forgiveness, to be able to be introspective. All beautiful things, I love that. I love that about us human beings. Oh no, I know. I'm not being sarcastic. No, but we human beings are exceptional, actually. I mean, versus the beasts of the wild, which we should appreciate and adore. But again, more beyond that, we come after this from a soft religious view,

because you don't have to be Christian to believe this, let's just say dignity, that a fox does not. Right, yeah, so what you just did there is kind of like my argument here. You're saying that like because we're human, we are more developed, we have higher cognitive reasoning, we're able to sympathize, emotion, and reason, do all these crazy things. And the soul.

Right, but the thing is, well I guess that's a religious belief though.

Well, that's an interesting question.

I think that consciousness is the soul.

And that's where, why, if you don't believe in God, it's easy to go want to murder a bunch of people. And I'm not criticizing you. It goes back to just a common theme here. If you believe in God, every human being has dignity. Well, you're kind of intuition pumping there

about saying if it's murder, because we haven't really discussed, we haven't even agreed on whether it's a human being worth considering. Of course, if it's a human being, then the elimination of human life is murder. But that's fine. We're not, we're just, this is why it's very hard to change people that don't believe in God to be pro-life, because you don't, you don't necessarily believe that human life is necessarily special. No, I mean, I do. But you might think it's like unique and it's like interesting. It is a unique experience, right? But you don't believe it's made in the image of a creator.

Okay, yeah. And that's fine. And that's why we tend to be the pro-life champions and those that don't believe in God don't. And that's okay. Okay.

It's just that clarity is important for the audience. Okay. But I do want to have a good question with you, a question that I want to leave off on is, so it seems like, I think you're pretty set in stone in this position, and I would like to ask, what would I have to do or prove to show you in order to convince you that pro-life isn't the answer that society should be seeking for? I mean, it would be impossibility. You'd have to prove to me God doesn't exist. Okay so so then we can agree that like this is just a moral issue that you're appealing to a book. Of course I mean all moral issues appeal to an authority obviously. Why is murder wrong? I mean because it well the

reason if you want to talk about morality we can talk about morality too. Abortion is a moral issue of course it is. Yeah yeah yeah. But the reason why. Our whole conversation is laced with morality. But in order to kind of like reducted to like a textbook or a book or a specific like well why where do you get your morality from well I think morality should be based on like what is the best choice of action to help society progress okay so okay got it what if society agrees we should kill the dumb people well probably not the best well but you should but why the thing is how about the thing is we should have or medically that doesn't work. Yes it does. In Iceland it's mandatory to abort Down syndrome babies.

Okay.

It's best, right? Down syndrome people are a strain on society. Why do you say it's wrong?

Because there's some degree of like, we should protect some people.

Why? By what standard? Why are you appealing to? I appeal to a book, what do you appeal to?

Because the thing is, I think there's still some value to people that have my- Why, what standard? Is that your opinion, or is there something transcendent to tell you that? No, there's something transcendent because there is some sacred to life, and that's what I agree with. I agree that life is sacred. Why?

That's why I would agree that if you adopted a more broader pro-life stance, I think I would be more would have to create that society where it is more able for them to do that. And in addition to not being discriminated between life. So I think I would agree with that sentiment, right?

Thank you for your time, appreciate it.

Okay, sorry, yeah.

Thank you. Can I get a hat?

Yeah, I'll give you a hat, thank you.

Hey.

Thank you.

Can you side it, can you side it?

Yeah. Thanks, I appreciate you.

Charlie, can I please get a white pass? Okay, who's up?

You sure you don't want to give these guys a little chance? Okay, all right, perfect, thank you. All right, so we're talking objective truths here, right Charlie? Okay, so, thing is, here's an objective truth. Every single policy the Republicans claim they're for, they've basically done the opposite off, right?

Every time you repeal a piece of abortion legislature, the coat hanger business gains a few new customers, right? And even after they're born, you guys don't give as much of a crap about them after they're out of the womb, right? You don't want as much of a crap about them after they're out of the womb, right? You don't wanna pay for them.

That's not true, why would you say that?

Because you guys have an active war against education,

you guys have an active war against free lunch. Hold on, just because you don't wanna have, throw government money at something doesn't mean you don't care about them. Time out, we wanna have more police, so safer streets, shootings. We want to have a secure southern border so that hundreds of thousands of girls are not sold into sex slavery every single year. We want school choice so that kids can have a better education. We actually want a balanced

budget so the US dollar will be around for future generations. I reject this whole thing that, oh you guys are only pro-life at birth. No, every policy that we have is rooted in a pro-life position. Okay, alright. So let's move a little bit on from that. Nothing I've lost yet, because a woman did kill her own child, literally like a couple of days ago, on day of birth, 60 years in prison, as she should have. But like that is a abortion problem. She was raped.

But let's move. But if she would have killed the baby while it was in the womb, it would have been okay. So why was it wrong to kill the baby can't cry in a way, okay? No, no talk about no. No, you brought it up Why is it? Oh, why is it bad to slit the throat of a baby once it's born but okay to slit the throat of the baby that's in The womb less cells just straight-up less cells

I want a as a as one day cover cells less cells, right? Wait, so the amount of cells you have dictate your moral worth. I have more I do not want to get into this moral stuff. No, you already did. Okay, we will. Hold on. I have more... Would you go into a crowd of black people and say the N-word? Would you? If there's no moral covenant against that, would you go?

If I gave you $500 right now, would you?

Would you? No.

Would you say it? No. What's stopping you? I mean, honestly... is gonna stop you going up to a group of guys going, hey fellas, mind if I say a word? Mind if I speak my piece? No, because I have a different set of morals. I say, that's just wrong. By what moral is that wrong?

By morals of around find out. I'm gonna get my jumped. I will get this out of me. This presumptuous. I don't know about you, but any kind of argument that there's an objective morality that doesn't depend. Of course there is. Was Hitler objectively evil? Yeah. Okay, so we agree.

Amount of cells, amount of cells, gone. Biomass, that's kind of f***ed.

So wait, so does someone who is older have more moral rights than a four-year-old because they have more cells?

Depends on the person.

What?

Okay. Listen, Mike makes right, right? I got more inches on that guy I could probably jump him I mean like if Listen not to start a fight not a star fight. I have no offense. I didn't even point out a person

I would not lose against him if I was pointing at him I would lose but okay

Here's what I actually want to talk about okay. We've gone a little sidetrack. That's my preamble

Hey listen listen listen all right I want to talk to you about D-E-I, right? Cause I have a feeling that I, I'm a white man, right? You are? I would say I am, right? I would say I'm a white guy. I may be entirely Chinese, but what even is a white guy?

Right? Throughout history, right? Irish people and Polish people were not considered white people. Then you're gonna say in 17 blah blah blah blah blah, they technically were counted. Right now, you look at the books,

Arabic people are called white people. What's the question?

We got a long line.

Do you disagree with the fact that I'm white? I mean, look, I don't know what you are. You don't look very white to me, but I mean like. You don't look very's a physical objective quality that defines being a white guy, I think. Right.

Because if you look at the book, it's not a country of origin. There's no country of origin for white people. It's alright, then what's the problem with, like, let's say a Mexican? There's no problem with Mexicans.

There's no problem with Mexicans? Then what was your beef against Kilmar Obrigo Garcia? He was in court for different reasons.

And then by the time... What's my beef with a wife-beating, child-abusing gang member here illegally that's my beef with him. And he's from El Salvador not Mexico, racist get that right.

Oh my bad my bad my bad.

Who's doing it now dude?

Hey!

Hey wait a second.

Alright thank you very much next.

Thank you.

Alright one last thing.

Anyone want this f***ing hat?

Take that s*** and get off my campus. No I'll be here for another hour and a half. He's going to go and tell his friends, I own Charlie Kirk.

He probably is, man. He probably is.

Hey, you're eager beaver.

I am, man, because I have a midterm soon. But I wanted to talk to you real quick, because honestly, man, I'm a moderate. So I disagree with you on a lot of issues. But I also agree with you on a lot of issues but I also agree with you on a lot of issues and I'm so glad you've come to this campus and so I want to say welcome to this campus man

welcome to this campus. Thank you for educating everybody but one thing that we don't talk about often especially as Republicans and again I'm a moderate sometimes this past election I was a Republican, but we don't talk about social mobility a lot, we don't talk about the debt to GDP ratio. Trump, his tax cuts and jobs plan, man, it's really like, it's not decreasing our deficit at all,

and we're at the highest rates we've ever been at since World War II. We're literally gonna surpass 100% debt to GDP ratio and there's no plan, at least under the Obama plan, we were gonna raise like $650 billion over the next 10 years, which I know isn't enough,

but I mean, come on, we've gotta do something about that and what's the deal with that?

We need more spending cuts. I mean, we don't know yet what the plan is gonna look like, but I hope we have spending cuts across the board. I mean, I agree with you, we need to balance our budget. It's a major threat to our country.

Well, the big thing is too, man, I mean, obviously I'm an older student, right? I'm clearly not 19 anymore, or at least I, you know, maybe you think so, but whatever. It took me a while to get to college. I got on a med school shirt. I actually switched to economics because I hope I can get in rooms with guys like you one day and have these discussions. But look, man, it took me forever to get here.

It took me forever to get to college. And the only reason that I'm here today is because I had to move from a Republican state to such a liberal state like California so that I could actually get an education because it was completely unaffordable and we just don't address that. We just don't address it. What state are you from? I'm originally from Georgia and I know it swings back and forth but still I mean there's just no opportunities there man.

I mean there's just I tried my hardest my whole life man believe me I work and

I work and I work and I pound and I save but there are no opportunities. I would just push back a little bit though. I mean, a lot more people are leaving California than coming into California.

I understand, but those are wealthy people that are leaving.

No, no, no, no, that's not true. A lot of working middle class people are leaving the state. The opportunities are in states like Texas and Arizona and Florida and increasingly not here in this state.

But the opportunity for social mobility is here. I mean, for instance, for me to get to the first, you know, for me to be in the first quartile of my income and to make it all the way up to the fifth, for me to, you know, be working my butt off

making $40,000. You're very unusual to say that because California has the highest housing prices in the country. Yeah. The highest cost of living. Yeah. The highest cost of living, the most homelessness, so you're very unusual to say that the social mobility is good here in California.

Well it's because people don't take advantage of it, but I mean I came here specifically to take advantage of it because I can see the system here and you know I mean just saying it works for people who actually use it. So I think I

just think we should. All right thank you very much thanks for your time all right yes that a SpaceX shirt hey Charlie thank you for

everything you do you're one of the reasons I started going to the church this year. My first... My first question is, with the population crisis going on, how can abortion not be justified when the baby will not be able to reproduce, such as a baby with Down syndrome? Defend your abortion stance if the result will be less humans in the following generation. Okay, so are you asking me as a hypothetical or can you restate that please?

So with the population crisis going on. Collapse, yeah.

Collapse, exactly. How can abortion not be justified when the baby, such as someone who has Down syndrome,

will not be able to reproduce for the following generation? Oh yeah, I mean look, oh you're talking about abortion for Down syndrome. Or anyone who will not be able to reproduce for the following generation. Oh yeah, I mean look, oh you're talking about abortion for Down syndrome.

Or anyone who will not be able to reproduce.

I mean look, a Down syndrome baby has dignity regardless of its capacity to not produce. If you find out that, I mean, do people that have infertility problems, do they not get human rights? Right, I mean so if someone can't reproduce,

that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to live. Got it. Next question is, with the rise in Bible sales and church attendance, as someone who didn't grow up with religion, what advice would you give to someone who's trying to welcome religion into their life and find their faith? I love that question.

Read your Bible every single day. Fight your flesh. Your flesh is gonna wanna do easy and immediate things like drink and go out and do stuff. Find difficult and hard stuff and find your aim as a man and point everything you can towards it.

And spread the good news of God and Jesus Christ in every possible way that you can and put Jesus first in everything that you do.

Awesome, thank you.

Can I shake your hand? Oh yes, thank you. Thank you, man Awesome, thank you. Can I shake your hand? Yes, thank you. Thank you man. God bless you. Yes, thank you. You gotta sign one. Thank you. Who's up?

Charlie! Charlie!

Charlie!

You guys already have one.

Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!

Charlie! Charlie! All right, here we go.

Yes.

I don't believe that we could use Christianity as a good moral basis for certain laws, considering that historically speaking, Christianity has committed many atrocities. I mean, the Christian Crusades killed many people and they destroyed a lot of our written texts that didn't agree with Christian points like for example the works of Sappho. The works of what? Sappho. Yeah I have no idea what you're talking about. Well, anyways, I don't, so and also I understand that this is Catholicism, but also the schools in Canada

that abused many Native American people. I just don't see how we could argue that Christianity is the great moral authority that you're saying it is for making these laws when arguably they've done a lot of horrible things. What moral code do you live by? I'm a Buddhist, so I mean... So it's all about yourself? No, it's just about being... well I guess you could say that. I know

yeah, I know Buddhism. So let's play it out. What is the top accomplishment of a Buddhist? I guess just to be a good person. No, to reach nirvana, you know that.

Well, yes, but not everyone can reach nirvana.

I know, but you want to try to ascend, right? And so it's all about yourself, all inward looking, right? To try to limit your touch with the outside world, that the outside world is dirty, and it's, you know, it's kind of polluted. I don't believe, I'm, as a Buddhist, that's not

how I was taught, and I don't think it's fair for you to argue for Buddhism in that sense.

Oh no, that's what Buddhism is. No, I know plenty about Buddhism. So Buddhism, as it's written, is that the world is contaminated, we must remove ourselves from the world and we're going to spiritually ascend ourselves by meditation.

But there's people who don't believe in that.

Well, then you don't believe in Buddhism.

There's different sects of Buddhism and they believe in all different kinds of things. Just as there's different sects of Christianity, I'm just not in that sect.

Got it. So can you show, so you, what, what moral, what moral way do you think society should live by? Not Christianity, so what way should we live by?

I think that it's not as much about morality as much as societal and societal needs. Like, for example, like abortion. We can't argue that Christianity is the reason that we should not allow abortions when clearly there's both a medical

and a societal need for abortions.

There's not a medical reason to kill babies, right? That doesn't exist.

Okay, well, I have one example for that. My mother had vasoprevia, and they had offered her an abortion because birthing the baby would not only kill her, like if she went into labor because the placenta had split into many little veins

and covered her birth canal, if she ever went into labor because the placenta had split into many little veins and covered her birth canal, if she ever went into labor, and my little brother at the time, if he had pushed on the birth canal to exit her, she would have died. Both her and her son would have died.

Did your brother survive or no?

I want to continue with this point. So she was offered the opportunity for an abortion because not only was she the main breadwinner of her family, but she is also raising two kids as well already. She's a, she's, the right to an abortion is possibly could have saved her life. She did end up surviving, but not, I don't think that we should limit the ability to get

an abortion to other women in her situation. Wait hold on time out. So your brother you know now? Huh? Does your brother survive or no? Yes he did. Wait so aren't you glad your brother wasn't aborted? I mean come on. I don't. What kind of argument is that? Aren't you

glad your brother's not dead? It's not that I'm not. I'm glad that he wasn't aborted.

Yes, so we're pro-life. That's what we want. We don't want your brother to be aborted. Imagine how many millions other like him are aborted.

Yes, but if my mom died.

She didn't.

It's not even a good argument. Well, there's so many people that did. I said that earlier, it only happens a couple dozen times a year and the baby could be delivered by C-section. People with vasoprevia have a much higher rate of death than other women who are pregnant. Yes, this happens maybe a couple hundred times a year and there's 1.5 million abortions every single year. This is on the extreme of the extreme.

Yes, but if we have to take away abort Again, I can grant you that, fine, we'll have those exceptions.

Can we make abortion illegal for the other circumstances?

No, because then...

Oh, so maybe it's not about those circumstances.

No, it is about those circumstances because when we take away those rights from everyone and we go into a hospital and there's an emergency need to remove a baby, then we have to prove that there's an actual emergency need instead of just it being an automatic right. Then doctors aren't going to be willing to...

You don't have a right to murder another human being.

It's not necessarily a right. It's just the ability to be able to...

So when your brother was in your mom's womb, was your brother a human being?

I mean, it's... I don't want to argue that. I think that we could argue about that for a long time. I don't think it's useful.

When your brother was in the womb, was it a human being?

I believe that on my moral compass, I believe that he was. But I don't think that my moral compass should dictate the medical needs and the societal needs of others.

What moral compass should we use to write laws then?

Not necessarily a single one. I think that everyone's moral compass is different and that we should be able to...

Which one wins? Which one should say, let's for example...

The one that supports women the most, the one that allows women to get medical...

By what standard though? Why is that good? I mean, by what book do you reference? By some moral standard you're appealing to, what is it?

Sorry, what?

No, yeah, by what moral standard do you say that we should have health care for women? At some point you're basing this on something. What is it?

I think that it's not even a right to murder another because life is the first right.

We've been through that, but I'm saying, but at some point you say you don't want Christianity to have the moral source. So I ask you, by what moral code should we

live by? Well, I don't think there's a defining moral code that we should live by. Of course there is! Should we help the sick? Well, yes. Should we help the poor? Okay, but my moral code as a Buddhist is that I should never kill an animal. And many Christians hunt. Many people, you know, kill animals for a living.

That's how they make a living. I'm not talking about your personal. Society has to make decisions, right?

Yeah, and when society makes decisions, they should account for the fact that everyone has a different moral compass. If we're a society that, first of all, a modern society, we shouldn't be basing our moral compass off of a book made thousands of years ago.

Well, first of all, Buddhism is very old too. But contradicting...

I agree. That's why I don't think Buddhism... I don't think we should ban people going out to hunt because I don't believe in killing animals.

At some point, we have to decide what laws to make. We have to say something. Yeah, and I think the laws should be dependent on. On what?

How we can most benefit the people already existing in our society.

Well, okay, so but don't people in the womb exist?

That's, you could argue that for so long. I don't think it's really useful when we're talking about. It's very useful.

Are you glad you weren't aborted?

I. useful. Are you glad you weren't aborted? I... Are you glad you weren't aborted? I'm not. I mean I had, I just, if it was something that my, if aborting me would have benefited my mother far more than having me would have, then I wouldn't be

necessarily angry about it, you know? Like it's not... See I'm glad your mom did not

abort you because I think life is beautiful and I want to give that gift to as many people as

possible yeah but you're also in the same turn taking that gift away from women if a woman has a medical need and her life is in danger I've already

granted let's say abortion is legal for medical circumstances 1.4 million when

we get rid of abortion for those exceptions, right? We need to think about how it is applied in the actual

abortion is the number one form of birth control in the country right now. Over 1.4 million abortions every single year for non-rape, non-incest, non-life of the mother. It's really the

number one form of birth control in this country?

I highly doubt that. I'm sorry, that's crazy. If you think about it, if you think about the day after pill. That's crazy.

Right?

If you think about the day after pill.

People are spending $50 for a f***ing abortion instead of like, you know, the pull-out method, getting a condom. You really think, I'm sorry, in your twisted world view, you really think the number one

form of birth control is abortion? right? Abortifacients, at-home abortions, chemical abortions, surgical abortions, all those can be defined as abortifacients. Yes, you might be right, okay? You might say condoms are more than that, but abortion has become a form of birth control. Can you agree with that? I mean, anything that... well, obviously

anything can be considered birth control. I mean, me deciding to not have sex is birth control.

I mean, I- And that's what more people should do.

What?

Yeah.

I don't, no, because I don't think that that's necessarily something that we can police. Like what, you're gonna go into people's bedrooms and like-

I'm not policing, but I'm saying though, if you're gonna decision to get pregnant. I don't think that that's necessarily a good argument. I mean, there's more nuance to that. There's no nuance to it. A human life exists. I can't murder someone in the crowd. Why? Because murder is wrong. You can't murder someone in a womb. Why? Because murder is wrong. Thank you for your time. Yes. Okay, hi. So I understand that you're fundamentally against immigrant workers, illegal immigrant

workers.

That's true, right?

Yeah, they should all be deported back to their country of origin.

So what do you think is the best policy for keeping out illegal immigrants? Well, we already know, first of all, do you know that border crossings have gone down 99.99% in the last five years?

So we already know that border crossings have gone down 99.99%? Thank you President Trump for securing the southern border. So we know it. And finally there has to be a much greater penalty for visa overstays and for people that come here legally and overstay their green card or their

temporary work visa. Do you think there should be a greater penalization for those who employ immigrants?

Absolutely, yes. Absolutely.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

Absolutely. Thank you.