Charlie vs. The University of Cambridge

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show – "Charlie vs. The University of Cambridge"

Release Date: May 29, 2025

In this intense episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, host Charlie Kirk engages in a vigorous debate at Cambridge University, tackling a range of hot-button issues from a staunchly conservative perspective. The conversation is marked by sharp exchanges between Kirk and university students, highlighting the deep ideological divides present in academic settings today.

---

1. Introduction to the Debate

Charlie Kirk begins by recounting his challenging experience at Cambridge University, describing the hostile environment with over 400 attendees opposing him alongside a professor. He expresses respect for freedom of speech, emphasizing the importance of engaging in environments where opposing views are prominent.

Notable Quote:

"We need to be unafraid to go into the lines. Then we need to be unafraid to go into the place where we're not always going to be celebrated." [00:09]

---

2. Turning Point USA and Professor Watch List

Kirk discusses the mission of Turning Point USA, particularly focusing on the Professor Watch List, which aims to expose college professors who allegedly discriminate against conservative students and propagate leftist ideologies. He defends the initiative against critics like PEN America, asserting that it leverages free speech to hold educators accountable.

Notable Quotes:

"Turning Point USA has now grown to be the largest campus conservative organization in the country." [04:12]

"If the publicizing of certain ideas is intimidation, then I think that's just laughable." [05:47]

---

3. Intellectual Growth and Conservative Education

The conversation shifts to Turning Point Academy and its emphasis on promoting intellectual growth through a conservative lens. Kirk counters the notion that conservative education stifles intellectual diversity by arguing that there are inherent truths and standards that must guide educational content.

Notable Quotes:

"The purpose of education is not to have an endless buffet line for students to sample every bad idea in the world. It's to point them to the good, the true, and the beautiful." [06:31]

"Education in Latin literally means to lead forth." [07:05]

---

4. Freedom vs. Restrictions on Bodily Autonomy

Kirk addresses criticisms regarding Turning Point USA's stance on bodily autonomy, particularly concerning abortion and transgender healthcare. He differentiates between personal freedom and governmental control, advocating for restrictions based on his belief that life begins at conception and expressing skepticism towards trans-affirming care for minors.

Notable Quotes:

"Liberty is the pursuit of things that allow human beings to flourish at its highest possible potential. License is not those things." [08:22]

"Life begins at conception and therefore that life deserves universal human rights." [10:05]

---

5. COVID-19 Pandemic Responses and Vaccine Skepticism

A significant portion of the debate centers on Kirk's critiques of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates. He challenges the efficacy and safety of vaccines, citing increased suicide rates and economic hardships as consequences of pandemic policies.

Notable Quotes:

"Suicide rates of young people in the west went up after Covid." [11:38]

"If the public health authorities got almost every major problem of almost every major question of COVID wrong, why should we continue to delegate trust to them?" [12:30]

---

6. Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Kirk criticizes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was too broadly written and paved the way for policies like affirmative action, critical race theory, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. He contends that these measures constitute "weaponized reverse racism" and advocate for a more strictly defined anti-discrimination policy.

Notable Quotes:

"The Civil Rights act was too broadly written. It's now being applied... as a way to get rid of voter integrity." [20:27]

"The Civil Rights act is also now being applied to put men in female locker rooms." [20:27]

---

7. Views on Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement

In a controversial stance, Kirk labels Martin Luther King Jr. as a morally flawed individual and critiques the Civil Rights Movement's legacy, suggesting that it diverted from the original founding principles of the United States Constitution.

Notable Quotes:

"Martin Luther King in a lot of different ways had a promise of a colorblind America." [22:14]

"We have a national holiday to MLK. We got rid of a national holiday for our own first president... That's just maybe some context to answer that question." [22:13]

---

8. Higher Education and Liberal Arts Critique

Students challenge Kirk on his criticism of higher education and liberal arts, arguing that institutions like Stanford and Harvard have historically contributed significantly to societal advancement. Kirk responds by emphasizing the perceived ideological biases and financial imprudence of such institutions.

Notable Quotes:

"Colleges in the west... they've gone away from places of inquiry and appreciation of what is good and what is beautiful." [60:33]

"In America, people are going to be going to colleges to go study North African lesbian poetry. It might sound good, but it doesn't necessarily develop either." [62:49]

---

9. Same-Sex Relationships and Marriage

The debate delves into Kirk's opposition to same-sex relationships and his advocacy for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Students challenge the biblical and linguistic basis of his arguments, leading to a heated exchange about the interpretation of religious texts and modern societal norms.

Notable Quotes:

"We do not live under the ceremonial. We do not live under the ritual... But we do live under the moral. There's only 10 of the moral that we as Christians believe we're bound to." [47:16]

"It's an incredible thing that happens... but it's not, it's not incredible in the sense we don't know what's going on." [38:47]

---

10. Foreign Policy and Middle East Conflicts

In the latter part of the debate, Kirk defends former President Trump's foreign policy initiatives, including negotiations with Russia and Iran, while criticizing current policies under other administrations. Students scrutinize his claims, particularly concerning arms deals and involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Notable Quotes:

"Donald Trump is convening a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine." [88:14]

"Hamas invaded Israel... there's no justification for the murder and mutilation of thousands of innocent people." [94:06]

---

11. Conclusion

The episode concludes with unresolved tensions between Kirk and the university students, illustrating the profound ideological clashes that characterize contemporary academic and political discourse. Kirk reiterates his commitment to conservative principles and his belief in the resurgence of traditional Western values.

Notable Quotes:

"We plan to win. And for the three conservatives that are here tonight, I hope you guys get your mojo back." [27:46]

"Be proud of your heritage. You've done good for the world. Stop apologizing." [27:46]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Charlie Kirk Show serves as a microcosm of the broader culture wars, highlighting the friction between conservative ideals and progressive academic environments. Through passionate discourse, Kirk defends his organization's missions and ideological stances, while students challenge the validity and implications of these perspectives. The heated exchange underscores the ongoing struggle over free speech, educational integrity, and societal values in contemporary Western societies.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey, everybody. Charlie Kirk here live from the Bitcoin.com studio. This is my conversation at Cambridge University. I thought it did pretty well, to be perfectly honest. It was a incredibly difficult environment. I walk in, no applause, just stares and glares from the Cambridge intelligentsia. 400 people against me and a professor. I talked to the president of Cambridge, who didn't even do the nice cities, just went straight into trying to brutalize me publicly. I kept my calm, I kept my cool. I felt pretty good about the points I made. There's some points I probably could have made better. But understand it was literally kind of like a Moscow show trial, where you're standing there for an hour and a half and they're throwing a debater after debater and they're applauding at the dumbest stuff. So I just have to. I have to just warn you before you listen to this podcast, this one Indian British guy comes up and he says, I took my mom to the pub. And everyone starts applauding. I mean, it was so overwhelming against me. That's why I kind of love it, because we need to be unafraid to.

[Unknown Speaker]

Go into those environments.

[Charlie Kirk]

We need to be unafraid to go into the lines. Then we need to be unafraid to go into the place where we're not.

[Unknown Speaker]

Always going to be applauded, we're not.

[Charlie Kirk]

Always going to be celebrated, we're not always going to be welcomed with open arms. No, that's not what free speech is all about, is sometimes going into the greatest place of opposition. And so I was thankful to do it. There's a lot of insults that they throw at me. There's a lot of, let's say, clever little remarks. It was far from a debate. It was more just kind of like a verbal melee. And I think you will agree, and I would love your thoughts, freedomarliekirk.com that the students of Cambridge, they could have done a lot better. They could have been far more sophisticated, more polite. But they decided to take the gloves off and we got into the arena, and of course, when I made a good point, it was met with silence. And when they met a mediocre point, it was met with roaring applause, as if they split the atom. Hilariously, they actually split the atom at Cambridge. Make sure you guys subscribe to our podcast and enjoy this lively, controversial, viral fight at Cambridge University. Buckle up, everybody.

[Unknown Speaker]

Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold [e-mail] that is noblegoldinvestments.com and it's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.

[Moderator]

Hi everyone and thank you for joining us tonight. Our speaker tonight is Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator. He's founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, which has a presence on over 3,000 high school and college campuses. It is the largest and fastest growing youth activist organization organization in usa and he's written four books. Thank you for joining us today.

[Unknown Speaker]

Thank you. Great to be here.

[Moderator]

Brilliant. So I'll start with some questions from me and then we're going to move to the questions from the audience, from the people who've submitted them and we'll be asking them at the dispatch box. My first question is about Turning Point USA's Professor Watch List. Its mission is described as exposing college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom, with examples including feminism, abortion and socialism. How would you respond to critics such as PEN America who see it as supporting what it claims to deride, which is the intimidation and ostracization of those who express controversial views on campus?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, we're getting right into it, aren't we? Thank you. So, yeah, just by background, Turning Point USA has now grown to be the largest campus conservative organization in the country. I come from a view that conservatism is widely underrepresented in American campuses. And by conservatism, I literally mean the defense of Western values, free markets, rule of law, individual initiative, entrepreneurship, the Constitution, so on and so forth. And in American college campuses in particular, and I don't know, I'm guessing that this campus is. I don't even want to guess. We'll see what happens when we have dialogue. But I do know that there are some great professors that do teach the Western canon, which is false, too. Missing from American universities is that American college campuses have become a place where they strive to have everyone look different but think the same. And in America, university and college tuition is through the roof, and students and parents have a moral obligation to know who is teaching their kids. And for these professors that have such a major objection for being on our professor watch list, if they don't say obscene things, then they will not end up on our watch list. I'm talking about professors that were excited about what happened on October 7th. I'm sorry, if you're excited about what happened on October 7th, then you deserve to be on a professor watch list, and people should know all about you. And if people want to fire you as a consequence of that, or if people don't want to go to that school as a consequence of that, then so be it. And so what was the criticism exactly?

[Moderator]

It was that the watch list supports what it claims to deride, which is the intimidation and ostracization.

[Unknown Speaker]

Sorry. Thank you. If the publicizing of certain ideas is intimidation, then I think that's just laughable. It is using our own free speech to expose professors who we believe are making America a worse country. And in fact, I believe in America, higher education has largely posed a threat to Western values. And I think we need more students and more parents to realize the moral rot that universities have become in the Western world.

[Moderator]

So Turning Point Academy mentions the importance of promoting intellectual growth. How would you respond to critics that such an education system stifles intellectual growth through establishing a fixed set of values, for example, regarding God, life beginning at conception and two genders, rather than promoting intellectual diversity?

[Unknown Speaker]

Sure. I mean, at some point you're going to have to get to a truth claim. So even to say that you want intellectual diversity means that you think intellectual diversity matters, but by what standard? So you have to actually at some point say that something is good. So if someone says, well, the criticism that you're going to tell a kid that something is good, something else you should have intellectual diversity. Okay. Why? By what standard? By what book, by what scholar, by what author, by what worldview? We believe as a organization that the west is the best for many, certain. For many reasons. In particular, my own personal views. I'm a Christian. I'm not ashamed of it. And Christianity brought to the world things that we all take for granted. Tom Holland, who actually was educated here and is one of the great classicists and taught himself Ancient Greek, he wrote in his book Dominion, that even if you hate Christianity, your critique of Christianity is actually using Christianity itself. And so this idea of intellectual diversity, I totally support that. And I think that students should read different books and should read different authors at some point, though. The purpose of education is not to have an endless buffet line for students to sample every bad idea in the world. It's to point them to the good, the true and the beautiful. And I think we've lost what the purpose education is. Education in Latin literally means to lead forth. To lead forth out of the cave was the original analogy. And so at Turning Point Academy, we take the biblical idea to train a child up in the ways in which they will go. And we make no apologies for instituting a belief that believing in God is better than secularism. The defense of universal human equality is a good for all humanity, amongst many other things that you articulated.

[Moderator]

So how would you reconcile the importance of freedom, which is listed as Turning Point USA's mission on your website, with the restrictions on bodily autonomy which you support, including abortion, trans affirming health care and birth control? And how would you respond to criticism of your limited view of freedom?

[Unknown Speaker]

Sure. So first of all, birth control, I don't have that strong of views of. So I mean, except the fact that I've criticized how actually young people that take young women that take horrible hormonal birth control might have side effects that are not always disclosed them. As far as abortion and trans affirming care. I'll get into that in a second, but I find it laughable. Not from you, of course, but some of the people that are always very critical of Charlie. Why don't you just believe in bodily autonomy? I'm sorry? Didn't you just mandate a vaccine for the last couple years? I couldn't visit your country for two years because I didn't take a vaccine. So it's my body, my choice. Unless it's. So it's my body, my choice if it's another human being in the womb, but it's not my body, my choice if I want to take a vaccine that was neither safe nor effective. And we all must be very honest about the fact that the public health experts of both of our countries never apologize for the fact that they made you take a vaccine that, by the way, has a lot of side effects for a lot of people in this room. And no one wants to say that. As a side note though, all the bodily autonomy people, you guys can laugh all you want, it's fine. All the bodily autonomy people suddenly got really silent when we decided to say we're going to control your body and control the movement of what you can do. You can't go to the pub, you can't go to the local gathering of friends, you can't go to university, you can't even go into the UK if you don't have a card. So that's a fun contradiction for me. At the same time, there's a difference between freedom or liberty and license. Liberty is the pursuit of things that allow human beings to flourish at its highest possible potential. License is not those things. So on the first thing, you do not have a ability, and I'm sure there will be a question about this, under any agreed upon Western morality, which is derived from a Christian construction, to murder another human being, you do not have that freedom. And so we believe, obviously, because we believe in very basic biology and science, that life begins at conception and therefore that life deserves universal human rights as derided as applied equally under our laws. As far as trans affirming care, as far as if you want to do something over the age of 18, knock yourself out, you guys actually have been better than our country on this. You have the CAST report that our country's lost its mind, where the CAST report itself issued an opinion based on my limited but somewhat understanding of it, that trans affirming care for children is highly questionable at best. And so we all can agree that students that are not, or young people that are not yet of age or mature age of 18, of course we limit certain freedoms or licenses or liberties for 715 year olds. In my country, they can't own guns till they're 18. In my country they can't even drink till they're 21. In my country they can't vote until they're 18. In America. And so until someone is of age, you're going to limit that. And so I believe that we should all agree that young people in particular 15, 16, 17, there should be a prohibition that you should not be able to cut off your breasts or go under life altering, irreversible gender affirming care just because you might be going through a temporary phase.

[Moderator]

So you spoke about vaccines and the COVID 19 vaccine. How would you respond to accusations about you misusing your platform and purporting misuse misinformation during the COVID 19 pandemic, including speaking against the COVID vaccine and speculating about deaths caused by it, and being briefly banned from Twitter for claiming that hydrochloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, sorry, hydroxychloroquine was 100% effective in treating the virus?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, I'm back on Twitter now, thankfully, new ownership. I appreciate the question has anyone asked our public health leaders that question, will they apologize for everything they got wrong? The lockdowns were completely unnecessary. They should never have happened. And the young people of the west lost proms, graduation, whatever equivalent you have here in the UK for no good reason whatsoever. And you guys can laugh all you want, but let's look at the data. Suicide rates of young people in the west went up after Covid. There's speech delays, there's a misery problem. And we locked down the generation of people that needed to be locked down the least that have now bear the consequences the most. On top of a hyperinflation crisis, which caused a housing crisis, which has caused a sovereign debt crisis, all for what? Because we were worried that something that materially was never a greater threat than the seasonal flu to these people in this room was a. It was never a greater threat than the seasonal flu. That is a fact of science, because we have to trust the science. And again, we can go back and forth, but this is the more important thing. It was never about trusting the science. It was about trusting the scientists that confirmed this view. There is something called the Barrington Declaration. If you don't know what this is, all of you have a moral obligation to know what it is. The Barrington Declaration was thousands of scientists from around the world that said these lockdowns are doing more harm than good. And the one thing that we never talked about through all of this, that now the pharma companies magically discovered after they were able to proliferate a vaccine, is early interventions, is the fact that if you catch COVID early or what is your vitamin D level? Let's have a serious conversation about whether or not you're chronically overweight. In my country, we are a fat country. We're good at a lot of things. We're also really good at gaining weight. Why didn't we also say to the American people, be honest, if you are 50 pounds overweight, you have a much higher likelihood of dying of COVID Well, that would be considered to be politically insensitive in America. So how do I respond to clinic critics? Honestly, I'm proud of the work that we did during COVID I opposed the lockdowns from the beginning. We talked about early interventions. We platform people that were right all along and meanwhile, the people that got the most important public policy questions of our time wrong have never felt any sort of criticism. They've never actually faced justice. And I think we of the people of the west deserve an apology from our leaders for all the suffering that they inflicted on the young people of both our countries.

[Moderator]

So you've described recently how it used to be 10 vaccines. Now it's 72 shots for our babies. So something's not right and our kids are sicker than ever. How would you respond to criticism that your rhetoric regarding vaccinations is dangerous and irresponsible when considering a global rise in vaccine distrust and deaths from vaccine preventable diseases, including measles and meningitis?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, first of all, number one, you can use your own agency and you can get nine Covid shots if you want. I'm not preventing that. I think, though, that a robust conversation needs to happen that inoculations have risen across America. I'll just talk about America. I know this for certain, inoculation and vaccine rates have risen and chronic diseases are higher than ever. And there is a perplexing rise in a lot of the secondary and third tier issues. Of course, I'm pro vaccine. If you want to get vaccines, we should do it prudently, we should do it appropriately, we should do it smartly. But in the same way, we should also simultaneously respect medical freedom and religious conscience. The criticism is this. I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on tv, But I also, I use human reason and one would say common sense to also ask the very simple question. The public health authorities got almost every major problem of. Almost major. Every question of COVID wrong. Why should we continue to delegate trust to them? Trust is earned. It is not given. And so, yeah, look, I'm sure someone's going to ask a question or two about that. That's fine. I'm by no means a quote unquote expert on all that. But let me also question this. The experts, they have to. Now, number one, you have to apologize when you get something really wrong. And I think you have to get back into the. Into the public square and prove to us why we should trust you. When, for example, in my country, I'm not sure if it was for you guys, we had this thing of six feet to slow the spread. Anthony Fauci just made it up. The data shows that he just arbitrarily made it up. There is not a single public health reason why we had six feet to slow the spread. Locking down schools. Actually, what made Covid worse and delayed the inevitable spread. The only country in Europe that I think was a model was Sweden. They kept schools open, they kept restaurants open, they leaned into herd immunity. And generally their statistics were way better than some of the other countries that were correlated to it. So everyone has the agency to do what they want to see fit. And yes, I do think that there is something troubling when the childhood vaccination schedule goes from 10 shots to 72 shots. 70. Some of which are things, for example, hepatitis B upon birth in America. I don't know how it is in the uk. Within seconds, they will inoculate a child against hepatitis B. Number one, hepatitis B vaccine expires by the age of 13. And there's only two ways to get hepatitis B. Through sexual intercourse or through intravenous drugs or some other correlated way. So unless it is a son or a daughter of a active drug user or a drug mon mom, totally get it. Which you can test for in utero, the argument for hepatitis B vaccine within seconds of a baby being born is, I think, questionable at best. And so those of us that even ask the question, why are we using a hepatitis B vaccine when we can maybe wait till they're 12 or 13 and when they're sexually active, no, you must do it and you must just trust the science. Okay, well, that's not good enough for us.

[Moderator]

So Turning Point USA acquired Students for Trump in 2019 and worked on targeting students on college campuses, especially ahead of the 2020 election. However, despite an increase in youth turnout in 2020, Trump support was worse with young people in several battleground states than 2016. How would you respond to critics who claim that this failure was partly due to Trump outsourcing youth outreach to Turning Point usa?

[Unknown Speaker]

How did he do this last election?

[Moderator]

Well, I mean, his support was better in youth, but it was still lower with the like lower amongst youth than the Democrat support was.

[Unknown Speaker]

We won the youth vote in the state of Michigan. Michigan. And we ran basically the entire youth operation in 2024. In fact, it doesn't. Anyone can look on Chat, GPT, Grok or Google, I mean, whatever you want. Like, we crushed the youth vote. Even Democrats acknowledge it. There's story after story after story. Why are young people moving so far to the right? And so will you give me credit for that?

[Moderator]

I mean, why do you think that? Like in several key states, even in 2024, amongst the young, we did anywhere.

[Unknown Speaker]

Between 10 to 25 points better in the key battleground states. This is not just conjecture. It is material fact. Both young men and young women move to the right dramatically in America. Young people are Donald Trump's most loyal cohort. Not even baby boomers. According to the Yale Youth Poll and the Harvard Youth Poll, Donald Trump has actually made the most gains amongst younger Voters and I guess maybe something we did had something to do with that.

[Moderator]

And what do you see as the future of conservatism amongst young people?

[Unknown Speaker]

I think it's going to be the dominant, God willing, dominant worldview amongst young people in America. And it's ascendant again what we are seeing in the States. And I don't know if it's the case here in the uk, young men in particular are on pace to be the most conservative generation in history. And it's an exciting trend and we're leaning into it. We see this in the macro trends. We also see this micro young women are following suit. There's kind of two Gen Z's. They're Gen Z, that was basically out of college or near end of college at Covid. And then there was Gen Z, that was in high school. What would the equivalent term be in high school? Whatever you call. Yeah, ok. And they had their lives obliterated those most formative times of their life. 15, 16, 17, 18. They were forced to wear masks. They had to do school through zoom. They saw friends that many of whom that took their life or suicide rates went up exponentially. And also on top of that we had this insane race scuff in America during 2020, otherwise known as Florida Palooza, where we decided to burn our country because a guy drug overdosed on the streets of Minneapolis. And the. That's true, he did drug overdose. Not just my opinion, just read the medical examiner report, the Hennepin county medical examiner report. And so then all of a sudden we decided to like commit cultural suicide and throw statues by the way, in London they like threw a statue into the river or something because we're systemically racist. I'm sorry, Our two countries are the two least racist countries ever to exist in the history of the world. And you guys should also be thanking the Lord that you have someone like William Wilberforce to look up to. And you should be building statues to Wilberforce, not taking down statues of your history. Because it's thanks to western values that we abolish slavery. And the world is a profoundly better place because of that worldview. And we as conservatives are unafraid to tell that story and that truth.

[Moderator]

So you've condemned the Civil Rights act of 1964 as a huge mistake.

[Unknown Speaker]

Correct.

[Moderator]

Why do you believe it was a mistake to pass anti discrimination legislation? And what do you think would be better policy for being treated fairly and equally, which you see as an American principle?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yeah, nothing against the intent, but it was too broadly written and it played into something called disparate impact. Disparate impact was woven within the Civil Rights Act. And disparate impact basically says if two racial groups have different outcomes, the answer must be racism. It does not allow any legal nuance. So there are four components to quote unquote, the anti racist regime of America. I don't pretend to know what goes on in this country. I could just talk about America. I'm sure that's fine. And it's four components. Affirmative action, critical race theory, DEI and disparate impact. Those are the kind of the four components. All of them have their subsection. The Civil Rights act led the way to affirmative action, which is weaponized reverse racism against Asian and white people. And the Civil Rights act also blazed the trail for disparate impact as a legal theory. Basically saying that if black Americans are doing worse in a group, it might not be because of marital differences or cultural differences or single motherhood issues. It must be racism. And so because of that, the Civil Rights act was too broadly written. It's now being applied in my country as a way to get rid of voter integrity, to get rid of election integrity, get rid of voter id. The Civil Rights act is also now being applied to put men in female locker rooms. So the intent, it should have been a single page or a two page bill to say that you cannot discriminate against based on the color of somebody's skin. Period, End of story. Instead we get a multiple hundred page bill with lots of chapters and lots of lesser known amendments that created basically a permanent anti racist bureaucracy within our federal government to go find racism where it doesn't exist and create it new places where otherwise did not exist.

[Moderator]

So you've described Martin Luther King Jr. As awful, not a good person, even though many conservative commentators have spoken in support of what he says, including his quote, where they will be judged about his children, where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content.

[Unknown Speaker]

He was right there.

[Moderator]

So does his speech and his general ethos not then agree with your views on.

[Unknown Speaker]

I've complimented him as well. But I mean, first of all, he was a personally morally flawed man. And to be fair, a lot of people I sometimes look up to are morally flawed. But also, I mean, we're all morally flawed. We're all sinners. I would hope actually many of you probably don't believe in God, so nevermind. So the look, Martin Luther King in a lot of different ways had a promise of a colorblind America. I don't want to go Too deep into this. I don't know how Maybe it's very interesting to UK students about mlk, but there is a mythology around MLK that does not warrant the reverence that he gets treated with in America. Should he be mentioned amongst lots of people in the 20th century that was complicated. And at the end of his life advocated for a more communistic view and then actually got away from race blindness and actually got towards race obsession. I'm totally cool with that. He did some great things. He did some things that were not so great in America though. You must understand he is looked to as the new Founding Father. The main contention that I have with the Civil Rights act and the Civil Rights movement and how it ended, not how it started, is that we refounded the country fundamentally. We cast aside our founding roots and our founding documents, the US Constitution and we decided to basically usher in the Civil Rights act as a new anti racist dogma creed. And I find something fundamentally wrong with that. Our birth certificate as Americans is the Declaration and the law of the land is tied with the U.S. constitution. It was not the Civil Rights Act. And so with all of that to say, we have a national holiday to mlk. We got rid of a national holiday for our own first president and our founding father, George Washington. We used to call it Washington's birthday. Now we call it President's Day in our country. So that's just maybe some context to answer that question.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yrefi is an amazing debt resettlement company. It may not be available in all 50 states. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. About 45 billion that is labeled as distressed. Go to yrefi.com, yrefi is not a debt settlement company but they work with each borrower individually tailoring each loan to each borrower's specific situation. They provide you with a custom loan payment based on your ability to pay.

[Unknown Speaker]

Why?

[Charlie Kirk]

Refi is not a debt settlement company. And they work with each borrower individually tailoring each loan to that specific situation. Do you have a co borrower? Well, why? Refi can get them released from the loan. You can give mom or dad a break. You don't have to ignore that mountain of student loan statements on your kitchen table anymore. Go to yrefi.com, call 888-yrefi34 or log on to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com that is whyrefi.com may not be available in all 50 states. They were the sponsor of our viral amazing campus tour. So check it out right [e-mail].

[Moderator]

So you tweeted ahead of the January 6th Capitol attack that Turning Point USA and Students for Trump were sending more than than 80 buses of Patriots DC to fight for this president, although it ended up being seven. Do you see your claims, including that the election was stolen, as contributing to January 6th?

[Unknown Speaker]

It's somewhat of an irrelevant question, but no, of course not. In fact, our students were the ones that didn't even go to the Capitol and peacefully went home. But I mean, how deep into January 6th do you want to get? It wasn't an insurrection by any means whatsoever. There were some people that acted totally improperly and they should not assault police officers or break windows. But there were also a lot of people that walked into the Capitol building and the doors were open for them and they walked between the queued lines that were there and said a prayer. And these are the people that walk around with pocket constitutions and they were smeared in the largest witch hunt and manhunt, I should say the largest manhunt in American law enforcement history that resulted in 1,300 arrests of nonviolent offenders that walk walked into the People's House in the United States Capitol Building while violent crime rose in almost every major city in the country. And so I don't know how much maybe, I'm sure there'll be a question on January 6th.

[Moderator]

So you've compared same sex sexual behavior to drug and alcohol use and described it as an error and said you don't agree with the lifestyle. How would you justify these comments whilst also speaking about welcoming gay people into the conservative movement?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, first, we all have flaws. That's number one. But number two, how do I justify it? Doesn't matter what Charlie Kirk believes. That's a view derived from Scripture. And so the Bible talks very clearly about God's natural order. We see this reflected in the natural law. Some of my closest friends and closest people that work with me alongside of Turning Point USA participate in a same sex lifestyle and that's their own prerogative. But if you ask me what I believe and why I believe it, it's derived straight from Scripture.

[Moderator]

And you've spoken of marriage as between one man and one woman. Even whilst polls have consistently shown most Americans as in support of same sex marriage. How would you respond to critics regarding your position on this?

[Unknown Speaker]

I don't derive my morality from up or down vote.

[Moderator]

How would you respond to criticism that far right wing discourse, particularly online, is inflamed by organizations such as Turning Point USA and your rhetoric, even as you condemn attendance of neo Nazis at your events.

[Unknown Speaker]

I don't even know how to respond to that. I mean, how do I respond to critics that I'm inflaming tensions? If the truth inflames you, you have a problem. It's not my problem.

[Moderator]

What do you see as the role of an institution such as Turning Point USA in shaping national discourse? And what do you think is next for the organization in terms of what you discuss?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yeah, I mean, look, we're very known for, hopefully what we'll see here, which is respectful dialogue. We have an open mic on campuses. I did over 100 hours of campus debates this semester, seen billions of times around the world. And, yeah, look, as far as conservatism, we plan to win. And for the three conservatives that are here tonight, I hope you guys get your mojo back. This was once a great country. I want to see it great again. You guys are a husk of your former self. You guys, you can laugh and sneer all you want, but the country that split the atom and invented the steam engine and eradicated slavery and brought common law to the world can do a lot better than this. And you are. Your existence led to our existence. And for whatever I can do, I hope that this country finds a leader or a group of leaders. I'm not here to give you political advice. I hate when foreigners do that to them. You guys, whatever you want. But I do have a wish that the world feels like it's missing something. It feels like it's missing something when Great Britain or England or whatever politically correct thing I have to say, because I guess England, I can't fly an English flag now or whatever nonsense that is. Be proud of your heritage. You've done good for the world. Stop apologizing. Get your energy, get your vitality. Get what made England and made Great Britain such a phenomenal place. I hope you get that back. And I hope that you reject the swan song of multiculturalism and get back to the fundamental truism that a strong Britain means a strong world and therefore a strong west, and we can stand up for what is good, true and beautiful.

[Moderator]

Would you agree with commentators that your politics have become more conservative in recent years and what's caused this shift?

[Unknown Speaker]

Yes, partially honestly, getting married and having children. Something that I hope all of you do. Getting married and having children is an objective good thing for yourself and for society and for, of course, your children. The fact that we are having less children in the west is a very alarming trend. And As I got more conservative, as I got, you know, as I got married and I started to have a couple kids, I started to realize this is what I'm fighting for. And I understand the threats against their well being and their livelihood. And then also I got more serious about my faith.

[Moderator]

So you've spoken today against affirmative action in educational institutions. How would you propose making excellence in education more equitable for students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

[Unknown Speaker]

IQ tests.

[Moderator]

And do you see equal treatment as possible without considering.

[Unknown Speaker]

Just so we're clear, IQ tests don't have anything to do with background. Meaning, like, okay, if you have somewhat of an equal nutritional capacity, it doesn't matter how much you study or you get an iq, maybe you can get an IQ tutor and boost it by a couple points, but we should bring back IQ tests in the West. Please continue.

[Moderator]

I was just going to say, do you see it as possible without considering any external factors for students when applying for higher education, such as economic background?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, external factors can be factored in, but affirmative action isn't that, at least in America. I don't know how it works here. Affirmative action in America is so. It was. We struck it down at the Supreme Court. Thankfully, race based, which is that a certain melanin content gets you certain points and a certain melanin content gets you demerits.

[Moderator]

Great. We're going to move now to.

[Unknown Speaker]

Okay, I might stand here.

Yeah.

Of the discussion. Thank you.

[Moderator]

Okay. Thank you. Can we settle down, please? We're going to move on to our questions. Our first question is from Zinosha Zubair from Sydney, Sussex.

[Unknown Speaker]

Come up and ask a question.

[Moderator]

Remember, you have the right of response.

[Unknown Speaker]

I have quite a simple question for you. Now, I know you've debated Dean Withers on Jubilee before. I was wondering why you now refuse to engage with further debate with him.

Wait, hold on. First of all, he's coming on my show this summer. And let me get this straight. I flew 5,000 miles across the world to have you ask why I'm not going to debate a left wing YouTuber.

Well, I mean, he continuously tries to get your attention at your campus. You just ignore him.

I've debated him twice in the last calendar year. He's coming on my show this summer. Let me be clear. I came to Cambridge to have you ask me that. I mean, you talk about freedom and.

I'm just using my freedom of speech to ask you a simple question. You seem to be dodging it for some reason.

I've debated him twice in the last year and he's coming on this summer for a long form discussion. But is this what I can expect?

[Moderator]

Yeah.

[Unknown Speaker]

He's making videos about you avoiding him on your campus debates.

Right. So let me tell you how this works. I do a campus event like a Texas A and M university. I rent it out. I'm there for three hours. He shows up demanding to come up to the mic, immediately cutting in line of other students. It's not Joe Biden's America anymore. We can just cut in line and get whatever you want. So therefore I say, excuse me, Dean, we'll talk at another time. He makes this YouTube video as if I'm scared to debate him, even though I debated him twice in the last year. Does that sufficiently answer your question?

Yes, it does.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

[Moderator]

Our next question is from James Loveridge from Anglo Ruskin University.

[Unknown Speaker]

So firstly, thank you for coming here, Charlie. It's nice to meet you. So my question is, I am a conservative and I did back Trump in 2024, but I'm troubled that the GOP refuses to hold him accountable for his personal and legal failings. And how can we claim to stand for moral values and the Constitution while excusing behavior that we condemn from the left? Isn't it the hypocrisy undermining our credibility, especially with the next generation?

What specifically do you have issue with?

Well, the countless things that he's done.

The. What?

Stormy Daniels, you know, the bus interview that he put down to locker room talk, you know, his multiple legal values.

Failing filings and what would you like to see them do? And you voted. You voted for this man, so. No, I can't vote for him. Whatever you said you voted or whatever. I don't know. Plenty of Americans I don't know. You said you supported him, so.

Yeah.

Is that correct? Maybe I'm putting.

No, no, no.

You supported him. Okay.

Yeah, no, I'm not saying that I supported him on some of his policies and him. But a lot of conservatives. I'm not saying you personally, but a lot of conservatives refuse to call him out or critique him on anything and will ignore that straight away.

I mean, I critique him. He's a friend of mine. I might critique him. I don't think Canada should be the 51st state. We have enough liberals in America. Okay, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Cheers.

[Moderator]

Our next question is from Kai Bevan at Trinity Hall.

[Unknown Speaker]

So thank you for coming. Charlie, my question to you. I mean, I'm the of a member medical student and I'm going to throw out the big A word. I Know, you get asked about it a lot. But I want to hear from you. Your opinion is on abortion.

Life begins at conception.

But about abortion specifically, why. Why do you think abortion is wrong specifically?

Well, you agree murder is wrong.

I agree. Okay, so this, this is where we get to the question, right? Because what is it about murder you say is wrong? Like, why is murder wrong?

Well, because it's a human being. Not just because it has consciousness or because it's of a certain age. Because it's a human.

What is it that gives human being this moral worth?

Not its consciousness necessarily.

I didn't say it's consciousness.

I know. I can imagine it's because it is a human being, because that is a soul.

And what is this soul? Where does this come from, this idea that it's.

Exactly. I mean, again, the Greeks postulated that it is the entirety of your being. Okay, you guys can laugh. I mean, it's true. I mean, every civilization has had a different belief, but agreed upon ethical monotheism, which is the creed of the west and what the birth certificate of my country articulates, that every human being is more than just matter. It's more than just a clump of cells, but it also has an invisible element to you that will live beyond you.

Fine. So I mean, can you say that comes from the Bible or where else do you get that?

From ethical monotheism, which is the creed of the West. And again, the Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. The founders were explicitly believed not in a secular morality, but a divinely given one of at least this idea that there is a God and you are not him. And let me ask you, what is the first stage of human development?

So the first. I mean, this is the thing, right? We can take it from the sperm being generated in the father and the usite being generated in the mother, right? They fuse at birth. Conception.

Sorry.

The only thing that happens at conception is these two cells fuse.

No DNA is created. A zygote.

DNA is not created.

A DNA. No, that's not true. The DNA coding at the zygote. Hold on, time out while.

Let me finish.

Does a zygote have a unique marker? Charlie, does a zygote have a unique marker?

You have to. Let me speak.

You have to answer it yes or no. Does a zygote have a unique marker?

Define a unique marker.

Meaning. Can you differentiate the DNA coding between the mother and the zygote? If you examine it under a deoxyribonucleic acid analysis, can you Only purely because.

The addition comes from the father.

Oh, so it is something different.

Charlie, DNA is not created. DNA is not created. You have. The father has his own genome, the mother has her own genome. They fuse. This is why you have the same characteristics, similar ones to your mother, similar ones to your father. That's why you have similar characteristics to your siblings. DNA is not created. Right. So when you ask me, where does a human being come from, I can say to you, it starts at conception. But all conception is these two cells joining, right? But these two cells were created. The mother cells were created long before they were created when she was a fetus. So there's none of this DNA being produced, right? So we can't establish. The only thing that happens at conception is these two cells fused. Now, this idea that, that means that for some reason, suddenly that moral worth comes in, but it wasn't there before when you had these two cells who had half the DNA. But suddenly there's.

Correct. Something magical happens at that point.

It's not magical, Charlie. We know about this.

Well, hold on, hold on.

Charlie, Charlie, time out. Charlie, I promise you, I'm not.

To.

Score points on you. This is cheap.

We call it the miracle of life for a reason. We've not been able to yet replicate human life development outside of the womb.

We call it the miracle of life because, yes, it's something beautiful, the ability to form.

And you hear something magical. It's not.

You say magical, is it?

Oh, it's beautiful.

It's an incredible thing that happens, of course, but it's not incredible in the sense we don't know what's going on. There's no new DNA coming out of nowhere.

Hold on. But time out. Isn't there a separate DNA, though, than the mother, like from the father? Okay, yes, but then. But it's not the father's DNA either. A new coding is created. Charlie, you are a blend of the two. And so when did your life begin? Okay, so when did your life.

I mean, again, this is. This comes from what you define as where life starts. You can say life starts at conception, but I'm telling you, I believe that's just an arbitrary point, right? That's just the moment these two cells fuse. Now, you say about this mother thing. So the way. The way DNA is arranged in a cell is it's arranging chromosomes. Chromosomes are paired up, so you have one from the mother, one from the father. Typically, in a healthy individual right now, you can take those maternal chromosomes out and you can find that this is who the person's mother is, and you can do the same with the father. Now, the reason you are different to your mother and father is because some of those chromosomes express genes that are different from each other. And so those genes interact. And that's what gives rise to you, right? There's no space for any kind of moral framework to come into that until you consider that a human being is capable of consciousness and of suffering. But unless you, if you take that out of the equation, the fact that these two DNA, you know, whatever they call molecules, right, these two DNA molecules are fusing, that does not suddenly flip a switch that attributes moral worth to that individ. I mean, I'm just saying, I'm not trying to score points.

By what moral standard do you believe that?

I believe that if an individual is capable of suffering, then it's wrong. Now, can I explain my opinion on abortion just so you can understand. I would agree, as many reasonable people would, that at nine months it's unreasonable to expect someone to get an abortion.

Right.

Unless you have some extreme circumstances. But for an elective abortion seems a bit radical to me. But it also seems radical to say that a woman who has just, you know, those cells have just fused to deny her of an abortion also seems wrong to me because that, that, you know, that zygote is not capable of suffering as far as we know.

So you're by again, by what moral standard is that just your opinion? Where did you get that moral standard from?

Because suffering is a bad thing. We all know suffering is a bad thing. That's an objective fact. Right?

Hold on. Okay, so you do believe in objective morality.

I believe that suffering is an objective negative.

So if you can't feel it, is it okay?

What do you mean?

If you can't, can't feel the pain, is it okay to inflict the pain.

In the sense that if no one's suffering from it, if you have a scenario when nobody is suffering from something, then yes, of course there's no. A moral something is only a moral question if it affects someone's well being.

So let me just make sure I understand this correctly, that if it doesn't affect their well being. So dementia patients that don't know who they are or where they're from. Can we execute dementia patients because they're confused about their well being?

Can you, can you imagine a scenario?

Or Alzheimer's patients? Alzheimer's patients don't really know much about anything. Can we schedule them for execution because they can't technically suffer?

I respond, so can you imagine A scenario where we lived in a society where we killed people when they. They, you know, they underwent. They suffered from dementia, were incapable of suffering, and we killed them. Right. That would not. That does not. It's not a scenario that involves an absence of suffering. There's still suffering involved. People's fat. Imagine you grow up thinking my dad could be killed at any moment because he's going to get dementia. Imagine living your life thinking I could get dementia and suddenly I'd be killed by my state.

Imagine a world where you slaughter a million babies every year in America.

Charlie, Charlie. It's not slaughter that's the problem.

Hold on. It's a forcible removal from the umbilical cord of. And another human life. Again, we. We have clarity but not agreement. Biologically, you know that your entire coding began at conception. Your coding. No, no, that's uniqueness.

Denying. I disagree with that.

Okay. When those two cells fused together to yours, to use your terminology, that is where the process of human.

Accepted terminology.

[Moderator]

In the interest of time, can we bring this question to a close?

[Unknown Speaker]

Process of human development objectively begins at that moment. Therefore, those human beings are deserving of human rights. We keep going or do you want to.

[Moderator]

No, thank you. Yeah, you can finish.

[Unknown Speaker]

The process of development begins from the moment the sperm is being generated in the father, the moment the eggs are being generated in the mother. To say that suddenly the moral worth switches on when they fuse doesn't make any sense. That's just a point.

It makes perfect sense because that is when your journey as a human being, when the sperm and egg were separate, you were not yet a fused human being. You were not created. Uniquely.

DNA existed. DNA existed.

I thought, well, no, the parts of your DNA existed. Your DNA did not exist. It's like saying that we have a full car just because we have all the parts. It was not yet put together until conception happens and the zygote was formed. Thank you. I think we have.

[Moderator]

Can we move on to the next question?

[Unknown Speaker]

Thank you very much. Thank you.

[Charlie Kirk]

This podcast was once just a dream. And by the way, thank you guys for supporting it.

[Unknown Speaker]

We really appreciate it.

[Charlie Kirk]

That dream has now turned into an entrepreneurial success story. I bet you have an idea of a business you want to start and a dream that you want to come seem into reality. But you probably say, I don't have the skills or I can't do it alone. Well, turn those what ifs into why nots with Shopify by your side. We use Shopify here on the Charlie Kirk show for our Store. We love it. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all E commerce in the United States. From household names to brands. Just getting started again. We at the Charlie Kirk show love using Shopify. The APIs, the E commerce, the credit card. It is seamless. It is the gold standard, the creme de la creme. It is the best. But what if you can't design a website? People say, well Shopify has got you from the get go with beautiful ready to go templates to match your brand style. What if I need a helping hand? We'll get help with everyday tasks like enhancing product images, writing product descriptions or generating discount codes with Shopify's AI tools created for commerce. What if people haven't heard about my brand? Well, Shopify helps you find customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. Well, what if I get stuck? Well, Shopify is always around to share advice with their award winning 247 customer support. Turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success with Shopify.

[Unknown Speaker]

Again.

[Charlie Kirk]

I can tell you from experience, our team loves using Shopify. Seamless, easy, transparent. The user friendly nature of Shopify is extraordinary. Go to shopify.com Charlie that is shopify.com Charlie I love using it and you should too. Maybe you're an influencer. Maybe you got something to sell. Sell it with Shopify. Make your dreams become reality. Shopify.com Charlie.

[Moderator]

Our fourth question tonight is from Rudy Ellis Jones from Emanuel College.

[Unknown Speaker]

Hello. Thank you for coming. Today's talk. So my question as someone studying archaeology and biological anthropology, I've learned that moral codes and social norms have always been fluid, shaped by time, culture, power. So many ancient and recent societies embrace same sex relationships and even the idea of third genders well before western conservatism even existed. So when you claim that modern conservative values represent some kind of universal objective moral truth, like you said on your chair over there, aren't you just defending a selective historically recent ideology that erases most of human history and targets people who have always been part of it?

No, but can you point to me of a and maybe you can educate me. Can you point to me a great power that endorsed same sex marriage, not cohabitation, but marriage, Ancient Mesopotamia as marriage as recognized. Recognized by the state 100%. How did that work out for them?

It worked out perfectly fine. It was an accepted norm of society.

Okay. I still think it's wrong.

Okay, okay, moving on. So you said it was based on scripture and you believe that there are moral objectives Universal truths.

Yes, there are. Murder is wrong today and murder was wrong 2,000 years ago.

Right, okay, fair. That's not same sex, but fair. Fair. I see your point.

There are moral truths that are transcendent of time, place and matter.

Okay, but so just to clarify, you believe that this is in the Bible, this is laid out in the Bible that man shall not sleep with man.

And so therefore it's also repeated throughout the New Testament as well. Matthew. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus reaffirms the biblical standard for marriage.

I'm going to make two very, very quick points. So the first, so if we look at the Old Testament in isolation, just to start off with as an example, so let's look at Exodus 35:2, which suggests that if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death. If you look at Leviticus 11:7, it suggests that if you have pork, you should be put to death. Let me finish. I'll be done. If you plant two crops side by side, you should be stoned by your entire village. If you wear a suit which you are wearing now that contains two different fibres into twined into the same jacket, you should be burned at the stake by your own mother. Now, following that rationale in Leviticus 18:22 and it states that man shall not sleep with man. Why aren't we burning ourselves at the stake as well? Why aren't we stoning ourselves to death?

Do you care to address my main contention that Christianity affirm biblical marriage in the Book of Matthew? And can you tell me the difference between the ceremonial, the moral and the ritual law? And then finally also tell me about Christianity, the difference between the New and the Old Covenant? Or are you just going to cherry pick certain verses of ancient Israel that do not apply to New Christianity?

Fair, fair, I can. So we'll look at two points then. So firstly, if we look at the Old Testament, we can see the kind of inconsistencies there. We've already touched upon that. Right, that makes sense. Secondly, mentioned the point of Jesus and Christ. He never mentioned anything to homosexuality at all.

Well, hold on a second. He affirmed, he affirmed biblical marriage as one man and one woman. He said, a man shall leave his Romans, right in the New Testament in Matthew. That is not correct.

I believe in the New Testament.

In the New Testament. Well, Romans is also in the New Testament. Secondly, in Romans 1, the apostle Paul talks negatively about homosexuality explicitly. Also, homosexuality is repeated in the book of Titus and in the Book of Judea as not being favorable as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, not even talking about the Old Testament verses. There are three types of the 613levitical laws. And you, you know, of course, in your own way, cherry pick some of them. We do not live under the ceremonial. We do not live under the ritual. And. But we do live under the moral. There's only 10 of the moral that we as Christians believe we're bound to. Some believe nine, which of course is the decalogue. And so none of those that you mention, we as Christians believe that we live under. However, we do look at what Christmas articulated as the biblical standard of marriage. And we can also look to church tradition for this as well. And the church has had a tradition for well over 2000 years. Even myself, as a Protestant acknowledges that tradition is marriage between one man and one woman. And.

Fair point.

But.

Okay, say we put aside the Old Testament for now. We'll put that aside and the inconsistencies there. And we look purely at the New Testament, following your rationale. Okay. Now, when you say that Christ lays specifically, and the New Testament states specifically that man shall not sleep with man, I'd like to point out a linguistic error on that point.

I did not say that. I said the biblical marriage was affirmed. And then Romans 1 did talk negatively about the action of homosexuality as a fact.

That affirmation comes from eight lines in there that suggests that man shall not sleep with man.

Yes, of course. Yes. The Old Testament and New Testament harmonize one another, but Christ brought it to a different level, a different covenant and a different moral teaching. It wasn't just enough to say that you shall, you know, man shall strike eye for eye. It's that you shall turn the other cheek, that you shall love your enemy. Christ's moral standard was much more even elevated than that of the Israelites and the Hebrews.

Well, I'm going to ask you whose Bible. Okay. Now, your Bible that you use currently is written in the English language, right? Correct.

Yeah. The King James Version. Yes. Thanks to Tyndale.

Well, exactly. It's written in the English language, which in itself is only, say 500 years old now, but the Christianity in itself say it's 2000 years old or even older. Yeah, Correct. Now, which means that the Bible was originally written not in English, but in Ancient Greek.

Cogn Greek. In Koine Greek.

Correct. Now, if we look at the Greek terminology, man.

Yes. And Jesus spoke Aramaic. You could translate things.

You acknowledge that where we translate things. But translations are linguistically ambiguous. As a former classicist, I know that language can't be Translated directly. So for example, if we look at the translation of certain words into man. So I've got two words here. So I've got malakoi, which means essentially soft, which isn't necessarily directly saying a gay man. And then we've got. Oh God, how do I say that? Arsana koitai, which essentially means prostitutes. Now if we look at things linguistically, we can pick apart the Bible and say that actually it wasn't saying man shall not sleep with man, it's saying man shall not sleep with prostitutes, which is an entirely different linguistic thing.

I'm not even getting into Leviticus though. But no, my contention is completely New Testament focused.

This isn't Leviticus.

But you said man shall not speak of the man. So you're talking about Romans. Okay?

These words are used throughout the entire time.

Well, actually in Romans 1 it was actually women sleeping with women. So you got your verses wrong. In Romans 1, Paul is prophesying about the end of the world and he's saying that in the end times, woman will like, with woman like and man will. I think it might say man like, man like. You have to get the verses specifically. But it is agreed upon and you can agree this is why tradition is important. And I even say this as a Protestant, is that we believe that scripture is very important, but also look to tradition. Church tradition has had an unbroken chain affirming matrimony, holy matrimony, being one man, one woman, one. Even as a non Catholic, I'm glad that Pope Leo has reaffirmed in the last couple of days. And so I'm not even sure your contention, your point. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't affirm marriage as one man, one woman? Are you saying church tradition doesn't affirm marriage?

One man, woman doesn't affirm, but clearly doesn't.

That is completely nonsense.

It's a linguistic error.

But Christ our Lord, which is the standard, he affirms this idea that you will leave your father's home, going back to Genesis 12. And this idea of Abraham leaving his father's home and you will cleave to your wife that a new. It'll be called one. In fact, this idea of a new creation, which is something that is then used by the apostle Paul to describe the, the, the church of Christ and the bride of the church and the, the church being the bride of Christ with Jesus. So I'm not even sure your contention.

It is, but you're just avoiding my point. I'm saying the Bible that we have today is 100% a translation and a translation.

I acknowledge it ambiguous and I believe. Well, hold on, but what about specifically in Matthew or in the book of Romans? And in order for you to be correct, you mean the church fathers translated it wrong when they were within like 50 years of this? In order for your contention to be correct, you have to say that the early church fathers that wrote the early letters to the church, they were translating it wrong and the tradition they established was wrong. So by then we can lean on tradition and scripture. So when you get tradition plus scripture, you get something that is authentic, that is real and that is verifiable.

I've already highlighted the tradition does not align with Scripture. We've gone back thousands of years to ancient Mesopotamia, but.

No, but understand, but at the time they also spoke Greek, they wrote Greek and they, they spoke Aramaic. So for example, when they were writing the early gospels, the, the Synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, they were obviously writing in Greek. They knew that language. So in Matthew, when they were writing Greek and then early church fathers knew Greek and adopted that as church tradition, we have a 2000 unbroken chain. I think you would irrefutably say that it was the teachings of Christ for one man and one woman, because the church tradition has been unbroken for two and they derived it from scripture of that original language.

You can't argue that that makes sense. I mean, if we agree to disagree, then why don't we look at biology?

Do you know better than the church fathers?

No, I don't.

I'm not saying I know better than the church fathers. What I'm saying is linguistically there is undeniably an error, regardless of what you say.

That is our lens. Maybe, but not from the people when they were making these traditions.

I agree they may have got that right, but that may not have been their original meaning. What we're saying is the meaning has been warped over time because societal and cultural context, such as British Empire.

[Moderator]

Let's not bring this question to a close.

[Unknown Speaker]

It can be, but that is why tradition matters, because the tradition, they understood the context.

Tradition is context dependent.

Well, yes and no. Because of course tradition is. But if the tradition lasts for 2,000 years, then we look back as to how did they get to that conclusion, how do they reach that verdict? And if that verdict is in alignment with what we see in scripture, it means that their verdict was correct.

In Scripture, they never reached that verdict. As I have historically pointed out all.

Of the major church councils, it was very modern day. Well, no, no, I'm talking about like 300 and 400 and 500.

The original in the scale of 2000 years is nothing.

No, but they set this unbroken chain. We've had an unbroken chain in a course that says that marriage is one man and one woman. The church has never wavered on this.

Noted by the British Empire under British.

Form of Christianity all the way back to like 200 or 300. The idea of biblical Christianity goes back to the early, early times of the church when it was established, scattered, persecuted church, well before King Justinian and well before the Eastern Roman Empire, well before mass conversions when it was a persecuted church, the church believed in one man, one woman, because they got it from the script, Scripture itself. Do we want to keep going or.

[Moderator]

Can we move on to the next question, please?

[Unknown Speaker]

Thank you. Thank you.

[Moderator]

Our next question is from Damzith Wimolasena from Lucy Cavendish College. Thank you.

[Unknown Speaker]

Hello, Charlie. Thank you for being here. Just before I start with my question, I wanted to address something you said earlier on sort of Western Christian values being the reason for the abolishment of slavery globally. I'm not sure whether you know this. I've seen you repeating this quite often. I'm a practicing Buddhist, and it was actually Buddhism, Buddhist emperors, Emperor Ashoka of India who first abolished slavery globally. So I would sort of ask you to sort of look at other sort of.

I will look into that. You did it globally. They had that much. The Buddhists had that much span of influence within India. Okay, I'll look into it. Thank you.

Thank you. So, first of all, my first question, or my only question, is you've advocated and applauded the reducing and removing. Removing of public funding for universities on the grounds they promote ideological biases. Given that universities play a critical role in driving national innovation, research and upward mobility, especially through federally funded grants, how do you reconcile this position with the broader societal value that higher education institutes offer?

Well, they can, but in Harvard's case, for example, who's getting their funding pulled? They have a $50 billion endowment. Just so we are clear, in pounds, that would be like what, 42 billion, 45 billion. I mean, I'm trying to learn the conversion rate here. I mean, it's an extraordinary amount of money. They can either use their endowments to fund it, and if you have certain behavior and certain practices, then you should not get federal funding. Harvard is in direct violation of the United States Supreme Court fair admissions case, which says you cannot discriminate people based on the color of their skin. Go ahead.

But isn't the whole point of it. You can't use endowments like that.

The point of they can.

The point of an endowment is to manage a fund through perpetuity. Cambridge has an endowment, and that endowment allows professorships to be funded to allow for research into sciences. That's the whole point of it.

You just said. Hold on. You just said it funds research into sciences. That's what they should do with their monstrosity of an endowment.

Yeah, but the endowment is the interest.

Alone on their endowment could fund the entire research and development budget of most Ivy League schools. They have a $50 billion endowment. Even like a PO Dunk money manager in America can earn a 7 to 10% investment in the markets the last couple years. That's $5 billion of returns that that endowment could then reinvest in whatever they want. Instead, Harvard has become a hedge fund with a radical school attached. And I think that's very wrong for us taxpayers to keep, continue to subsidize.

But it's not just Harvard. You've called on colleges being a scam. You've constantly attacked higher education institutes. You've attacked liberal arts as a scam. For example, like a lot of conservatives, Peter Thiel studied philosophy at Stanford. Ronald Reagan studied sociology. A lot of them did say study liberal arts. And you keep undermining these august institutions which have provided a lot for society. Like society's backbones have been universities and higher learning institutes. And yet you keep attacking them.

Well, they used to be largely. But again, I don't want to speak too much about this country, but in America, they don't represent fundamental American values. You know, Peter Thiel, after he graduated Stanford, wrote an entire book called Criticizing College and then Paying People not to go to College. So Peter Thiel, who spoke at this very school, and you guys had a great conversation with him, you know what? He believes college is such a scam. He would pay people $100,000 a year for 20 years straight not to go to college. So not exactly a good argument in your favor. Peter Thiel, who got a philosophy degree, made billions of dollars and has now forked over tens of millions of dollars for people not to go to US Universities and colleges.

But it's not just Peter Thiel.

I know, but you mentioned him. I didn't, but there's a. To complete.

The point is that Thomas went to did liberal arts.

Look there in America, there are far too many people going to college. We need people to become welders, electricians, people that work with their hands. There is a major trade deficit problem in the United states. We have 11 million well paying jobs that we cannot find enough labor for. And instead we have a lot of people going to university to go study North African lesbian poetry. It might sound good, but it doesn't necessarily. Necessarily A, either development, the content, the character, or the development of the soul. And B, it does not necessarily also give you the skills necessary. Some college is good for you. I'm a big proponent of Hillsdale College.

[Moderator]

Guys, can you please be quiet?

[Unknown Speaker]

I believe Hillsdale College is America's greatest college and I'm a big proponent of that. But I would ask a question, in your own words. What do you believe the purpose of college is?

It's critical engagement.

But.

But coming back to your point on lesbian poetry or whatever.

North African lesbian poetry.

North African lesbian poetry. So in the morning I actually had a lecture on development policy and one of the key authors on sort of development economics is Nussbaum, who talks about how liberal arts sort of engages you critically. And one could argue even North African lesbian poetry. I don't think that's a degree. I think that's just module within a degree.

Maybe.

Yeah, that makes you.

The fact you don't know shows how rotten to the core universities have become.

You're taking one example and telling conservatives and hordes of young people that college is a scam. College isn't a scam. I mean, I took my mom down to a pub just down the road where Watson and Crick announced DNA.

[Moderator]

Guys, can we. Okay, wait one second.

[Unknown Speaker]

If college is a scam, then DNA wouldn't have been discovered. Cancer research.

Hold on a second. Yes, you're right. At this Pacific University, you guys split the atom. You had Sir Isaac Newton, you had some of the greatest minds of the West. I don't know about what's happening here, and I'm not going to criticize it, but at most colleges in the west, they've gone away from places of inquiry and appreciation of what is good and what is beautiful and into this incessant oppression Olympics of trying to deconstruct the core canon that is our birth certificate. I don't know if that's happening here. It's certainly. That's not true, though in America, it is objectively true. Okay, that isn't true. No. First of all, they removed Western civilization as a core course in Stanford in the 1990s. They tried to bring it back with petitions and the university said, no teaching Western civilization is racist. Shakespeare is not taught at major. Let me finish. Shakespeare is not taught at major universities across America because it's deemed as racist. I talked to some students earlier in the English department and they said, hey, I'm studying Shakespeare. I said, that's refreshing because in a lot of US schools they don't teach Shakespeare because he's called racist. You would be surprised at how wretched to the core some of these colleges have become in America.

If you look at the Global Innovation Index, America, which is predominantly a lot of their majors are in universe, humanities and liberal arts. The number two on the Global Innovation Index, China, is somewhere near 13. If you look at every metric, Fortune, thousand CEOs, 40% did humanities and liberal arts. There is a value in liberal arts.

Yet you're criticizing it and I'm going to keep on criticizing it. Also, the vast majority of liberal arts graduates do not respect freedom of speech. That is an empirical poll. They increasingly do not have reverence or gratitude for the United States of America. They don't care about the core values of the U.S. constitution. If you want to go to college, that's fine. But in our country, 40% of kids that enter college do not graduate. The kids that do graduate, half of them end up getting jobs that do not require any sort of college degree. There are all these made up degrees in America. I know it's different than the experience you might be having here. Your tutoring system here is objectively great. I'm glad you guys have it. The class sizes in America are 4 to 500 students, sometimes per introductory course to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. So the things that don't matter to find jobs that do not exist. And so let me just make one final point is that of course some people should be going to college. But generally in the United States of America, it has become a racket of debt, it has become a burden and a place where we're actually not putting our best and brightest into the job field itself to be equipped for the jobs, the future. Instead we have a lot of Starbucks with philosophy degrees.

You also mentioned indoctrination as per the authority Oxford Dictionary's definition of indoctrination. It means that you take a belief and you can't critically observe that belief. Turning Point USA has over 30,000 chapters, 3,000, 3,000 chapters across US universities. So are you arguing that students, including conservatives, lack the critical thinking skills to sort of decide political ideologies?

Political.

That they're so dumbfounded that they can't decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong and that your whole premise is on the fact that students like us, we lack critical thought in deciding what is taught in schools.

Again, I'm not using Cambridge as the school that I think of, but in America we have millions of people that go to these massive state schools that have humanities departments that are not reading the great books, that do not have a tool tutoring system that are unfortunately laced with the most anti western thought imaginable. I don't really quite following what one thing has to do with the other. Why 3000 chapters has something to do with your indictment. Maybe you can clarify, but I think we're out of time. In general, colleges should be a place that lift you up to what is good, true and beautiful. To study the great things that have been to develop your soul and develop your character. Character in Greek literally means like tattoo the etched within you. Far too often colleges create ungrateful, pessimistic and nihilistic revolutionaries that want to tear down what was before and instead have no alternative to build the future. And the west is suffering because of it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I disagree, but thank you very much.

[Charlie Kirk]

America's small businesses rely on TikTok to succeed, helping them attract more customers and drive more growth. From small batch sellers to fast growing brands, 74% of businesses on TikTok say it's helped them scale. We go super viral on TikTok here on this program reaching billions and billions of views you see by hiring more employees, boosting sales and expanding new locations. Like AZ Taco King who grew up from a mom and pop taco cart to two thriving restaurants in just a year. Or Coco Asante who upgraded to a larger facility and brought on more staff, letting their handcrafted chocolates reach more customers. Or Dan O. Seasonings who went from a one man show to team of 45 now supporting dozens of hardworking families. With TikTok, small businesses are thriving. Ours certainly is. Again reaching hundreds of millions of people a week on TikTok. One of the reasons we're able to win the youth vote is thanks to what we can do on TikTok, finding their customers and expanding. Learn more about TikTok's contribution to the U.S. economy at Tiktokeconomicimpact.com so check it out. Tiktokeconomicimpact dot com Tiktokeconomicimpact. Com Portions of the Charlie Kirkshow are brought to you in part by tiktokeconomicimpact.com thank you.

[Moderator]

Our next question is from Archie McIntosh at Jesus College.

[Unknown Speaker]

It's good to meet you Charlie. I hope you can understand first rule, I'm a little nervous. There's a very real chance I could wake up tomorrow front page of YouTube. Charlie Kirk owns man bun idiot with facts and logic.

So destroys.

It destroys. So my question is, I agree that stable monogamous relationships often produce the best outcomes for society. But if that structure really works for everyone, why do we consistently see societies, once they become safer and more prosperous, move away from traditional monogamy? And why do so many marriages still end in divorce, even among people who generally try to make it work? And just one final framing there. If you believe in free markets because they are decentralized and they adapt to reality without top down control, given the individual ability to form healthy long term pair bonds vary significantly with factors like genetics and ecologically calibrated detachment styles. Why do you reject top down control and economics but not extend that same rejection to human behavior in terms of marriage?

Okay, so the first one, the second law of thermodynamics answers your question, is that it's the law of decay. Societies tend to decay against the roots that created them. For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech. You brought it to the world. You guys do not have free speech in this country anymore. 30 people a day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory strength social media posts. Someone by the name of Lucy Connolly is currently facing prison time for a Facebook post that was critical of migrants. It is normal, unfortunately, for civilizations to get away from how they once operated and how they once were. Now to your question, does that answer the first part of your question? You were saying why do they get away from monogamy? I want to make sure I answer your question.

I would say I don't feel that that's a full answer.

Okay, so you're asking why do they get away from what works? Is that correct?

Yes. Yes. Well, why do societies make this change once they become more prosperous?

Oh, yeah, Okay. I mean, because prosperity leads to degeneracy. For sure. That would be the answer. And so once you are prosperous, you tend to no longer have the moral guardrails or the limitations. Let's just say you no longer have delayed gratification because you have instant gratification because you have a surplus of goods and then you have a decline of a transcendent moral order. The second part of the question, can you remind me please what the second question was?

Yeah.

About markets.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, for example, you have to, I believe in intervention in markets. If there is something that is improper morally. So for Example, I do not believe that you should be able to scam your neighbor or have misleading advertising because I believe in a transcendent moral standard. And the same goes for my personal views on marriage.

Okay, so I think we largely agree on the foundation. I like to propose something that you might like to think about. So firstly, I absolutely acknowledge that again, if everyone in society was able to maintain healthy long term pair bonds, that would be best. Again, there's strong data showing the independent of socioeconomic factors, broken homes are some of the strongest predictors of poor life outcomes.

We totally agree. Yes.

And even, I'm not sure if many people here are aware of this, but if you track, you know, as countries become more socially egalitarian, somewhat surprisingly, rates of female depression and anxiety also spike disproportionately. So I think one of the problems here is that when you try and impose more absolutism, inevitably again, due to variance in attachment issues, due to industrialized culture, absent parents, screens, raising kids, around 50% of adults in the west develop attachment disorders which make it very difficult to maintain long term. And then additionally you have things like variation, oxytocin receptors, density and shape, also invasive pressin. There are going to be, Even though there's 5% of people who feel that these rules really do not fit them, they will push back and this will create ideologies that then grow into more wider appealing ideologies which then lead to this change. I think this is what happened in the sexual revolution. It started with a push for female autonomy and then it was almost morphed into a really exaggerated expression of pushing for maximizing individual freedom. And I think that when you try and impose moral absolutism this way, it just inevitably causes pushback. And I think if you were to as someone with a platform instead say, hey, monogamy is great, it works best for most people. But I also understand there are some people it doesn't work so well for. More people would hear the message that you want to push.

Okay, thank you for that. That's an interesting. I've actually never gotten that question before. It's very thoughtful. Would you say you're against moral absolutism then?

Yes, yes, I would.

Are you against that? Absolutely. No.

I'm very open to having my mind changed.

So it's not an absolute thing.

Well, I'm against moral absolutism.

Are you against moral absolutism? Absolutely.

No.

Okay, so then you're consistent. So I think it's all just kind of, I think it's preference not it's about preference. You could just basically do whatever you prefer. There is no transcendent moral order.

Well, I think what you're doing though is slightly unfairly putting me into a loop because I'm very open to having my mind changed.

My morals are all saying though is that by definitionally, and this is something that will keep on coming back, you must choose what moral standard we live by. I'm very clear as to what moral standard. The lie of the west, of modernity the last 30 years is that we're going to have you live and let live and there will be no moral standard. That itself is a moral standard and it's a really bad one. And to your point that yes, it creates more suffering, it creates more despair and no, I disagree with what you say and I respect the heart of which you're saying it, I will say that I have a moral obligation not to accommodate when people fall short, but instead try to lift them up towards the standard that is true and that I know that works.

So where I'd push this is I'd ask you, you describe people falling short when they fail to engage in long term monogamy. What do you think causes that? Why do you think some people struggle?

Many reasons, Economic is one of them. But the biggest is the death of religion and the death of Christianity in the west as America. I'll just talk about America. The UK is unfortunately far less churched than America. But as America has become less churched, so many of these social ills rise.

So one thing I'd say I studied the evolution of behavior, in particular sexual romantic behavior. If you track all the different hunter gatherer cultures that we can study and retract how agriculture shapes things. You see the ecological conditions really reliably predict the prevalence of monogamy, certain marriage systems and what I think is what we refer to as attachment issues. They seem to be an ecological calibration to an environment. In environments that are more unstable, it's less optimal for an individual to grow up. The tendency to rely on long term pair bonds and I think there's a mismatch with the modern world. Again, coming back to industrialization, there are so many people raise kids as absent parents, daycare is massively linked to attachment issues. This then causes people to struggle to born long term. And then again coming back to the genetic part, there's again real research showing that especially vasopressin mutations and oxytocin mutations, some people really just do not have the proclivity for this.

What brings stability because you say stability is a good thing, and what would bring stability?

So, first of all, I would say we had what you might consider stability in the previous century. And then it became unstable, and then things.

Why?

I'm saying because moral absolutism was imposed.

Moral absolutism was lost. You see, modernity rose. We started to teach our kids moral relativism, and we got rid of moral absolutes. So it's the opposite.

So why was it lost? Was it lost because people stopped pushing.

[Moderator]

This question to a close?

[Unknown Speaker]

Why was it lost? That's a question for far smarter minds. I can only tell you that it was in America. It's honestly one of the worst decisions, not just worst ideas ever, which is modern feminism, largely from Betty Friedan's feminist critique. Feminist mystique. I'm sorry? Feminist mystique, which acted as if every woman who's in a monogamous marriage in the States is in some sort of tyrannical environment. And it has led to the women of the west being the most miserable, most depressed, most suicidal, most prescription drug addicted cohort on the planet. And I think we need to appropriately challenge feminism and tell young women that it's okay. In fact, it's courageous to get married and have children again. I think it would solve a lot of our problems.

Well, I've been told to.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

[Moderator]

Our next question is from Tilly Middlehurst at Fitzwilliam College.

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm a feminist. My question is about the role of women, though. What should women's role in public and private life look like? And what are the material benefits of that?

Well, thank you for that. Can I take. I don't even want to take this detour, but can we both agree on what a woman is?

Yes. An adult human female is a biological state of being that is also socially experienced. Can I please elucidate just one example of that social experience?

Yeah, I was going to answer your question, but sure, go ahead.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, so let's say you're a member of a tribe and that in that tribe you have the biological female anatomy. And in order to become a woman in that tribe, you have to also get a tattoo. That's a social experience that's mapped onto biological reality.

So can a woman have a prostate?

Can a woman have a prostate? Biologically speaking, a woman is an adult human female that has a biological reality, but it's also social experience. Right. So, like, I don't.

It's super easy. Like, can a woman have a prostate?

So, as per my Definition of woman. I would say that people who have a prostate are biologically male, but they can sometimes be socially treated as women.

Okay, got it. So women can have prostates. Got it. Okay. So you're a feminist that actually isn't just fighting for women. You're also fighting for. For men.

So, yes, yeah, men also experience harms from patriarchy.

But I argue we're talking about the same feminism, though. Just make sure. Yeah, sure, go ahead.

So men also experience harm from patriarchal domination, but I would argue that those harms come from that system of domination itself. In the same way, for example, this isn't a threat, but if I reached across and punched you in the face, then my hand might hurt. Right. So are we understanding that there are, like, patterns of power? So I would also fight for the rights of men as a feminist, just as I would fight for the rights of women.

Sure. Do you think women are happier than they were 40 years ago?

I think I would have a few responses to that. I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today, not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations. So, for example, studies like the OECD's Better Life Index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender inequality. So I would argue that what you're calling unhappiness is actually visibility, because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction, Whereas in the 50s, we prescribed them Valium and we lobotomized.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah.

[Unknown Speaker]

That'S. That's really rich. I didn't know women not to complain 50 years ago. That's funny. So hold on a second. Why are suicide rates going up more for women? I think that incorrectly complaining materially, women are killing themselves more. Why is that?

I think that even if both men, Both men and women have become unhappier, men's suicide rates have risen as well, and that's also been exponential. Can you at least concede that feminism offers only one potential explanation? There could be also other explanations, obviously.

But feminism is the glaring thing in front of us, where we have fertility rates down, we have marriage rates down, down, we have unhappiness up. And we did something in the 1960s out of the universities of Brady Friedan and Gloria Steinem and all these feminists that basically said, you're trapped in a home, go get a job, freeze your eggs, take birth control, and all of a sudden, women are way unhappier than they were 40 years ago. And I just have to ask the question, why is that? Is it working? And maybe there are biological differences between men and women that we should respect and that deep down a lot of women want to get married and have children. In fact, we should apply, applaud it and we should support it and we should say it means nothing if you're gonna go be a CEO of some shoe company or be some banker in London. What matters if you raise children and you have something to pass down long after you're gone?

I think I would bring two points to that. The first one is just really simple, which is that you can ascribe liberalism all you want as the cause of the unhappiness. I would argue something else. I would say that it's certain economic policy that has very little to do with the social acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I would say that we can recognise that income inequality across a vast swathe of Western countries has increased, which causes all kinds of social ills, a lack of social cohesion. Housing price growth doesn't correspond with wage growth. Monopolies increasingly become kind of emboldened to interfere with politics. And monopolies don't prioritize social health either. I think that those offer more compelling reasons for a decline in happiness than an increase in freedoms. Because just one more thing, on an intuitive basis, generally speaking, people want more freedom, not less.

Okay, so if that's true, why is it do. Do you agree that the happiest women in the west are married with kids?

I would have to look into it, but I think there are certain, objectively.

We know that, right? The women with kids are not the ones tearing down statues, right? They're the ones that actually have obligations.

Tearing down statues correspond to some kind of smiles per capita data set that I wasn't aware of.

Again, it's like it's a little bit of a one liner. The happy and the grateful. The happy and the grateful usually don't go burn down Wendy's in their spare time, of which we saw in our country all throughout a single summer. But as a side note, you would agree, objectively, study after study, survey after survey, that the women of the west that are married and have children, especially a lot of children, are far happier than even the ones that earn more money correlated at the same age.

So I also don't think that happiness is a very good metric and neither do you, because you think gay people shouldn't just pursue happiness by being gay. They have other moralistic considerations to be Making. So I don't think smiles per capita is a particularly convincing way to measure whether or not we should encourage women to be autonomous. I think we should maximize agency within a fair system that has reasonable parameters because it's expedient, it's good for the economy, it's logical, it's the moral thing. Because if we can't prove the material harms, we shouldn't discourage it. And also self reported studies is a really flawed way to do psychology. It's the week before my university exams right now and I'm standing here explaining the basic, basic methodology behind survey collection in sociology, which you don't even think is a real subject to Charlie Kirk. If I took one of those surveys right now, I check extremely miserable, but so would a Palestinian child who's been taunted smithereens. How are we going to measure?

I would say extremely miserable.

No, I'm, I'm kind of making a joke.

No, I mean, but ser. Like as a. But hold on. I mean, like, that's an important point though, is that the women in the west have it the best in the world and yet they're way unhappier than women of sub Saharan Africa. There's something fundamentally wrong here because the women of sub Saharan Africa have something that a lot of women in the west do not have. The women in the west have cats and they have good jobs. And the women in some Sahara Africa, they have a belief in the divine and they have kids. And maybe there's a biological undercurrent that is keeping a lot of women from realizing their full potential. And so without reading your phone and just like, you know, connecting.

I'm not really reading my phone.

Well, it's fine, sure. Then you can answer without it. Fair enough. Would you agree that it's a good thing that more women get married and have children in the West?

I would ask you, would you say that a sub Saharan African woman who's experienced female genital mutilation and checks extremely happy in a survey? And I also would check extremely happy in a survey. Who do you think would be objectively more happy even if they both check the same answer again?

So I fully. If you want to talk about how Islam mistreats women, we could talk all day long. Like, I'm, I'm all for that.

Me too.

Okay, good. So we agree that we actually have.

Agree many, many things that we should.

Shut off Muslim immigration to the uk Right? We totally agree.

I think that all religious fundamentalism is bad. And if you take that logic, we should also not allow evangelical Christians into.

Hold on, hold on a second.

Hold on.

That's funny. Hold on. Can you show me a single. Show me what would your example, because I have 50 of a single Christian country that you would say mistreats women. Right? America. Oh really?

[Moderator]

Yes.

[Unknown Speaker]

We had a female woman vice president. We had a female vice president, a female speaker of the house. Women earn more than men in America.

Rwanda. In Rwanda, female representation in government out outseeds like supersedes the UK by quite a lot. Did women get treated better in Rwanda?

Okay, is. I might be super off this. Like is Rwanda Islamic? Like I'm not totally sure. I don't think it is. Like, is it like. I don't know. Actually, I don't. It's not. So again, we were just about Islam. It's a little bit of side note, but you must be morally clear because you brought up female gentle mutilation which is a teaching of the Islamic faith. But as a side note, like again, this is very important, which is I'm not here to require you to do anything or not. I'm making a statement, simple observation, which is. Which is objectively true. Regardless, the women of the west are miserable and they're miserable for a reason. Because we've told them to suppress how they are made by God and pursue something else and get a bunch of trinkets and get a bunch of promotions and they end up at 38 years old with a big flat in London and they're miserable and we should tell them to stop freezing their eggs and start finding their partner earlier and have lots of babies.

Yeah. Okay. I think I'd bring two just final points to this. First one is just really intuitive, right? Which is that if you actually care about women's happiness, then the solution is to structurally support them. That means universal childcare, shared legally enforceable parental leave. And in Nordic countries where women have high workforce participation and also some states support they report higher life satisfaction than in more conservative countries, including America. So if your metric is happy satisfaction surveys. So our satisfaction is bullshit or not? Because you told me.

Do you acknowledge that satisfaction surveys or not just told me that they're bs? Do you think they're object. We can use that as data.

I don't think that is the only sole data set. But it is.

You told me there's a flawed and you self report. Okay, by. By the macro self self satisfaction data. I am correct and you are right. When you have paid family leave, you are happier. I'm actually a proponent of that at turning Point usa. We pay for six months when somebody has a child. I think there's a lot of agreement we can have on that. We need to encourage having more children. I think the Hungarian, Hungarian child policy is phenomenal. We should look at that. Because the greatest thing that is plaguing the west is we're not having enough kids. And it's not just bad because we won't have a future, it's also bad because the present is awfully miserable for too many women as well.

Okay, in which case I think we get.

[Moderator]

Do you want to start bringing this to a close, please?

[Unknown Speaker]

Okay.

I think just one final thing, which is that in which case we get to a really interesting argument about what parts of womanhood can be demarcated to the social and what kinds of womanhood can be demarcated to biological. So for example, my anatomy is demarcated to the biological. But the fact that I might potentially be a better nurturer than a man, I would demarcate that to the social. You might demarcate that to the biological. In which case we have differing moral scales of value. I would ask why we should necessarily prioritize your moral scale of value, which prioritizes things like the birth rate, when in actual fact there are various other moral scales of value. And if you yourself are a free market American, why is it the case that you would not like? The previous speaker noted.

I've already answered.

Extend personal freedoms towards all spheres, including a private sphere.

I believe in absolute claims and it's absolutely wrong and bad when a society stops having kids to replace their own population and then you have to import the third world and you become the third world. It's bad.

I disagree, but thank you.

Okay, thank you.

[Charlie Kirk]

You know, one of the biggest lies being sold to American people right now is that you're in control of your money. Especially when it comes to crypto. But the truth, most of these so called crypto platforms are just banks in disguise. Fully capable of freezing your assets the moment some bureaucrat makes a phone call. That is not what Bitcoin was built for. That's why I use Bitcoin.com. i just did a major transaction on it. They offer a self custodial wallet, which means you hold the keys, you control your assets. No one can touch your crypto. Not the IRS or not a rogue bank, not some three letter agency that thinks it knows better than you do. This is how it was intended by the original creators of Bitcoin. Peer to peer money. Free from centralized control, free from surveillance, and free from arbitrary seizure. So if you're serious about financial sovereignty, go to bitcoin.com, set up your wallet, take back control, because if you don't hold the keys, you don't own your money. Bitcoin.com freedom starts here.

[Moderator]

Thank you. And the final question that we've got time for today is from Sammy McDonald from St John's College.

[Unknown Speaker]

Good evening, Mr. Kirk. You've obviously devoted a lot of your life to electing, keeping in power, Donald Trump. And you did so partly because you said Trump would put Americans first and take them out of foreign conflicts. Should we see how that is going at the moment? Currently, Trump has just accepted a $400 million debt from Qatar, which we're assured is perfectly above board. Billions in arms are going to Saudi Arabia, which they're using to bomb and starve Yemeni children. Not sure how that's in the interest of the United States, but it might be in the interest of. Of the 5 and a half billion dollar deal his failed sons are receiving. At the same time, this great president of peace has greenlit mass killings, not just in Yemen, but in Gaza, where he greenlit an invasion called Operation Gideon's Chariot with the express aim of wiping out the Gazan population. You promised to put America first. Haven't you and your ilk sold America?

No.

Well, I'm glad you have great intellectual substance and can answer because it's all the culture wars for you, isn't it? The second someone actually tells you what you're doing, which is red.

Can you calm down a little bit? Like just a little bit pounding the table, you're all over the place. No. Do you want me to go piece by piece or would you like me to talk slower?

I think you can.

For one, Donald Trump is convening a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Joe Biden gave the.

Well, isn't it going well?

Can you not interrupt me? I allowed you to talk uninterrupted.

You're famous for not interrupting.

I haven't interrupted a single person here today. Can I, can I speak uninterrupted? Actually, he is convening a peace deal between Russia, Ukraine. I believe we will see an end to that war. Number two, he's actually talking to Iran and discouraging Israel to strike the interior of Iran and has stopped many other international countries to do the same. Number three, can you give him credit for ending the Indian Pakistan war?

Both of them said he didn't do that.

Well, hold on a second.

Let's go back.

No, no, no.

That's Russia, Ukraine.

Hold on, that's important.

Can I speak now?

Yes, but the Indian, Pakistan thing, you gotta go deeper than that.

Let's go. In order is a peace summit where the main person in question, Russia, doesn't show up. Is that a success, Mr. Kirk?

I'm not even sure. I'm not even sure.

Success.

Well, again, these are ongoing negotiations and it's a lot better than when your Prime Minister Boris Johnson went alongside our Secretary of State Tony Blinken to Istanbul and unnecessarily blew up a potential Russian peace deal which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians. One of the great unnecessary wars of the modern era. Donald Trump believes in conversation and police through strength. He has been president for well over 120 to 130 days and he has already ended a war between two nuclear conflicts of India, Pakistan. He has secured our own U.S. southern border while we were being invaded by foreign powers. And thirdly, he is brokering a potential settlement with Iran that will prevent a major escalation in the Middle East. And finally, it is very difficult, but I believe they'll get it done. That will follow, finally see an end to the Russian Ukrainian war.

I'm just going to disregard the enormous lies you just put out there about Russia and Ukraine. But do you really think leverage negotiations work if you cut off all your leverage and scream at one party in the Oval Office? Don't you think that has just emboldened Russia? Because look at the approach. Putin thinks so much of your glorious president he can't even be asked to show up. You have elected or help elect somebody who is at best an idiot and at worst is deeply corrupt.

Okay, again, so Trump and Putin had a two hour phone call today. You'll acknowledge that's a good thing. The pursuit of peace can sometimes be a winding road and it's a lot better than sending hundreds of billions of dollars further into the killing fields of eastern Ukraine. Something that tragically, both the UK Government and the US Government has been unnecessarily supporting for a couple of years. President Trump wants to see a brokerage, an ending of this settlement. I pray we can get it. It's very complicated because the mess that Joe Biden left, which was an active kinetic war with a nuclear power sending American made missiles into the interior of Russia. So President Trump has already ended a war. He's ended an invasion. He's only 130 days into this. And I believe we do not know at this point. We are merely speculating, which I think we should not spend our time doing that because eventually one of us will be right. I believe we'll be right. And I believe we'll see an end to this war.

We just talk about 100 billions worth of weapons. Because you dodged my question on what was going on in the Middle east where Trump has just signed enormous arms contracts with Saudi Arabia and with Qatar. And I notice you ignored the fact that this might have had anything to do with the blatant corruption going on through the Trump coin and going on through giving the very competent sons of Donald Trump billions of investment from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is something that is directly embroiling Americans into conflict, but is importantly killing many innocent people. Those nations have been known to terrorize innocent civilian populations. So if you're coming to me and you're objecting to America selling weaponry, why are you defending shilling for the Saudis?

Well, hold on. One is sending weaponry, one is purchasing. Secondly, you do know that the biggest purchase that was announced was commercial airliners. 737, $100 billion. We've heard of Qatar Airways. They purchase $100 billion of commercial airways. You are right. There were some weapons contracts. But I guess the question is would you, would you rather have Saudi Arabia buy weapons from America or China?

I'd rather they not have American weaponry at cut price rates.

I disagree.

Let's talk about Qatar for a second.

Okay, fine.

You mentioned Qatar. You've been talking a lot about Hamas and the evils of Hamas. Can I ask you who's the main funder of Hamas?

Well, the palest state. Well, the west actually funds Hamas.

Which state?

Well, Iran funds.

No, no, no, no. Where are the Hamas leaders?

And also it is a combination of international relief organizations.

100 million jet with the President United States on it.

Hold on. First of all, it was not given to him personally. I understand the optics of it, but it was not given to him personally. It was given to the US Government. And under that standard, no US Government should ever receive any gifts from any foreign operate countries whatsoever. It's not given to him personally and not a violation of the.

Why is he trying to transfer it to his personal library?

He is actually. Okay, again he sent out. This is way too in the weeds. If you want to keep on going it, we can actually.

It's a fundamental moral principle.

Okay, so under that fundamental moral principle then can you acknowledge though that President Trump is getting more done in a less period of time than any president we've seen While our prior president was not. Did not even know what year he got elected. You understand the contrast here.

What about ism? Again, I'm not a defender.

No, I'm not saying President Trump is far better than you have to defend.

The person you spent millions.

I will defend, defend every day of someone who ends an invasion. That's all you do is brings down the price of oil, who is revitalizing the American economy, who's brokering peace, who stopped the potential nuclear war, who is bringing Iran to the table and bringing Russia to the table. Someone who does not want armed conflicts with the greatest powers of our time. I will defend that endlessly in a.

Fantasy world of your own creation. So it's quite hard to engage that.

But then disprove it.

But let's check on how Trump is doing in terms of diplomacy. Look, with the war in the Middle east, do you think it was a defensible decision to tell the Israelis you wanted Trump, Gaza to agree for Israel to invade the Gaza Strip and to continue to murder thousands of innocent children and civilians in a pointless war? Is that in America's interest? Is that in humanity's interest?

Well, first of all, you should know something about Trump. There's something, if you realize with Trump over the last 10 years, he is quite the social media user and uses hyperbolic language at times. But let me ask you, in the conflict of Israel versus Hamas, who's the good guy?

I believe both Hamas and the Israeli government are evil. But I think also there is no.

Justification, are they equally.

There is no justification for the murder and mutilation of thousands of innocent people and children. There is no justification, Mr. Kurt, for invading hospitals, for bombing innocent populations and dragging out a war which is damaging Israel and the west security.

You've made that point. But it's not a point. It's a moral truth, isn't it? Okay, yeah. It was also a moral truth that the war started because 1300 Jews were killed and 200 were taken hostage. And when you declare war on Israel, expect a firestorm in reaction. Let me finish. I let you talk. Israel had its holiest day of the calendar year besides Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah Samat Torah, the 50 year anniversary of the Six Day War on Shabbat. Hamas invaded Israel, deciding to go recklessly to music concerts, to homes, to kibbutzes, and taking 200 plus hostages. They knew what they were doing in one of the most cloistered urban environments on the planet. Two million people live in a place where it's impossible to wage war. Impossible. Where they wear civilian clothing, they Violate every tactical of the Geneva Convention and the idf. When they do something right, they get no credit. When they do life saving surgeries of a Gazan child, they get no credit. When they drive leaflets, drop leaflets, they get no credit. But when they happen to bomb a place where they are operating their military, from which we now know from third party verified sources, hundreds of Hamas military operations are in mosques, schools and hospitals. I'm sorry, the country that where they were living in relative peace on October 6, that all of a sudden we had a war and Hamas started the war. And I don't see people that were really upset about the 2 million Germans that were killed in World War II civilians. A tragic truth of war is that civilians die. I don't like it and you don't like it. And they brought it upon themselves. The only operation and entity to blame is the leadership of Hamas, not the Israeli government for fighting this defensive war after they were invaded.

I am no defender of the terrible pogrom that was launched against Jews on that day. But the justification for the death of innocents cannot be an infinite cycle of bloodlust. It cannot be killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with a war with no end in sight, people who are not complicit in those atrocities. It cannot be bombing hospitals which children use. It cannot be bombing hospitals in which cancer patients are dying and starving. In there the deaths that have been inflicted, nobody knows the true toll. But somewhere between 50 and 100,000 people lie dead under the rubble. And what is left for Gaza except for to continue to suffer under Hamas? Because it turns out Netanyahu's political strategy has not worked. It has entrenched Hamas within the territories. To be a Christian, I would have thought Mr. Kirk would never have involved suggesting that the price for an atrocity must be an infinite cycle of bloodlust, that innocent people and the young population must be killed to avenge. Some kind of providential question.

How can yourself a Christian? Well, you just. I want to make sure we get our moral clarity straight before we proceed. No one likes what's happening in Gaza. No one with a heart or a soul or a mind likes when kids die. But you must understand who started the conflict so that you could end it correctly. And until Hamas brokers an unconditional surrender, of which they are unwilling to do, they could release the hostages and drop their weapons and their lives would be spared. Instead, they are using children of Gaza as cannon fodder, financed by the Iranian mullahs and dragging the entire world into this conflict. So I don't even know what we're debating at this point other than I believe that Israel. I believe the facts. Israel was unconditionally attacked on October 7th. They're responding in kind. And I would just ask you a very simple moral question. How should Israel have responded?

Not with the blanket carpet bombing the city, not with bombing hospitals. Of course some kind of military operation might have been necessary, but not murder on this scale. There is no justification for what is happening with the enormous death toll that is being produced. I really cannot see how you come here and you have the gall to lecture us on Christian morality and then sit here and justify the murder of thousands of civilians. Is it working? Mr. Master?

I've never said that.

You just did.

Well, no. This is your.

This is your.

In war, these are called casualties of a war.

[Moderator]

We're going to stop. Bring this again.

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm not ever. I'm not going to justify every military maneuver of a hundred thousand person army. Instead, what I will do is I'll be clear that there is a good guy and there is a bad guy. I'm. I honestly not.

The morality of a child.

Well, instead. Well, hold on. It's interesting you say that because a child knows that Israel is the good guy. Hamas is bad. Has a lot more wisdom than a student like yourself at Cambridge University.

I will be glad that I will not have been somebody who has defended the genocide of the Palestinian people. And I think you will have to reckon one day that you have reckoned.

Interesting. I want to close on this, so can you. Can you tell me what African countries currently ongoing a civil war?

Believe it or not, I know about Sudan because I'm media.

Who's the. How about the. What Southeast Asian country has an ethnic cleansing going on? Right. Good. And you have strong opinions on both sides. Unlike you, I take an effort to.

Be informed about foreign policy and to come to conclusions. You are a culture warrior. I believe when everything is done, Mr. Kirk, people will see you and the people you've supported as corrupt as selling the country out to the lowest bidder and of doing irreparable damage to a country. I'm sure we all deep down love the difference.

You will have to reckon with that difference is when. The difference is when we get our way, we'll still have a country and your country will be a third world hellhole. Next question.

[Moderator]

Thank you. That's all we've got time for today. Mr. Kirk has another engagement, so we're going to walk out of the chamber.

[Unknown Speaker]

Any questions with the students or. No, I'M fine with it if you want. I don't care.

[Moderator]

No, I think this is all we've got time for today.

[Unknown Speaker]

You guys are easy.

[Moderator]

Okay, we'll take a couple more. Does anyone have any questions?

[Unknown Speaker]

Who's the best.

[Moderator]

Over there?

[Unknown Speaker]

Marvelous.

Thank you. A very, very short question. Israel versus Hamas, Good guy versus bad guy. Russia versus Ukraine. Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?

Both are bad, one is worse.

Which way round?

Russia is worse than Ukraine.

Okay, so why haven't we pursued that?

What do you mean?

Well, it seems to me that in the whole of the current US proposition that Ukraine is being the bad guy.

In what way? We funded Ukraine upwards to $200 billion.

Absolutely.

But I just signed a mineral deal with Ukraine, not Russia.

You are expecting Ukraine to give up 20% of its territory to someone who invaded it?

Well, is Crimea part of Russia or Ukraine?

Ukraine.

That's where we don't agree.

Well, I'm afraid that's part of international treaty that's not up for grabs.

Well, it's interesting. I mean, hold on. Even Zelensky has said he's willing to give up Ukraine.

No. America signed the agreement that gave Ukraine Crimea. Right when the Soviet Union ended.

Right. It was done. First of all, it never should have been done. It was largely ceremonial. However, it was annexed under Obama. Yes, and it was a mistake. And it should be given back to Russia as a sign of good gesture to end this conflict. Who's currently controlling Crimea? Where was the Russian Navy headquartered in World War II? Where was the end of World War II? Son, this is very.

I'm not doubting that. I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying that if we're being logical on what has happened, that you are now arguing against that flow and I don't understand it because actually why is Ukraine the bad guy?

No, I said they're bad, they're not the bad guy.

Yeah, well you said they were both bad, but one was more bad.

Yes.

So why is Ukraine bad?

Well, there's a lot wrong with Ukraine. First of all, they're not a democracy. Zelensky refuses to hold an election.

Well, no, he can't hold an election.

Oh wait, did Churchill hold an election during the war? Because under his constitution, Lincoln held election during the war. That's not true. He can call an election, he can call a snap election. He's full dictator of the country. No, he knows that the people of Ukraine would kick him out immediately because he's to deeply unpopular. In fact, if he Wanted to show a statement to the world. He would call an election and win by 80% and say, see, I'm super popular. So that's number one. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with a person being propped up as a government we're sending $200 billion to that refuses even to face his voters.

Okay, I can't agree with you factually on that at all. Constitutionally, Ukraine is not able to hold an election because it's under military law at the moment. And that's just a matter of time.

Again, he can, as a prime minister or president, he could do whatever he wants.

He can't.

We're going to just go back an.

Executive order and change the constitution. Neither can the American president either.

So. Okay, hopefully that's better. He could even do a ceremonial election to see where he actually stands with the people.

I think we call those opinion polls.

Yes, and they're very negative. Firmly ahead in the opinion. But you would agree that a person that holds on to power without the election of the sovereign is pretty questionable?

No, not in those circumstances.

Okay, then we disagree.

No. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. But give me another reason why you.

They are the most corrupt country in Europe that never even met the most remote standards of joining NATO, do not know where a lot of this money is going.

I don't disagree that there is a problem with corruption, but the most corrupt country in Europe, Are you sure about that?

I'd have to think. I'd have to double or triple think about that. But they're very corrupt.

Okay, so that's a little bit down. It's not absolute.

I mean, well, corruption around.

I mean, you know, let's face it, we are talking about comparison with some of the states you're doing business with in the Gulf.

Of course, but we're not giving them money, they're giving us money. That's a difference, right? Saudi Arabia. Well, hold on a second.

It's morally acceptable. Take money from corrupt people.

Well, hold on. First of all, as far as morally acceptable, you do what's best in the benefit of your country. And so, for example, we were allied with Russia during the Second World War. And I'm glad we were. And I would ask you how much, don't forget, how much money is too much money to send to Ukraine. We're at 200 billion right now.

I don't think you have to send any more money to Ukraine.

We agree.

I think you have to agree to support them as a free country and perhaps sell them weapons, like you're very happy to sell weapons to less free countries. And I think Europe will pick up the slack, as we ought to. And I don't disagree with some of the comments about Europe not looking after its own security. I just don't get this approach which was supposedly to end the war quickly, which now seems to be elongating it, and in doing so throwing up a smokescreen of very variable facts, if they are facts at all about how things occurred, which actually isn't helping things. And if people can't see that Putin stalling, I'm just, I agree with you.

I think, I think he might be stolen.

And therefore. And I think even your president has acknowledged the fact that he thinks he might be stolen.

That's correct. So we don't have a disagreement there?

No, we don't. No.

We just have a disagreement about the efficacy of tactics and we don't know. And I'm willing to say we could be wrong. No, well, of course you could be.

Wrong in life, I mean, we could all be wrong. But actually bringing that war to an end consistently actually isn't going very well. And I would just suggest to you whatever tactics have been used are perhaps not the best, and they are certainly inconsistent with what's going on in the Middle east and how America has been treating parties in the Middle East. But I don't. I've had enough of your time.

No, that's a fair contention. Thank you very much.

Very much indeed.

Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, Freedom at charliekirk.

[Unknown Speaker]

Com.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thanks so much for listening and God bless.

[Unknown Speaker]

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk. Com.