← The Charlie Kirk Show
Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:04]
A
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.
- [00:47]
B
Use me.
- [00:48]
A
Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. The Charlie Kirk show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts, and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.
- [01:09]
B
All right, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. Hour two is underway. Here we have Rob Axon, who's the chairman of the Utah Republican Party, joining us now.
- [01:20]
C
That's a good Republican name.
- [01:21]
B
It's Rob Axon. Yeah, that is a very solid name, Rob. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show, sir. And I just wanted to be with you guys. Yeah, it's great to have you. I want to just, you know, celebrate what I would say is a remarkable Herculean effort that was undertaken by you and you guys in Utah. Turning Point Action was honored to help and come alongside and give you guys a little shot in the arm. But all I saw for weeks was Utah cannot do this. They're not going to get the 200,000 signatures. And, man, I was not feeling super optimistic. But why don't you give our audience an update on what Prop 4 is and what it took, what you guys have been embarking on on this signature drive.
- [02:08]
D
Yeah, well, first and foremost, a huge shout out and thank you to so many partners across the country, and most importantly here in Utah, and certainly couldn't do it without Turning Point Action and the help of all of you guys. And really the movement that Charlie and so many people have built, it's alive and strong here in this country. It's certainly alive and strong here in Utah. So here's where we were in a nutshell. In 2018, Proposition 4 was put onto the ballot. It passed by a very narrow margin. It provided an independent, whatever that means, but an independent redistricting commission. And so that was supposed to provide recommendations to the legislature on drafting maps in the language itself. When voters voted for it, it was referred to again as a recommending body, and it said that the recommendations could be accepted, rejected by the legislature. So, okay, that's fine. I didn't like it, but at least it was constitutional. The problem is there's been a lawsuit and it led to a court decision here in Utah 18 months ago by our state supreme court that I believe they got wrong where they gave preeminence to legisl or initiative authority over that of our elected representatives, kind of defeating representative democracy. So that was issue one. Issue two, we had a lower court judge who then, based off of that ruling, threw out our congressional maps and picked a map of her own choosing that came from a private group, one that did not go through the commission, and more importantly, one that did not comply with Article 9 of Utah's State constitution that says the only body that can draft maps is the state legislature. You can't ignore the constitution. You can't ignore it. If you don't like it, you can change the constitution, but you can't ignore it. Certainly not by one judge. So enough was enough and we engaged in an initiative process to repeal Prop 4, and that's what we were successful in meeting the threshold requirements necessary in what we submitted over the weekend.
- [04:03]
B
Okay, so here's my first question. So I lived in California for a while and I've seen a number of these signature drives to get propositions on the ballot. Usually you got to get a certain number past the finish line because especially in California, they're going to throw out like a third of your signatures or 20% of your signatures. But I want to underscore a point here. I have a question and a point. The point is the fact that you guys did this, which I think in such a quick time. Scott pressler came out, turning point action came out.
- [04:34]
C
They needed. I'm looking here, they needed. There's 29 state Senate districts and you needed to hit the threshold in 26 of them. So you couldn't even just blob in the most republican parts. You had to do it all across the state, Even the most liberal parts, even the most rural parts. You had to. Very dramatic achievement.
- [04:51]
B
Well, so the headlines were that you weren't going to pull it off. You did pull it off. Do you think we have enough extra once the isn't the secretary of state is going to their office is going to review the signatures.
- [05:01]
E
Yes.
- [05:02]
D
So the clerks will go through in each of the respective counties and they're going to count all of those, then it is officially certified by the lieutenant governor. Here's what's interesting. Our requirement statewide is about 141,000 signatures. That's what we need. That's 8% of registered voters here in Utah. You then, as was mentioned, you need 8% of registered voters in at least 26 of 29 Senate districts. We went and engaged in every single Senate district. We went and engaged wherever and everywhere we could. And we did it in a consistent way, showcasing the importance of representative government, showcasing the importance of adhering to the Constitution and not stepping back from that obligation. The nice thing is we exceeded the numbers necessary by a large margin. We've turned in well over 200,000 by tens of thousands, more than 200,000 signatures. And so even with those that will be kicked out, I think we are in a phenomenal spot. Now, here's the challenge, though. We have this quirk in Utah's law where for the next number of weeks, so just about 45 days from the point that we've submitted it, actually a little bit longer. It's the point from when a person's signature is verified, they can have their name removed. They have to voluntarily do that. The problem is the left is spending about $4 million now to come in and try to bully and shame and intimidate people to remove their names. You can't make this stuff up. The very people who claim that they want to listen to the people are the ones who are right now trying to intimidate and drive people from ever being heard. All we did is put this on the ballot. All this does is give it to Utahns to make a decision instead of one judge. That's an important distinction. And now the left is trying to prevent the people from having their voice be heard.
- [06:45]
B
Okay, Yeah. I mean, that's. So is there an action item that we can give our audience on what they should do or to counter it or just get the word out that people are trying to get, trying to intimidate signatories? Yep.
- [06:57]
D
I think that's the key thing. Just let people know. So if you're here in Utah listening or if you have friends in Utah, make sure that they know, don't be intimidated when somebody comes in and tries to say that you need to pull your name off, be confident. All you did by signing onto this is put it on the ballot and you're saying that you trust the people of Utah, stand in that, be proud of that. Trust the people of Utah. Don't listen to these angry Activist groups. Don't listen to a judge, don't listen to an elected official. Don't listen to me. Let's give it to the people of Utah. Let the people of Utah decide. This policy, which has been way too chaotic for the last six years, certainly has not been implemented in a way that respects the will of the people. Back in 2018, we're now giving it back to Utahns to decide. One other thing that would be a call to action that would be helpful is we are engaging in a messaging campaign to make sure that people realize that they're trying to be fooled by these outside groups. That takes money. And so if any of your listeners are willing to donate, they can go to Utahns for Representative Government's website, which is ufrg.org and you can donate there. And we'll use that to make sure to continue to fight for representative government.
- [08:06]
B
Yeah, and let's get that URL up on screen, guys. U F R G and I just want to give a quick shout out to what I say. I don't know what I said. Ufrg.org and we'll get that up on the, on the lower here so people have it. The I just want to give a quick shout out to the White House. By the way, you know, sometimes people, people are like they're sleep at the wheel or something like that. No, they heard your guys appeal. James Blair, Susie Wiles. They sent resources. People told them it couldn't be done in this quick order. They helped you guys out, got it over the finish line. Turning point Action. Scott Pressler. So this has been an all hands on deck effort to get this really quick here, Rob, what was the old maps versus the new maps and what was going to be the party breakdown just based on like D plus R plus?
- [08:55]
D
Yeah. Well and before I jump into that, you're exactly right. And it's not just a shout out to the president. It's not just a shout out to partners across the country. Turning point Scott Pressler, Matt Brassell and Tim Saylor. I mean all of these people that folks in conservative politics know, it's not just a shout out to these people. These people are true friends of Utah. Utah is always a flyover state throughout my lifetime. It's easy to ignore. This was a chance where people came, rallied to our, to our support. It was a partnership all along the way. And I am grateful for every Utahn who signed on to this, every Utahn who supported and volunteered and all of those partners outside of Utah. Now to your question, our Four congressional districts. These are districts that represent the will of the people. Thirteen percent of Utahans are Democrats. This new map that this judge picked put together and pretty much it's the most gerrymandered, manipulated map in Utah's history. She put most of the Democrats into one congressional district. And so you go from 13% of Utah's voters being Democrats to now, one of our four congressional maps as proposed and to be implemented by this judge is a Kamala Harris plus 28. It's ridiculous. It's not competitive. It's not representative of the people of Utah. It was not accountable and transparent to us. We can't fire this judge. We can't. We didn't have any engagement on this. She went and created the most gerrymandered map this state has ever seen.
- [10:18]
B
Jason. Well, this is what the judges do. The will of the people be damned. They're just gonna be active. I don't understand what it is about these professions that draw a certain type of people. Rob, great job. This was amazing. Go to ufrg.org, support their efforts. Gotta get this over the finish line, folks. Gotta get it over the finish line. We'll talk to you again.
- [10:39]
D
Thank you guys. Appreciate it.
- [10:43]
C
Howdy, Blake here. You know, in moments like this, truth really matters. The truth was important to Charlie. So we want to share with you a new documentary that's caught our attention not because it's political, but because it refuses to shy away from the questions that so many Americans are still asking. It exposes the truth. Thank you, Dr. Fauci is a hard hitting investigative docu thriller from award winning filmmaker Jenner Fuerst. He digs through thousands of documents, sits down with scientists, intelligence insiders and whistleblowers and exposes what may be one of the most significant public health cover ups of our lifetimes. This film isn't about scoring partisan political points. It's about transparency, accountability, and the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you've ever wondered what really happened behind closed doors, this is something you need to see for yourself. Angel Studios was the only platform willing to release it. And that's because you, not Hollywood, decide what gets made. Join the angel guild today@angel.com CharlieKirk Become a member and stream. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. Today.
- [11:52]
B
We are now on to the fact that Jesse Jackson, the Rev, The Rev, the Rev. The Rev, died at 84.
- [12:00]
C
I guess our younger view, even I his peak didn't. I was not around for his peak.
- [12:04]
B
No, nor was I. I don't think.
- [12:06]
C
Yeah, so it's a bit older but. But it's worth commenting about because he does represent a, I guess you might say a transitional figure in American politics. He's, you might say, like kind of one of the last great religious figures on the left. I mean he was a the reverend as he would use in his title. But we were saying, we were talking during the break, one of the saddest things about him is he represents one of the most shameful elements of the Democratic Party which is the way Christian leaders, self identified Christian clergyman, even sold out on some of the most important issues. Because in the 1970s after Roe vs Wade happened, he condemned it, he wrote pro life things. And then in the 80s he ran for president.
- [12:52]
B
No, he didn't just condemn abortion, he called it genocide, he called it murder. He was a child born out of wedlock. And so people had actually advised his mom to abort him. And he's alive because his mom, well, he's now dead. But he lived a life because his mom did not abort him. And then by the 1980s when he decided he was going to run For President in 1984, 1988, he changed his views to align with the Democrat party platform, which is shameful actually.
- [13:21]
C
It was a real tragedy. And other Democrats did the same thing. Mario Cuomo, that was the father of the other Cuomos that you are familiar with. He was a pro life Democrat. He was a Catholic Democrat in 60s, 70s and then he also wanted had national ambitions. He also swerved to the left on that as did other Democrats. People may have forgotten but in like the 60s and 70s it was actually you might have called it a live issue whether the which party might end up being the pro life one. Because Catholics were heavily associated with the Democratic Party and that was where the pro life movement was. And it's just slowly they were all pushed out of the party or they were pushed in Jackson's case to just change their views on that really critical issue. And I'm sad to say that that's one of his chief legacies, was enabling that because he was people, younger people won't realize this, but before Obama he was probably the most famous black political figure in America, especially on the left. And I think if he'd remained firm on that issue, if he had said we are going to be pro life and we will not change in that, he could have really reshaped the trajectory of America in a powerfully pro life Christian.
- [14:29]
B
I don't know if you said this before, but he was Sort of most famous for marching with Dr. Martin Luther King. He was present at his death and he kind of assumed some of that mantle after he had King's blood on him, famously afterwards.
- [14:45]
C
And so he used that to understandably claim a leadership role in the movement. He was only in his 20s at the time. And I think. Is that them at the Memphis Hotel? I can't remember if that's literally.
- [14:59]
B
I don't know if that was from when he was killed or not. But the. So he did have one redeeming quality. Mm.
- [15:06]
C
Well, he. So this is a funny bit. We wanted to make sure he had some viral moments he would occasionally use. Interesting stuff. Another thing I should mention, by the way, he is the person who popularized African American. A term black Americans instead of some other. Yeah, that. And which. That was the most common term you heard, I would say when I was growing up, early 2000.
- [15:24]
B
There's been a push and then they.
- [15:25]
C
Pushed back and now black has become the default one again. But another thing that is very funny. This is probably the last time he went really viral as a figure in politics. This is when Barack Obama was running for president. He wasn't even the nominee yet, I believe. And he got angry because he felt that. That Barack Hussein Obama was talking down to other black Americans. And so he said in a hot mic moment that he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off. Let's play 385.
- [15:56]
B
Barack been talking down to black people.
- [16:02]
E
On those faith page.
- [16:07]
B
Barack talking down to black people. Talking down to black people. He did that again, by the way. Barack did that again in the 2024 campaign. Remember when he went and talked to those black men and kind of like guilted them and.
- [16:22]
C
Yeah. Which I don't think is certainly not the worst thing that Barack Obama did.
- [16:27]
B
Well, no, of course. But President Trump chimed in on truth. They had a long standing friendship. President Trump helped him throughout the years. Said the Reverend Jesse Jackson is dead at 84. I knew him well long before becoming president. He was a good man with lots of personality, grit and street smarts. He was very gregarious, someone who truly loved people despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a racist by the scoundrels and lunatics on the radical left Democrats all. It was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way. I provided office space for him and his Rainbow coalition for years in the Trump building at 40 Wall street, responded to his request for help getting criminal justice reform passed and signed when no other president would even try. Single handedly pushed and Passed long term funding for historically backed colleges and universities, which Jesse loved, but also which other president would not do, other presidents would not do. Responded to Jesse's support for opportunity zones. And on and on he goes. So President Trump had a long standing friendship with Jesse Jackson. I would say he was a man with a very mixed history, certainly some good with some bad. I would say he ended not as well, not as strong.
- [17:32]
C
I will say I think the period of his peak in American politics is a period where I think the sense was that race relations in America got better rather than worse. I would, maybe, maybe I'm mistaken. I wasn't around there for it.
- [17:47]
B
Listen, I think he peaked in the 70s when he was pro life.
- [17:51]
C
Yes.
- [17:51]
B
And by the time he started running for politics, I think the wheels came off a bit. But you know, there was a funny local. He famously couldn't say words, he would mumble. And there was actually a radio host in Los Angeles that used to do what the hell did Jesse Jackson say? Segment and they would play this a clip just kind of out of context. You didn't know what it was, but it was just him mumbling something. And then he would take callers to try and guess what the actual translation was.
- [18:19]
C
That's amazing. But I want to, I want to double back on that. I would say I think what Charlie would flag the most of all is he really could have been a transformational figure if he'd held the line on the life issue. I think, and I think we should all feel sad that he didn't step up to that task. I think America would be, would have had a very different 80s, 90s, 2000s. We might have, maybe Casey would have been what overturned it instead of Dobbs. We might have, frankly, we might have saved millions of lives if he'd been a little more courageous. And that's a lesson to all of us.
- [18:52]
B
Every day, Americans make choices that shape our country's future right down to which cell phone provider we support. Here's what most people don't realize. Patriot Mobile isn't just a wireless provider. They're an activist organization funded by selling top tier cell phone service. They've been on the front lines defending our freedoms long before it was cool to do so. Standing in the gap when others wouldn't. The best part is they deliver prioritized premium service on all three major US networks, giving you the same or even better coverage backed by 100% US based customer support. Get unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming and more. And when you switch to Patriot Mobile. You'll help grow a movement that fuels the Christian conservative cause. Every bill you pay helps advance the values of family, faith, and freedom. Switching is easier than ever. Activate in minutes. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Take a stand today.
- [19:45]
A
Call 972 Patriot today. Or go to patriotmobile.com Charlie. Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com Charlie. Or call 972 Patriot and make the switch. Today.
- [19:59]
B
We have Mike Davis from the Article 3 project. Mike, I was seeing this tweet go around yesterday, and welcome back, sir. You look good. Your tie and suit, you were doing. I learned, as I say, that is, you were doing extracurricular activities yesterday. We were going to have you on yesterday, but you couldn't. But you've cleaned up. All right, so, Mike, you had this tweet from July of 2025, and it started doing the rounds again yesterday. It had over a million. 1.2 million views. So you were calling your shot in July, and then you went through this big. I guess just a thread answering everybody's questions about the Epstein files. And in it, you say, you could throw it up, guys, and I'll read this a little bit and let you respond. Anyone who rapes kids deserves the death penalty. True. No lies detected. Here's the problem with the Epstein mess. The FBI doesn't have the evidence many thought it did. There are not tapes with powerful men raping kids. There is not a list. Epstein's Rolodex is already public, and the file is largely unreleasable for many reasons, including grand jury materials, court records under seal, child pornography, protection of victims. And then you say five unsubstantiated, even double or triple hearsay, bogus claims. Mike, have you seen, basically, your tweet come true? Or has the Transparency act kind of overridden some of those initial concerns? The floor is yours.
- [21:17]
E
Yeah, I mean, this Transparency act by Tom Massey and Ro Hana, whatever the hell his name is, it did not produce the result they thought it would produce because they're morons. And we. We see that they are grandstanders, and they're more concerned about getting clicks and raising money for their congressional campaigns than getting to the truth. I would just ask, where was Tom, Thomas, Massie and Rohana, or whatever the hell his name is, where were they for the four years of Biden when Biden was in office? They weren't demanding these. These records. It's obvious this is political. They also smeared four good men by saying that those men were implicated in this Epstein mess. And instead of acknowledging that they were wrong and apologizing to these four men who they smeared, they've doubled down and tripled down and they've even blamed the Justice Department for their own stupidity. So those two members of Congress can go to hell.
- [22:28]
B
Yeah. And it does strike me if you're, if you're a Democrat or an independent out there that's considered, you know, let's just say conservative. If you're conservative out there considering voting Democrat next year because you don't like the way that the doj, Trump's DOJ, or Trump himself, has handled the Epstein thing, you have to ask the question. They were in power for four years and they did nothing. They sat on this until they saw political opportunity to weaponize it against President Trump because they saw that our people wanted the Epstein files to be more transparent, to be released. But your point is very well made that innocent people are getting smeared in this. There is conjecture, there is, I mean, even Elvis Presley is in the Epstein files. But there does seem to be this lack of a smoking gun. We had Jay Beecher on, who's a reporter on this. He was talking about the fact that it was actually Virginia Guthrie, who was the one that popularized this idea of this large blackmail ring that he had lists full of people he had compromise on. But we're not really seeing that. And so I guess the question is, you're well connected to the doj, there are other co conspirators named in some of the files, like Les Wexner. Are you hearing that? There are suits being, you know, cases being built against the co conspirators that did sort of turn to blind eye. That enabled him, as I've said, if.
- [23:56]
E
You rape kids, you deserve the death penalty. There's no question about that. The problem is if you don't have victims who come forward and want to testify, if you don't have evidence, you can't bring charges. And that's the issue. We also have the rule, Federal Rules of Evidence. We also have the federal rules of criminal procedure. There, there is a reason that grand jury evidence is secret. Because it's not tested, it's not subject to, to cross examination. And people can go in and it's one sided and people can go in and say whatever the hell they want and they're not subject to confrontation. Right. And so that's why this grand jury evidence is secret. You, you make it public through the federal rules of evidence and the federal rules of criminal procedure through a trial with the Proper safeguards to make sure that the evidence is relevant and it's not unfairly prejudicial. You're not going to smear people like Thomas Massie did with those four guys and Rohana, his, his Democrat Coke co conspirator did to those four guys who were innocents. Right. That's the whole reason we have these procedures to protect the, to protect victims, to protect witnesses, to protect, to protect those who are accused. We've had these in place for centuries. But we got rid of this because Thomas Massie decided he was going to pass legislation for the first time in his life, conveniently timed to think they're going to try to use it to screw over President Trump and it backfired and blew up in their faces.
- [25:41]
C
Yeah, it's. Yeah, I've, Mike, I've been very.
- [25:47]
B
He's contrarian.
- [25:47]
C
I'm the contrarian. I've been, I was skeptical. I've been skeptical about a lot of the Epstein stuff, probably, you know, since this really started to whip up last summer. And I think it's, it's very, it's worth emphasizing what you said where, you know, if you want to bring criminal charges, you need actual alleged specific acts by specific people. And I do feel there's been this miasma around it where it's like, why isn't everyone being charged? Why aren't there arrests and convictions? But as you say, like, considering we have so many alleged victims of all of this, there's been a. Strikes me as a huge shortage of anyone stepping up to specifically say, I had this specific crime done to me by this specific person. And if you don't have that, what exactly are you going to indict?
- [26:33]
E
Well, let me make this other point that I think is important. If you want to bring accountability for the lawfare against President Trump, his aides and his allies, then let's not demand that every good person in the Justice Department has to sit through months and months and months of document review on this Epstein BS because that's what happens. The reason we're not seeing accountability on lawfare right now is because Thomas Massie and his Democrat buddies have all the Trump Justice Department people up to their eyeballs in Epstein document review for many months. So there are finite resources at the Justice Department, as there should be, and we had to focus on Thomas Massie's priorities, his political nonsense, rather than actually holding people accountable for their crimes.
- [27:24]
B
Yeah, that's a really interesting point, Mike. So you have been, you are become famous by being a bulldog, being infamous by Being a bulldog, you are always on the front foot, on the balls of your feet, and you are moving forward, trying to go after the bad guys on the left, get the right judges, right prosecutors in place. What are. I guess the question sort of you could take it in either direction. What are we missing out on right now? Because you said they're up to their eyeballs reviewing documents on Epstein. What are we not doing? But also, what are we doing that you at the doj, Pam Bondi, Harmeet Dhillon, what are they doing that you think is getting missed by the noise that is Epstein?
- [28:08]
E
I think the Attorney general, Pam Bondi, is doing a phenomenal job. She's bold, she's fearless. She fires people. She hires the right people. She brings charges. She dismisses bogus, politicized charges. She has bigger balls than all the Republican white male attorneys general before her combined. And people are constantly attacking her. And it seems to align with this Epstein Massey weirdo crowd that they're. They're constantly attacking her on this stuff. And it's distracting and it's diverting resources from the cases that actually matter. If Thomas Massie actually cared about Epstein and these victims, where the hell was he for four years of Biden? This is obviously a political game by him. He's teaming up with Democrats on this political game. All these Epstein freaks keep attacking Pam Bondi, who's doing a remarkable job given the terrible circumstances, and they want to make her job more difficult by diverting prosecutors and law enforcement agents to do this stupid Epstein review instead of actually going after crimes they can prosecute.
- [29:20]
B
So what about fraud? What about the Somali fraud? What about. You know, Nick Shirley just dropped a new video about voter fraud in California. Are you hearing from your sources inside the DOJ that those are still. We're still able to do those, or are they getting back burned?
- [29:35]
E
They're absolutely going to get prosecuted. You can't steal billions of dollars. You have Somali pirates stealing billions of dollars and sending it back to their warlords and Somalia to fight Americans and American interests. Of course they're going to get prosecuted. It takes time to gather the evidence and build these cases.
- [29:57]
B
All right, well, Mike, I'm gonna have to just disagree with you that I think there is some more there there with the Epstein stuff. I'm a big believer in the. In the intel agency ties we had Mike Benz on. It was a great segment. But I think you're also right that the DOJ has what the DOJ has. The FBI has what the FBI has. We have no idea what happened to those files along the way. We have no idea what's been stripped out, what's been destroyed, what's been put in a box. So it, so my. You know, this has been years in holding, decades. We don't know what. What we don't have.
- [30:30]
E
And here's the issue. If we didn't. Do you think. Do we really think. If Democrats had evidence that Trump was implicated in the Epstein thing, do you think they would have sat on that for eight years when they made up charges against Trump for eight years, the Russian collusion hoax, they brought four indictments against him. They tried to bankrupt him for non fraud, but they held back evidence of Epstein and let him win the election last time.
- [30:54]
B
Okay, no lies detected in the last segment. Thanks, Mike Davis. We'll talk to you soon. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com. that's the letter Y. Then refi.com. and remember, why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. We're gonna get into the elite universities. They're doing dumb things here.
- [32:05]
C
It's been a little too long since we've just beat up on them because remember, college is a scam. Charlie warned us.
- [32:09]
B
There was that book. It's up here somewhere.
- [32:10]
C
The college scam.
- [32:12]
B
It's up there. Trust me.
- [32:13]
C
Yeah, it's right under right wing revolution there.
- [32:14]
B
Yeah, there it is.
- [32:15]
C
All right. Excellent.
- [32:16]
B
All right, so Harvard. Blake, do you want to take this away or you want me to do.
- [32:20]
C
I want to do the Berkeley one.
- [32:21]
B
Do the Harvard one. All right, here's what's crazy. Let's go ahead and throw up this image here. This is 278this is a history123 class at Harvard. The course, and this is directly from the course description online. This course trains and support teams of undergraduates to contribute research and writing for asylum applicants represented by attorneys at Maple center for Immigration Justice. This course operates on four parallel tracks. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So this is a history department. This is a history class at one of the nation's supposed elite higher education institutions training young, susceptible, you know, vulnerable college undergrads on how to write asylum cases for illegal immigrants.
- [33:08]
C
It really is. It's a relief to have this in a sense because there is so much of college that is just left wing politics with some dress up around it. And it's nice for it to be so explicit that you just can't really ever live it down. Like you took a history a history department class. At least if it was sociology, you'd say, well, sociology is implied left wing politics anyway. But there's not even, as far as I can tell, a plausible history connection to that. No, the guy decided, I am converting my Harvard class that you're paying $20,000 to take or whatever. Just that course, of course. And we're converting it into a left wing political opposition.
- [33:49]
B
It's an activist organization. So let's just. One clip on Charlie raging against Harvard.
- [33:54]
A
262 Harvard University is a $50 billion endowment. They have a tax exempt status. They get money for research grants. Why is it as a country which is $35 trillion in debt, we continue to finance universities that hate us? And what good actually is Harvard University going to keep on doing with our taxpayer funding? The garbage and the nonsense that is being spewed out of Harvard, out of Princeton, out of Yale, out of Brown University, out of Cornell is noticeable. And it's remarkable. It's really worth asking, has Harvard just become a Democrat think tank? And if they are, why are they taxpayer funded entity?
- [34:36]
B
I notice he didn't mention Dartmouth, your alma mater.
- [34:39]
C
Yeah, you know, you would have some kindness there. But no, and it's. We want to flag that. I want to hit Berkeley, but I also am going to double back to Harvard. So make sure we do that. But there's a lot of classes like this. You see, Berkeley is another distinguished school of higher learning and this one's a public university too. So we should note that. And this is a story that happened in late January, but it's worth highlighting. This is a headline on them us, which is a great website name, I must say. Berkeley students make 300,000 Wikipedia edits to preserve queer history. Against Trump. And this is apparently a quite on a long, ongoing thing, but a professor just drafted her students to write sections on Wikipedia that include queer theory.
- [35:29]
B
But I have critical race theory. But I have to ask this question because I've seen it repeated multiple times. Right. You've got the Olympian that's talking about, oh, it's really hard for the LGBTQ community now that Trump's in office. Why? Why is it hard? I want one of you right in freedomarliekirk.com Please, please send this to your liberal friends. Explain to me, like, I'm five. What has Trump done to the queer community? What? Nothing. President Trump, like, kind of supports queer community.
- [36:00]
C
He's like, he is not that exercised.
- [36:03]
B
He is not that exercised about. He is a Manhattan cosmopolitan elite himself. He doesn't care that you're gay. Stop acting like you're being persecuted, like Christians are being persecuted. Actually, this is the most obscene thing to me ever. What. What are they preserving in the era of Trump? What? Queer Wikipedia articles need to be preserved because President Trump is coming after them?
- [36:26]
C
Yeah.
- [36:27]
B
It's a perceived victimhood garbage narrative that I completely and utterly reject.
- [36:33]
C
Professor Maria Rodriguez, as AOC might pronounce it her. She's had her students create 300,000 edits, over 3,000 citations, and they've garnered over million views. And I think if you've been to Wikipedia in recent history, you actually can kind of tell. Like, I've talked to a lot of people and they can tell. It's like Google search. It's clearly gotten worse.
- [36:53]
B
I'm a grok. You can.
- [36:54]
C
You can read Grokipedia. It's actually quite good. AIs have gotten good at those summary type topics, of course. But I want to, I want to double back to Harvard on this specific point because another thing I saw today, we have to just be aware, colleges are not, you know, we've talked about whether there's a vibe shift against woke, and there's certain initial stuff. The Trump administration bullied Harvard and Columbia and a few of these other schools on a few things, but they're clearly not on our side at all. A lot of them are hoping they can wait it out. And there's been a lot of radicalization, even over the past few months, where they're getting whipped up again just like in. They did in 2017, 2018, because of ICE activities. And we have to realize this is, frankly, a once in a lifetime opportunity to hold some of these universities to account. So, for example, Harvard is subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admission versus Harvard, which said you okay, you can't racially discriminate against Asians and white people any more than you can discriminate against other races. Well, since then, we have the numbers on Harvard's demographics and the evidence suggests basically what they did is they stopped discriminating against Asians, but they still discriminate against whites. So if Harvard is going to be creating entire classes where your sole purpose is to undermine the nation's laws by feeding more illegal immigrants into this country and preventing their deportation, how about we take the doj and if we need to hire more lawyers there, we should 100% do that and go look at Harvard and say, yeah, Harvard, you seem to still be discriminating against people, so you know your money is going to be subject to some retention here until we get this resolved.
- [38:25]
B
Yeah, well, and I think we should tax the endowments if you have over, let's say.
- [38:28]
C
But we don't need to pass anything.
- [38:30]
B
To investigate them or prosecute them. No, but if you have over like $10 billion in an endowment, we should just start taxing it. You've got enough, right? Tax the rich. Isn't that what you left wingers like to like to say?
- [38:45]
D
For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.