From the Archive: Charlie vs. Critical Race Theory, Climate Change, and More at UNC

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point 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, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. 00:01:18 Speaker 2: My question to you is, do you believe that there's a direct link between Christianity and conservatism? 00:01:23 Speaker 1: So that's a good question. So let me answer it differently first. I get the question, Charlie, can I be a conservative without being a Christian? Of course you can. 00:01:29 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:01:30 Speaker 1: You're welcome aboard as long as you believe in the natural law, liberty, and freedom. You believe in our core tenets. But I do not believe you can have a cogent relationship conservative worldview or philosophy without at least first theism and definitely without some sort of biblical view. You can't because you're always going to be deriving it back to what standard, what moral worldview, what basis. Now said differently, you could be an atheist. You're an atheist here tonight. God bless you. Glad you're here. And no, seriously, I mean that. And you could believe everything that I believe politically. I would just probably say you derived it from a theistic Christian worldview, if that makes sense. So Do I think they're linked together? So let me say this. I think if you are a Bible-believing Christian, you should be a conservative as well, conserving the good, the true, and the beautiful, protecting the vulnerable, those that can't protect themselves, using strength to protect the weak, not the strength to crush the weak, all these things that conservatives believe. At the same time, I do believe in a movement that is not only for Christians because we live in a pluralistic society of differences of opinions. I'm always going to own the fact that I'm a Christian, as evidenced by inviting Frank right up, you know, to just witness for you at the beginning. He did a great job, didn't he? That was great. He really did. But it is a movement where we are trying to fight for liberty. You might think liberty is just an accident of evolution. I think liberty is God's idea, not man's idea. Does that answer your question? Thank you. 00:02:52 Speaker 4: Thank you. 00:02:54 Speaker 5: Hi. 00:02:55 Speaker 6: So honestly, I just wanted to ask how your wife and baby are doing. 00:02:58 Speaker 1: Thank you. That's very kind. Baby is nine weeks today. Praise God. And we're very happy. She's doing wonderful. Thank you. I think they're watching right now. And it changes your life in every way possible. Highly recommend. 10 out of 10. You should do it. So God bless you. Thank you. Hi. 00:03:19 Speaker 3: To address your previous assertion that race means nothing, critical race theory is not being taught in schools. It is a academic theory that's pretty much delegated only to higher academia. They're not teaching it in schools. Your explanation of it was an oversimplification. You address the real history behind it, unlike most people. And why, if race means nothing, does it affect our history? Say, 1921 Tulsa race massacre. Why is there such evil history with something that supposedly means nothing? 00:03:52 Speaker 1: Okay, so first of all, you're wrong. It is being taught in elementary schools. I'll give you an example. Not only is it being taught, it's being enforced. So in Denver, there is a playground where they say, White families not allowed. Would you support that? 00:04:08 Speaker 3: That seems like a ridiculous edge case. 00:04:11 Speaker 1: So I'll give you another example. Actually, in the National Education Association's training manual, which is the largest teacher union in the country, they had a seminar on how to teach critical race theory to kids. That sounds like it's in our schools, doesn't it? 00:04:26 Speaker 3: What that is, is it's literally just common sense. It's saying that this is real history. This is what has happened in the past. 00:04:34 Speaker 1: And that matters. Okay, got it. So, for example, would you say that black-only dormitories is wrong? 00:04:42 Speaker 3: It certainly creates a sense of community. I don't see any problem with that. 00:04:45 Speaker 1: We have sororities. 00:04:46 Speaker 3: We have male-only dorms. 00:04:49 Speaker 1: Right. So racial differences are irrelevant and immaterial. Chromosomal differences actually do matter. But let me ask you a question. Are there differences between races? No, not biologically. Okay. then why would we have different dormitories for races? Culture. Segregation is what you're arguing for, my friend. No, sir. How is it not segregation to have blacks in their own dorm? 00:05:15 Speaker 3: You've just pigeonholed me, essentially. You've essentially just, like, you've distracted from my original argument. 00:05:23 Speaker 1: No, no, you did that to yourself. Let's reemphasize. So Ibram X. Kendi argues, who is one of the leading thinkers of critical theory... Race theory. Discrimination today to atone for discrimination of yesterday. We have black-only graduation ceremonies at Columbia University, black-only dormitories across the country, for example, at Western Washington University. Can you join me today in saying black-only dormitories are evil, wrong, and it's segregation? 00:05:49 Speaker 3: You still haven't answered my question about why does this history simultaneously mean nothing? 00:05:54 Speaker 1: Well, I'm happy to answer that, but the fact you're dodging segregation in America, why is that? 00:06:00 Speaker 3: I'm arguing against it. I'm arguing against segregation. 00:06:03 Speaker 1: So you're against black-only dormitories? Yes. Well, you said it was a force of community, and then for your not-for-critical-race theory... That's an option. 00:06:09 Speaker 3: We have choice. 00:06:11 Speaker 1: Oh, so you could choose to segregate. That's a pigeonhole. What do you think of white-only dormitories? What? Would you support white-only dormitories? Everybody has a choice. So I think white-only and black-only anything is evil and wrong. That's why I hate critical theory and critical race theory, because when it's put in practice, when it's put in practice, you start to discriminate people based on race. So we're now south of the Mason-Dixon line in North Carolina. We did a lot of work to get rid of segregation in this country. Why are you trying to bring it back? What work? The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this state? Yeah, actually, in this state. 00:06:53 Speaker 7: Right. 00:06:58 Speaker 1: Are there black-only bathrooms out there I'm unaware of or white-only bathrooms? 00:07:02 Speaker 8: No. 00:07:04 Speaker 2: Right. 00:07:04 Speaker 1: A lot of work was done in this state. 00:07:10 Speaker 3: Thank you. Your face is small. 00:07:14 Speaker 1: Well, thanks for being here. They always go to insults when they lose the argument. God bless you, my friend. All right, next one. I don't have an edgy race question. 00:07:25 Speaker 9: Oh, okay. 00:07:26 Speaker 1: But. 00:07:27 Speaker 10: My question is, when 63% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, not even able to afford a home, car, or even basic necessities, when wages have only increased 15% since 1965, while the cost of a home has increased 118%, how does free market neoliberal capitalism address these issues when free market capitalism breeds these very issues? 00:07:47 Speaker 1: So I'd probably agree with part of that. I would reject the neoliberal, because I'm not a neoliberal. I believe the economy is neoliberal. You're not neoliberal. Well, no, actually, the economy is partially neoliberal. How is it not neoliberal? Part of our trade policies have recently not been neoliberal. We are globalized. We embrace globalization. That is neoliberal. You're getting way ahead of yourself, dude. You're at like a 10. You've got to slow down to like a 6. Okay, I'm here. Talk. I'm listening. Okay, good. All right, so how would free market capitalism fix part of this? Well, the answer is that there are externalities of free market capitalism. Markets should serve people. People should not serve markets. I would say generally some of the facts that you cited are totally correct. I talked about the destruction of the American middle class. Some of that can be attributed to bad government policy. Hopefully you and I can agree that the government being able to create money out of thin air crushes the American middle class and creates a tax called inflation where every single working person in this room is one month poor despite working harder this year. That is because of government, not because of free market capitalism, that inflation is running out of control. We spent $ 5 trillion we don't have on pet projects that were silly and awful and terrible. To your point, though, and I actually can agree, and I am not a neoliberal, is I actually think that our economic policy needs to be done prudently, not ideologically, in the sense that we should make more stuff here, we should protect the muscular class, we need to have our own industrial base, immigration should serve the American citizen, both legal, and we should have no illegal immigration, we should have a moratorium on legal immigration until wages go up and American workers and students are put first and given a preference. But I would say this, though. There are some market forces that could be generally really good, okay? And just throwing away all markets in kind of one sentence and just kind of dismissing it I think would be a catastrophic mistake. I'll give you some examples. I'm not anti-market. 00:09:35 Speaker 11: Okay, good. 00:09:35 Speaker 1: I'm glad you clarified that. But I'd say that generally the ability to be able to trade across state lines for small businesses to start new products, for family-owned businesses to pass down one family to the other without these crazy taxes and estate taxes, these are things I would support. Does that answer your question a little bit? Yeah, but that's not free market capitalism then. Okay, well, it depends how you define it, right? So do you mean laissez-faire, no government interference? No, it doesn't have to be laissez-faire. 00:09:58 Speaker 10: It's just that's not free market if you're only restricting jobs to America. It's not free market. 00:10:02 Speaker 1: Okay, well, actually it is because Adam Smith, the author of Wealth of Nations, was a protectionist. Abraham Lincoln was a protectionist. So the original free market thinkers of the 1700s and 1800s, including Alexander Hamilton... They were free markets, but they were also nationalists. They wanted their country to be able to thrive and succeed because markets should serve people in the country. People in the country should not serve markets. That's my position economically. Markets are a general good for society. We should only intervene prudently when we see externalities that start to harm people or wages go down or there are results that we don't like in that regard. Thank you for your question, and thanks for being here tonight. 00:10:40 Speaker 4: Hey, Charlie. First of all, I wanted to say thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for speaking. And thank you for giving other people a. 00:10:45 Speaker 6: Chance to speak. 00:10:46 Speaker 4: The question I wanted to ask was actually on something you said earlier, how you said the question of hierarchy is not necessarily that to get rid of elites, but to just have better elites. The argument I would counter, and I just want to know your thoughts, is the way I see hierarchy is you can have terrible people at the top, theoretically, people that are working in their own best interest, people that are corrupt. 00:11:06 Speaker 1: And yes, that will affect the people at the bottom. 00:11:08 Speaker 4: But the way I've always seen hierarchy especially in America and some of the stuff I see today, kind of goes back to what he said with lower wages. 00:11:15 Speaker 6: I'm sorry, I'm rambling. 00:11:18 Speaker 4: What is your opinion on the idea that hierarchy should be designed more so around just making sure the people at the bottom benefit, regardless of whether or not the elites are necessarily corrupt? 00:11:27 Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's a nice goal, but that didn't really work well in the 20th century. 00:11:33 Speaker 4: Well, I was going to comment on that in that Some of the most prosperous points of America, a lot of people like to think back to it, things like the 60s and 70s. You had a very corrupt American elite. You had an American elite that was starting foreign wars. That was after World War II where the defense. 00:11:48 Speaker 1: Industry was very big. 00:11:49 Speaker 6: I would disagree. 00:11:49 Speaker 1: I think Eisenhower was a pretty ethical president compared to the gang of criminals we deal with now. 00:11:55 Speaker 4: I'm not saying an individual president can't be a non-ethical person. 00:12:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, but would you agree the 50s economic policy was more focused on the middle class than the lower class, right? Because it was about an industrial base. It was about making stuff here abroad. It was about having trade policies that allowed us to be able to flourish and succeed. So the question– so you're always going to have– you agree we're always going to have hierarchies, right? 00:12:16 Speaker 6: Yeah, it's unavoidable. 00:12:17 Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, good, because pure Marxists would say we eventually can get rid of them. I think that's woefully utopian. But the question is then when you design a system, who should it serve? Aristotle would argue the middle class is everything. I totally agree, right? It's the people that don't commit crimes. They pay their taxes, right? They're not going to get fabulously wealthy in their lifetime, but they should be able to have a commitment to retirement, see their life improve. Their kids should be able to get well-educated and live a nice and normal life. And the society should be stabilized around that, right? When that middle class disappears and you get a permanent government addicted class, too much on the bottom, right? or you get too much of an oligarchy on top, then I think the entire system starts to shatter. So I think we're saying the same things in some ways, but my argument is that you're always going to have hierarchies, and I would love to be able to see leaders in the top of the hierarchy, the billionaire class, if you will, pander less to the needs, wants, and interests of some esoteric climate change propaganda from the World Economic Forum, and instead say, hey, I have a lot of money. How am I going to use that money to benefit people's freedom and liberty and middle class potential, not trying to turn off our energy supremacy or superiority which is the dumbest thing and actually hurts middle-income Americans and make your energy bills even more expensive, if that makes sense. 00:13:25 Speaker 4: So I guess you would probably agree then that kind of the difference between the 50s and now is that the middle class has kind of been ground down on. 00:13:31 Speaker 1: The totem pole. Yeah, intentionally, I think. 00:13:34 Speaker 11: Okay. 00:13:34 Speaker 1: And I think it's a variety of things. I think public policy. I think Wall Street's taken over our government. But also, I will say this. I don't agree with libertarians on a lot of stuff, but they are totally right on monetary policy. Our monetary policy has been a robbery campaign of the American middle class, of destroying the American dollar, of depleting our purchasing power since the 1950s. So, for example, in the 1950s, your dollar just went further than it does now. It did. And that destroys middle-income earners and is a rigged game against working people. Got to get to the next question. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. 00:14:07 Speaker 6: What's up? 00:14:08 Speaker 11: So my question is, given that 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change exists and that it will cause negative impacts in our lifetime, from more severe storms to droughts, how do you as a conservative deal with that fact, and what do you want to do to address it? 00:14:22 Speaker 1: Sure. I'm really curious about the 3%, aren't you? 00:14:26 Speaker 11: Yeah, I guess like, I don't know, like 3% of people think that they can fly, but they can't. 00:14:32 Speaker 1: But it's 3% of scientists. Why do they think it's not anthropogenic? 00:14:37 Speaker 11: I don't. 00:14:37 Speaker 6: Think about the 3%. I think about the 97%. Is science a democracy? 00:14:40 Speaker 11: Just like how we think about 97% of people who are struggling day to day. 00:14:44 Speaker 6: We don't think about the 1%. 00:14:45 Speaker 1: Well, hold on. That's not the way science works. Do we take an up or down vote on Newtonian physics? Who thinks force equals mass times acceleration? It's irrelevant because we can prove it. 00:14:54 Speaker 11: Yeah, but there's still like 2% of scientists that are probably nuts who don't agree with that, right? No. 00:14:59 Speaker 1: No? 00:14:59 Speaker 6: I mean, if we pulled them, we can always find a nut. 00:15:02 Speaker 1: Why do we have to go by the... You think 2% of American physicists would say that force does not equal mass times acceleration or would reject Newtonian physics or the second law of thermodynamics? 00:15:11 Speaker 11: 2% or 3% of people think that they can fly, you know? 00:15:15 Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're not scientists. And I don't think 2% or 3% of people think they can fly. I don't think that's exactly right. The point is this. Science is not a democracy, is it? 00:15:26 Speaker 11: No, absolutely not. So where do you think that 97% comes from? 00:15:31 Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the study is flawed in and of itself. It's government-funded. It's way over-quoted. Let's pretend it's right, though. You go through this, people are incentivized to come to certain conclusions. But I'm fascinated by the 3%. The 3%, the 2%, the 1%, the dissenter in science is always given a platform. That's what the scientific method is all about. In fact, prior to Galileo, we thought that the earth was the center of the universe. And then Galileo was like, no, actually it's the heliocentric theory. You know what happened to Galileo? Tried and put in prison and out to pasture because he dared disagree with the status quo and the scholastic belief. History is not very kind to the overwhelming tyrannical nature of scientists that say 97% of us agree that lobotomies work. Until we realize they don't. Now you might be right. It might be man-made. It might be anthropogenic. But that 3% has a lot of credence. You should look at them. Read their journals. They argue that there's thousands of other explanations. for rising global temperatures other than just carbon emitted from human beings. Sunspots, global tilt, natural cooling and heating patterns. And just to say it's all human beings all the time also begs the question, to what extent, what do you do about it, and what are you willing to then sacrifice? 00:16:39 Speaker 11: So real quick, you can actually check charts online that show you the graphs of how sunspots tend to affect temperatures in the United States. Sunspots, volcanic eruptures, all this stuff, and all of it doesn't account for the amount of difference that we've seen recently, so. 00:16:55 Speaker 6: What do you say to that? 00:16:56 Speaker 1: Depends on what scientists you talk to. That's what it's all about. 00:16:58 Speaker 11: It's not, it's not the science scientist. It's just the science itself. Like if you check graphs on any website. 00:17:03 Speaker 1: So show me a single scientist that can tell me without a shadow of a doubt, empirically proven that manmade carbon emissions is solely to blame and to what blame and what is the equation? And then what can we possibly do about it? So this is a question, right? 00:17:15 Speaker 11: No, again, I'm not saying that anyone is solely to blame. I'm just saying that humans are a big factor and that's. 00:17:20 Speaker 1: What most people define big. What's the number big? 00:17:22 Speaker 6: Um, I couldn't give you that exact number. 00:17:24 Speaker 1: Well, then maybe we shouldn't shut down the entire economy and change our energy sector over a number we can't define. 00:17:29 Speaker 6: Or maybe I'm just a college. 00:17:32 Speaker 13: Right? 00:17:32 Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking about Europe. 00:17:34 Speaker 11: But I'm not saying maybe I'm just a college student who doesn't have that number with them. 00:17:37 Speaker 1: No, that's fine. But now we're talking about shutting down Europe and having an entire green energy obsession, making... I'm not saying that. No, no, no. What you are saying is when you start engaging in green energy fantasy or climate change fanaticism, let me call it that, You're going to have serious ramifications. The United Kingdom could be a net energy exporter. Instead, this winter, they're going to have rolling blackouts. They're going to have people potentially dying from blizzards and from incredible cold. Why? Because they've had this entire green energy propaganda campaign that is making themselves intentionally poor because of a community of scientists that are saying we must shut ourselves down because of anthropogenic, human-made, man-made cause climate change. Ask the question, wait a second. What if the premise itself is faulty? And by the way, 97% of scientists were also saying, yeah, the COVID vaccine is the best thing ever. Ivermectin is awful and terrible. So excuse me while I'm just the dissenting contrarian voice, which says the scientific community, whether it be in climate alarmism. or in COVID vaccines, or in epidemiology, I won't trust Anthony Fauci in epidemiology, nor will I trust his equivalent in climate change alarmism. In fact, I've grown accustomed to believe there's probably agenda, an agenda behind a lot of this stuff. Yeah, for sure. 00:18:52 Speaker 6: You should never trust. 00:18:54 Speaker 1: For sure, you should never trust. 00:18:56 Speaker 6: Just one scientist. 00:18:57 Speaker 11: And that's why I'm saying we should probably trust the 97% who say that. 00:19:01 Speaker 1: I'm really glad science is not a democracy. Otherwise... we would be in a very dark place. Always listen to the dissenting voice. That 3% is well-researched. It's in the minority. It's been suppressed. And that 97% figure has been used now to really restrict Western energy dominance. It's making us poorer and making the elite stronger because of it. Thank you for being here tonight. Appreciate it. 00:19:23 Speaker 11: Thanks. 00:19:30 Speaker 8: Charlie Kirk believed that ideas shape character, conviction and courage. That's why he spent years studying the classics, the American founding and the Bible through Hillsdale College's free online courses. Continue that commitment to learning with C.S. Lewis on Christianity, a free seven-lesson course featuring Professor Michael Ward, a leading Lewis scholar. Are right and wrong a matter of opinion? How can a good God allow suffering? Lewis's writings take these questions seriously. In works including Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man, he defends moral truth and explores what Christianity asks of us. You'll follow his journey from unbelief to faith and examine his insights into prayer, grief, and the hope of heaven. Discover lessons that challenge you to think very carefully about Christianity and put your understanding into practice. You can enroll today completely free. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today. That's charlieforhillsdale.com. Learn deeply. 00:20:27 Speaker 1: Think clearly. Lead boldly. 00:20:28 Speaker 5: Carry it forward at charlieforhillsdale.com. 00:20:34 Speaker 9: Okay. 00:20:35 Speaker 5: I just wanted to real quick ask you, can you clarify your definition of critical race theory? 00:20:41 Speaker 1: Yeah, Derrick Bells. So what he wrote in 1991, Intro to Critical Race Theory. What's in that book? 00:20:46 Speaker 12: The whole book is your definition. 00:20:48 Speaker 1: How about this? The one I used. Call everything racist until you control it. 00:20:52 Speaker 5: Oh, so wait, but then that literally means that critical race theory can mean basically anything you want it to, right? 00:20:59 Speaker 9: Yeah. 00:21:01 Speaker 1: Only if you're calling it racist until you control it. I mean, I'm defining critical race theory in the modern American context as that. We can go back to Herbert Marcuse, A One-Dimensional Man, or Jacques Derrida, or Michel Foucault, but the most agreed-upon academic theory is Intro to Critical Race Theory, 1991, by Derrick Bell. 00:21:18 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:21:20 Speaker 1: Are you familiar with that literature? 00:21:22 Speaker 12: Well, yeah, I've read the book, but I don't remember anything about it. It was for, like, a college class. Like, let's be honest. Nobody remembers the books they read in college. 00:21:29 Speaker 1: Sounds like a great value proposition to go to college. 00:21:31 Speaker 11: No, no, no. 00:21:31 Speaker 4: It is. 00:21:32 Speaker 1: Trust me. 00:21:37 Speaker 12: But you didn't go to college, so I guess you wouldn't know. 00:21:41 Speaker 5: It's true. 00:21:41 Speaker 1: I didn't. So let me ask you, though. Does that mean that I'm not able to have this conversation with you? Because I actually remember the book, and you didn't, and you paid for it. 00:22:02 Speaker 5: So first of all, I didn't pay for it. 00:22:04 Speaker 12: There's these things called scholarships. 00:22:06 Speaker 1: Oh, so somebody else paid for you not to remember the book that you're supposed to read. Oh, some wealthy donor or taxpayer paid for you to not remember the book. 00:22:16 Speaker 12: I have a question. Who are your wealthy donors? 00:22:20 Speaker 1: Many of them are in this room. Thank you guys for your wonderful support, by the way. 00:22:23 Speaker 11: Thank you so much. 00:22:26 Speaker 1: We have over 130,000 grassroots donors at turning point USA, 130,000. I think we have some people in the back that chip in $ 5, $ 10, $ 15. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. We are a grassroots funded operation, but let me give you another example. I'll give you five things that critical race theory believes. Number one, the notion that racism is ordinary and everywhere. Number two, the idea of interest convergence, otherwise known as intersectionality. Number three, the social construction of race. meaning that there is a social construction around race in our society. The four, idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling. Number five is that no matter how hard you work, no matter how hard you do, you cannot remove racism from your society. Those are five pillars of critical race theory based on Derrick Bell's Intro to Critical Race Theory. Does that ring a bell? 00:23:15 Speaker 12: Yes, but like, okay, so let me stick with this. What do you think... Oh. LAUGHTER We'll edit that out. 00:23:27 Speaker 1: Oh, my bad. 00:23:27 Speaker 12: Wait, am I not allowed to? 00:23:29 Speaker 1: It's not encouraged. Oh, okay. Sorry. 00:23:34 Speaker 12: What was the third point? My mind is dying. 00:23:37 Speaker 1: The social construction of race? 00:23:38 Speaker 12: The social construction of race. 00:23:40 Speaker 5: Do you not think that race is at least partially socially constructed? 00:23:44 Speaker 1: Depends how you define it. 00:23:45 Speaker 5: So, like, what defines where one race ends and where one race begins? 00:23:50 Speaker 1: Depends who you're asking. I think race is completely and totally irrelevant. Do you think race is relevant? 00:23:56 Speaker 8: No. 00:23:57 Speaker 1: Okay, then why are we talking about race all the time, and why are we talking about critical race theory? 00:24:00 Speaker 12: Well, you brought it up at first when you were doing your speech. 00:24:03 Speaker 1: Remember I said it was a lie from the pit of hell that we should repudiate and stop talking about all the time? You're on scholarship? 00:24:13 Speaker 12: Sorry, what? 00:24:13 Speaker 1: Nothing. Sorry, go ahead. 00:24:20 Speaker 12: So to answer your question. 00:24:25 Speaker 12: I don't think that race means anything, and I guess you don't either, right? 00:24:29 Speaker 8: Yeah. 00:24:29 Speaker 4: Right. 00:24:30 Speaker 12: So then. 00:24:32 Speaker 5: Why do you keep bringing up race whenever you are speaking on a stage? I am not speaking on a stage bringing up critical race theory. 00:24:40 Speaker 13: You are. 00:24:41 Speaker 9: No, no, no. 00:24:41 Speaker 1: I'm bringing up how critical race theory destroys society and how we shouldn't talk about race all the time. 00:24:47 Speaker 9: Okay. 00:24:48 Speaker 12: But you're bringing up race. 00:24:50 Speaker 1: You know, critical race theory, not race. 00:24:52 Speaker 11: Okay, so. 00:24:54 Speaker 12: What's the second word in that? 00:24:55 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's race, but it's a theory of how to view race, of which is a mind virus pathogen destroying America, of which I said again, just to reemphasize for those in the back, we could replay the tape, throw the red flag, we'll watch it over again. I said that what? Race means nothing. I care about your actions, your character, and most importantly, your soul. Thank you for being here tonight. 00:25:16 Speaker 9: Thank you. 00:25:23 Speaker 13: So I'm not really asking much of a question, but I'm looking for advice. I want to run for Congress in a few years when I become of age. And I'm just wondering if you have any pointers or. 00:25:35 Speaker 6: Direction you can help guide me. 00:25:36 Speaker 1: You should run. We need more young people to run. We have Turning Point Action, which is not represented here tonight, which is our political arm that would love to help you and train you and pour into you. It's an amazing organization that's doing such awesome things. Knock on more doors than your opponent. Have a message that resonates to voters. Respect your elders and talk to people that have been in politics for a while and listen to them. I don't like when young people run for office and they don't listen to people that have been around for a while. They've really cut their teeth. They've been through a lot. It's something that I had to learn the hard way early on and really be like, okay, what did you learn through this? What happened in this cycle and all that? They have a lot of wisdom to pass down, and I think you're going to be very welcomed and well-received as a younger candidate. I mean that. Thank you. God bless you. Thank you. God bless you. Hey, Charlie. 00:26:22 Speaker 9: My name is Dylan. I'm actually the president of the chapter at University of South Carolina. So I was actually at CLS this summer, you know, where you said chapters change. 00:26:37 Speaker 6: The world, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. 00:26:39 Speaker 9: I was just asking you, so we had our fall semester come by. It's now it's October now. And we had a big crop of freshmen coming in the beginning. But little by little, you know, some Peter out and some stop showing up. 00:26:51 Speaker 1: So how do you how. 00:26:52 Speaker 6: Would you sustain? 00:26:53 Speaker 9: What would be your advice on sustaining membership? 00:26:56 Speaker 1: Yeah, just have events be publicly out there. I'm always trying to invite dialogue and discussion. And look, our Turning Point USA chapter deserves a lot of credit for what they've done here tonight. You guys do such a great job. I was just there a year and a half ago, two years ago, three years ago. I can't remember. Everything is a blur post-2020. It all just kind of comes as a blur. But you've got to stay engaged. You've got to make it interesting. And then try to invite as many speakers as you can to campus. And then everyone loves a good debate. When you're looking for something to do, try to have a debate. Dialogue, disagreement is always the best thing you could do. 00:27:26 Speaker 6: And we'd love to have you back. 00:27:28 Speaker 1: I'll put it on the list. I went to Clemson last year, so I got to atone for that, right? 00:27:31 Speaker 11: Yes. 00:27:32 Speaker 1: I know. You're shocked. I won't do that again anytime soon. I love Clemson. 00:27:35 Speaker 6: Great people. We're going to beat them this year. 00:27:36 Speaker 1: We are. Mark my words. 00:27:43 Speaker 7: Right. 00:27:45 Speaker 11: Thanks, man. 00:27:45 Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Have a good one. 00:27:49 Speaker 3: Hello. 00:27:52 Speaker 6: I just want you to answer this one question. 00:27:56 Speaker 7: Do you understand that as a white man you do not have to apologize for being white? You just have to acknowledge the racism that happens around you. 00:28:06 Speaker 12: That is all. 00:28:08 Speaker 1: What racism happens around me? 00:28:11 Speaker 7: Let's say that a racist police officer shoots me and kills me. For you to be a white man and you see that and don't say anything about it, I believe that my. 00:28:29 Speaker 6: Community would be upset about that. 00:28:31 Speaker 7: Now, all you have to do as a white man, you don't have to get on the Internet or on Twitter and say, I'm sorry for being white, but you should at least. 00:28:41 Speaker 6: Acknowledge the racism that happens around you. 00:28:46 Speaker 1: Okay, well, yeah, if an individual act of racism happens. 00:28:48 Speaker 6: That is just taking accountability for what. 00:28:52 Speaker 1: Happens around you. Hold on a second. First of all, I don't have to be accountability for a whole race, do I? Why do I have to be accountable for the white race? yourself right so I'm racist I'll take responsibility. 00:29:03 Speaker 6: For that probably are not racist but. 00:29:05 Speaker 1: Thank you so then why do I have to comment on somebody else's racism but. 00:29:10 Speaker 7: What you do what you should do is take accountability for the racism around you. 00:29:15 Speaker 6: Not pretend not pretend. 00:29:17 Speaker 7: That it doesn't happen around you like again the example that I gave you that if I was shot by a police officer and you found out that person was racist right now But. 00:29:28 Speaker 1: Why would we take responsibility? How can I take responsibility for somebody else's actions? 00:29:32 Speaker 7: What you should do is just take accountability and say, hey, yes, that was racist, instead of saying, no, that person, that officer wasn't racist. 00:29:39 Speaker 1: Well, hold on. You've got to show me an instance and an example. But we're talking about such a micro problem that doesn't exist. Do you know that a black person is 18 and a half times more likely to shoot and kill a police officer than a police officer is to go and shoot an unarmed black man? 00:29:54 Speaker 6: But is that the question that I asked you? 00:29:56 Speaker 9: No, no. 00:29:56 Speaker 1: You asked a hypothetical about if I'm going to take accountability for a racist police officer. But do you understand if I inverted it on you, would you take accountability for all the blacks killing police in America? 00:30:08 Speaker 6: That was funny. 00:30:08 Speaker 1: No, would you? 00:30:09 Speaker 6: No. 00:30:09 Speaker 1: Why don't you take accountability for all the blacks killing police in New York? 00:30:12 Speaker 7: I wouldn't take accountability for it. But what I would say is, yes, there are a lot of black people in America. my community who do dumb things to other black people and to other white people. What I would not do is just pretend that it doesn't happen. So that, like I said, you as a white man has to do the same thing. 00:30:33 Speaker 1: I acknowledge it happens. I also acknowledge that it's rarer than lightning striking you when you're outside. 00:30:39 Speaker 6: That's it. 00:30:39 Speaker 1: But let me ask you, who is Tony Tempa? 00:30:41 Speaker 6: That's all I wanted you to do. Thank you. 00:30:44 Speaker 1: I acknowledge it's rare and I'm not going to have to take responsibility for an entire race. 00:30:48 Speaker 4: At all. 00:30:49 Speaker 1: It's wrong and it's terrible. I wish we could have continued the conversation. Hello, how are you? 00:30:58 Speaker 2: I would like to say thank you for coming to UNC Charlotte. I do have a question about you about cannabis. You probably don't get many questions about cannabis. So I would like to ask you about your stance on cannabis and then follow up with a following question. 00:31:14 Speaker 1: Probably in the past overly policed but should not be legalized. 00:31:18 Speaker 2: Should not be legalized. And what is the reasons why you believe it should stay illegal? 00:31:26 Speaker 1: We have an overwhelming amount of data to show when it's legalized, states get more dangerous. It gets messier, more homelessness, more vagrancy, more overdoses, more kids going on drugs, more heroin overdoses. It is a gateway drug. Regardless what people say, it's laced with chemicals, with fentanyl, with hallucinogenics. Colorado went from the 10th in carjackings to first in carjackings, fourth in arson to the first in arson, third in rape to the second in rape. I mean, I could go through every statistic. Every state that has legalized weed has seen more crime, more vagrancy, more dropouts, more kids on the social outcast of society. 00:31:59 Speaker 2: Would you say that when you legalize marijuana, you can see the lab tests, you can see all the toxic chemicals inside of the cannabis plant, you can see how much THC is in there, how much CBD, what terpenes, if it has limonene, pinene, myrcene, there's a lot of cannabinoids inside of it. 00:32:21 Speaker 1: Sounds terrible. 00:32:22 Speaker 5: No, no, no. 00:32:23 Speaker 2: It's actually good. It's actually quite unique because there are different strains with different types of benefits. Some people take it recreationally. Some people take it for medical purposes. So why not we legalize it so it's safer for our community, so people know what they're consuming, and also we take marijuana off of the schedule, well, the. 00:32:52 Speaker 1: The drug, yes. To make it federally legal. 00:32:54 Speaker 9: Federally legal. 00:32:55 Speaker 1: Let me ask you this. So you say why not– can you give me an example of any state that has legalized weed and it's gotten safer? 00:33:01 Speaker 2: And it's gotten safer? So my knowledge is basically based on not necessarily– my question is not basically about whether– about that statistics but but you. 00:33:15 Speaker 1: Said safer i mean that would be probably critical well. 00:33:17 Speaker 2: Safer in terms of consumption in terms of what you're consuming if it has if it has um toxic chemicals. 00:33:25 Speaker 1: Yeah but guess what you know people still buy illegal weed despite the fact there's weed dispensaries on the corner in vegas and in denver you don't get rid of the illegal drug market you only enhance them to go to harder drugs and things they can't get in the store itself There's more drug use in America than ever before, and we've legalized more drugs than ever before. It's been the great failure of the drug project the last 10 years. Every promise they've made is wrong. Oh, it's going to weaken the cartels. No, it's not. They're stronger than ever. Oh, we're going to get all this drug revenue. Actually, not really. There's more need for revenue because of the services that we can't even facilitate because of all the drugs. Or how about this one? Like, oh, yeah, it's better because kids are passing drugs in school. Yeah, now they're passing fentanyl. in school, no longer weed in school. And so not only that, the crime, the vagrancy, the homelessness, the defecation, everywhere it's legalized has gotten more dangerous, period. So why would you want to bring that to our communities? 00:34:15 Speaker 2: So that's not what I'm asking. That's not what I was basically talking about here. What I'm talking about is basically the consumption of the safetiness about of people who consume cannabis, and also there are many, many, lots of good benefits, too, in terms of there are a lot of good terpenes, in terms of limonene, also pinene actually increases productivity. 00:34:42 Speaker 1: Yeah, could I ask you, when was the last time you did weed, man? Huh? When was the last time you did weed? 00:34:48 Speaker 2: Well, I may not answer that question. 00:34:51 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think rather recently. 00:34:53 Speaker 11: Hey, hey, folks. 00:34:56 Speaker 2: But we still respect each other. 00:34:58 Speaker 1: We do. And thank you for being a walking commercial to not do drugs. Thanks for being here tonight. 00:35:06 Speaker 2: Don't do hard drugs. 00:35:11 Speaker 1: I know you were all thinking it too as he was asking the question. I could feel it. 00:35:16 Speaker 11: All right. 00:35:21 Speaker 5: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.