Charlie and Vivek's Tag-Team Q&A at UNC Chapel Hill
01:22:16 Share

Hey, everybody, Vivek and I take questions from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Enjoy the dialogue that we have back and forth. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. We've become a member today, members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com. Buckle up, everybody. 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 John. 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. 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 Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. All right. How are we doing, everybody?

It's actually my first time here at UNC Chapel Hill. We would have more seats in the back, but we hit fire code. So you are very lucky. We had to turn away a lot of people here. Vivek, welcome to North Carolina. It's good to be here, guys. And so Vivek and I are traveling the country. We're doing events just today. We were in Georgia and now North Carolina. And there's an election in 15 days, Vivek. Yeah.

Yeah, there is. And I think hopefully everybody in this room is registered. If not, make sure you actually get registered and get out and vote. My hope in this election – I was hearing that routine beforehand. Was that – who was his name? Joe Bob. Joe Bob. I love him. Give him a round of applause. He was pretty funny. I thought he was good. So he was talking about identity politics and –

I hope if the Democrats learn one thing this election cycle, it will be that identity politics just doesn't work. After they lose, we learn once and for all in this country that when you just give somebody a job based on their race and gender, it turns out to be a disaster every single time.

And I'm not even talking about Kamala Harris this time. I'm talking about Tim Walz, actually, who also got his job for his race and gender. But it doesn't work out no matter which direction you do it. And the truth of the matter is November 5th is not the destination, actually. November 5th is the start line to save this country. Our founding fathers, they were not that much older than the people who were in this room when they set an entire country into motion in 1776.

I think 2024 is our 1776. And you guys are the generation who I think is going to save this country. And you know what? You're going to do it first of all between now and November 5th by actually turning out and voting and surprising and turning upside down what young people are supposed to do. Forget about that. Go the other way. And I think we're going to save the country, man. Yeah, I mean this is the first generation. We'll talk about this tonight. And by the way, we'll do primarily Q&A tonight because that's why we're all here. It is the first generation since George Washington where you have it worse off than your parents.

where that is a standard belief in America that you at least have the same life that your parents would have, if not a better life. And your parents were able to work hard, play by the rules, go to college, graduate, be able to get married, have kids, buy a home, and have a stable American dream.

When Donald Trump was president, in order to buy a home in this country, you needed $75,000 of income a year. Now it's $135,000 of income a year. You are becoming a nation of renters. Our generation is the most depressed generation, the most sick generation, the most anxious generation, the most medicated generation, and the most in debt generation in American history. And very simple. If you as a generation cannot afford a home,

Your cities are too dangerous to walk at night and you cannot get married and have kids without going into debt. It's time to fire your leaders and put somebody in charge that can make sure those things are possible for your generation. You do not have to overcomplicate it.

We can have a lot of disagreements tonight, but there has been a ruling class over the last 32 years with one exception. And Vivek and I believe that exception was for four years from 2017 to early 2021 when Donald Trump was president, where there was an agreement to make you poorer, an agreement to put you last, an agreement to put Americans last, actually, and America last.

And we see what that results in. They have been playing proxy with your future since the time you were born. And now that you are actually a mature adult where you can vote, own property, graduate, and come into the world, you realize this is not the American dream that I thought it was. And it's because your leaders in both political parties, but primarily one, they have been playing and mortgaging your future for quite a while. We believe it's time for a revitalization and a restoration of the American dream. We believe that transcends politics.

And we look at the four years when Trump was president. Your incomes were going up. Your wages were going up. Inflation was flatlining. Homeownership was going up. I want to go back to that where we were not on the precipice of World War III, did not have 10 million foreigners coming into this country, and we were actually putting our country first. So we're going to talk about that tonight. Vivek, can you speak about that specifically to the next generation, and then let's open it up for questions. Yeah, and I'll use this terminology lightly. We are in the middle of a war in this country.

Your enemy is not your fellow citizen, but it is an ideology. And I call this a war because there's no middle ground here. Right. Either you believe in merit or you believe in group quotas. You can't have both. Either you believe in free speech or you believe in censorship. You can't have both. Either you believe in American exceptionalism, that this country we live in is the greatest nation known to the history of mankind, or you believe in apologizing for who we are and our way of life. You cannot have both.

And I do think right now we need a commander in chief who is going to lead us to victory in that war. That's why Charlie and I are supporting full heartedly Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. But I'll tell you this. Thank you. I'll tell you, your generation, it's a little bit harder than when I was in your shoes, actually. So even when I graduated, it was in the eve of the 2008 financial crisis. I graduated in 07, got a financial job in New York City. Interesting time to get a job back then.

That paled in comparison to what you're actually facing. Right now, prices are going up. Wages have remained flat. It's a tough job to be able to actually tough market to be able to get a job, to be able to even aspire to own a home and all against the backdrop of forget the economics of it. And I went to places like Harvard and Yale and they leaned left, but you could still express yourself. You wouldn't be at risk of being silenced or reprimanded for expressing your beliefs, even if you're in the minority. Today, you got to choose between speaking your mind freely and putting food on the dinner table.

between the American dream and the First Amendment. So you all are actually in a tougher position than I was even about, what, 20 years ago when I was in your shoes. But don't be victims about it. That's the message for today. We're going to identify the problem. But I'll tell you the same message I tell the left, which is that

We're not going to be victims just like our founding fathers weren't. We're going to be victorious. And the next 15 days is our chance to actually step up. Next 18 days is to step up and actually be victorious. And so you have every reason to be upset, to say that this isn't the country that you were promised, the American dream. What are you talking about? It's not alive and well. It is alive and hanging on for life support. The political consultants wanted me to tell you it's morning in America, like Ronald Reagan said 40 years ago.

Well, it's not morning in America right now, but I believe it can be.

And that's not somebody else's choice. That's not in somebody else's hands. It's in your hands. It's in our hands. That's why we're here. And the way we're going to get there is, by the way, all of us starting to talk in the open again. All right? So if you're going to say it in private at the dinner table, stand up and say it with a spine right here. That's how we get our country back. It's why we're here. So don't be brainwashed as we say here, and let's open up and have a conversation tonight, guys. So we'll have a line right in the middle here. Again, we could talk forever, but you guys are here to ask questions.

Who here has voted already? Raise your hand if you voted already. That is a pretty good number. Yeah, that is really good. And I'm sure there's some Harris-Walls voters in there somewhere.

That's all right. Just really quick. If somebody do not disagree, do not interrupt. Do not boo. If somebody says something you disagree with, please show respect to people that might have different views. This is a center right, predominantly conservative audience. If somebody is a liberal or a leftist and comes up to the mic, let's show liberals the respect they never show us. How does that sound tonight? OK. Hi. So before I get into my question, I'm.

I'm like Pakistani. My English teacher, I'm left wing. My English teacher said, Vivek, that I'm the left wing version of you, which I don't really know how to feel about. But let's not. I can't see you, but you must be a pretty good looking guy. Thank you. So my question is about the Electoral College and why you guys support it. I think everyone's vote should count equally no matter which state you live in. Why do you guys support a system where candidates are forced to go to seven swing states that are primarily urban and leave rural America behind? So do you support the U.S. Senate?

No, I don't. But let's talk about the Electoral College and not change that. Well, actually, it's related because the Electoral College... Yes, that's why I know. Oh, sorry. I'm just having a rough time. I got three words in. Continue. Can I get four? Sure. Thank you. Because the U.S. Senate is the same principle of the Electoral College.

Okay, so therefore, in the original intended electoral college, it's that the states elect the presidents. It's not a national popular project. We believe that's actually what makes America different, let me finish, than European projects, which is that we're first and foremost a collection of states. The states created the federal government. The federal government did not create the states. And I think it's a beautiful thing that seven very diverse states with black populations, Hispanic populations, working class white populations are going to determine the future of America, not just L.A. and New York. I think it's a very beautiful thing.

So two things. First off, the Electoral College doesn't make it so that states pick the president. You can win the presidency with...

12 states in the electoral college. What you're proposing is having one electoral vote per state, and that would be by the states. Second, there are only nine cities in the U.S. with like a million people. It's pretty much impossible to win the electoral college just by going to big cities. When Kamala Harris goes to Pennsylvania, she goes to big cities. When Trump goes to Pennsylvania, he goes to like more rural areas like in Butler, Pennsylvania. The big cities argument just doesn't seem to sit well with me. Why not pick the president the same way we pick every other governor in the country and every other office in the country?

Well, it's actually not how we do every other office. There are proportional elections across the country. However, again, it goes back to state representation. I want to get Vivek in here for a second. But I also have another question, which I think is important, which is do you think that it's a good thing that candidates have to crisscross from Nevada, Arizona,

Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin. Is there something good that comes out of the Electoral College? I agree. I think we should get rid of it and pass a law requiring all candidates to visit every state at least once or twice. Okay. But it's very important. The objections to the Electoral College usually come from the left. I'm not saying...

That's necessarily, but it's typically. And it's important to know that both sides, quote unquote, benefit from states that are not as populated. For example, Democrats benefit from Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., whereas Republicans will benefit from Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. Not to mention also Hawaii benefits the Democrats. It's a tilt advantage for candidates that are actually able to represent the values of the industrial heartland, an area that has largely been forgotten. Vivek, do you have thoughts on this?

Yeah, I mean I'd echo a lot of what Charlie said. I know this is one of your favorite ones, but I just add one thing to this, and I think it's important to understand that we don't even have to actually be so upset about it. There's a method to change it if we don't like it in the United States.

It's called amending the Constitution. So this is part of the original rules of the road that the founders set into motion because they wanted to respect every state in the union. Otherwise, some would just be steamrolled over. But if we don't like it, you can amend the Constitution. But the reason that's not going to happen is because the states of this union recognize the importance of their representation. So in a certain sense, it's just what the founding fathers wrote into the document in the first place. You're entitled to have a different point of view.

You could persuade your fellow Americans to change it, but the reason that hasn't happened in 250 years is that the system that got us this far, it's been, for all of its faults, working pretty darn well to give us the greatest nation known to mankind that people said would not last more than a generation. And a part of the reason why is that we gave that voice to every one of the states, not just the Californias and New Yorks of the world. Thank you, man, for the question. Appreciate it. So my question is about the fertility rate.

As of next year, there will be one country in the entirety of this hemisphere that has an above replacement rate fertility rate. It'll be Haiti. We have already run out of European immigrants to accept. We are soon going to run out of Central American immigrants. And after that, we'll run out of Africans. At some point, low-skill immigration labor will

is not a solution to the fertility crisis. China has a fertility rate of below one, Korea at 1.3, and the United States at 1.6. The human race is expected to be significantly less populous at the end of the century than it was at the start.

What is a policy solution to that, considering that every economic, social benefit, and worker rights solution that's ever been tried in any country from Sweden, Switzerland, North Korea, China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, have all failed? How do we get people to have more children? I mean, I will say that thank you for bringing up a question that is unanswered.

a far greater threat to the future of humanity in the United States of America than climate change ever will be. And that's a hard fact. So you're actually putting your finger on the pulse of something that actually threatens the future of humanity rather than the made-up mythology that we make up. And they kind of work together, actually, because many people are not having children now in the name of worrying about the future of climate change harming humanity when, in fact, their decision not to procreate is actually what's giving us the crisis in the first place.

So first thing is outside of government, what you said is what policy solution would work. You actually raise a pretty good point. Policy solutions haven't been great at affecting the fertility rate in Japan, in Singapore. China went the other direction, a folly that's now cost them the status of being the world's most populous country. But I do believe in a cultural change in this country.

When you believe in yourself, when you believe in the unit of your family, when you believe in your nation, when you believe that your children will grow up in a better country than you do, then people are going to be more likely to have children in that environment. So to the men in this audience, my best advice to you is...

Get married, have kids, don't think twice about it, and you're actually doing a service to your country and to the future of humanity by doing it. Same advice to the women on the other side of it is that we have too long fallen into the trap of believing that somehow having kids is a tradeoff versus doing other valuable things in your life, like having your own independent career that's taken over the mentality of becoming actually hostile to having children, when in fact you're able to do both of those things better if you're bringing more children into the world because you have more skin in the game.

So I'm going to bet on cultural change far sooner than I'm going to bet on policy change. As a matter of policy, we penalize having children in many ways too. So right now I've got to roll back a lot of those policy changes that penalize the family, and with that we drive a cultural change that makes us happy. There's a couple countries that have reversed it. Poland and Hungary have.

Hungary has successfully, with Viktor Orban's program of literally paying people to have kids. I would point out that the Hungarian reversal is simply a side effect of Soviet birth rate collapse and that the Hungarian birth rate has started to decline again. Those policies were only temporary. You might be right. I mean, I don't know the details of it. I remember that's my book, and it's fair, but at least it's better than the other countries. Absolutely. Better doing something than nothing. Yeah, you would admit that at least there was an uptick at some point. Yeah, so look –

Having children is a value, and this is a very important teaching lesson for everyone here, which is if you would have told somebody 300 years ago that having children is not natural to humanity, that given the opportunity that you could exist without having kids, people would think you're nuts. But now that we have the technology to not have kids but enact the pleasurable act of having kids without having the kids, right? Replacing children with pets, for example.

Replacing children with pets, for example. Correct. South Korean child care expenses are close by now. Right. So widespread contraception use, abortion, so on and so forth, has resulted in widespread plummeting birth rates. And children are now looked at as an inconvenience. I'm a father of two. Babak's a father of two. That's not enough. You're supposed to have three. Well, I'm not done. 2.1 is the number. Man, I've been at this for two years. We'll meet in five years, all right? Let's see what we're doing. So...

But let me just say, fair enough. I will say children are a blessing from the Lord. They're not an inconvenience. It's not just a group of germs, not a clump of cells. That was a great answer. It's a beautiful thing. And I want to just say we need to celebrate having children. I think we need to look at public policy proposals at work. But Vivek is right. As long as a culture looks as kids, as impediments to your own, you know,

wealth and happiness and your own travel schedule and being a CEO of a shoe company, fertility rates are going to keep on going down. Hey, thanks for speaking with us today. So if y'all's main concern with this tour is that colleges are scamming students, why are you supporting the candidate that had to pay $25 million for defrauding students at Trump University?

I didn't hear all that. I think you said that, I guess you're saying, I think college is a scam, so why am I supporting Trump, essentially? Because Trump had to pay $25 million for the students that went to Trump University. Yeah, I mean, he settled a lawsuit. It wasn't a decision. He settled a lawsuit. But yeah, I don't know the details of that case very well. But yeah, let me just ask a question. How many of you guys have to take classes that are a waste of time that you wish you wouldn't have to take? So look around. Everyone here is being scammed.

But why do you support the candidate that did that and then didn't let students get degrees? Let me go further. Do you know that half of the kids in this audience at this very good school will get a job that does not require a college degree? Half of the kids here. But at least these students might end up getting degrees, but the students that went to Trump's university had to pay all this money and then never even got degrees. So why, if that's such a concern to you, I don't know the details. Are you ready to finish? Sorry. Well, I know the question you're saying. I don't know the details of Trump University case very well. Um,

But if this is such a big concern that colleges are scamming students, then why don't you care that the person that you've endorsed for president literally scammed students for college and had to pay them millions of dollars for it? Again, from what I understand, some people actually really benefited from it. Some people didn't. It was a civil lawsuit that he settled. Well, most of them didn't get all their money back. Is that the most pressing issue regarding Trump for the 2024 election for you? The reason that it's not.

But the reason that I wanted to ask is because it's like that's the – I've never been asked about Trump University. When we signed up for this – well, yeah, but when we signed up for this, like, we got a bunch of information about how colleges are scamming students, and that's what y'all would be talking about today. So I thought it would be relevant because y'all endorsed someone that is on record for scamming students for college. Again, I reject the premise, but, again, I will say I think there's a lot of other reasons that Vivek and I are voting for Donald Trump other than Trump University.

Okay, well, thanks. You're trying to create a gotcha moment here? No, I mean, I just think it's relevant to the topic that it's on the screen right now. So there's one issue with university funding in this country, and this is actually relevant to every voter because we're all paying for it. Anybody who's a taxpayer is paying for this behemoth called the U.S. Department of Education.

And they have nothing to do with Trump University, but they have a lot to do with the rising cost of college across this country. Subsidizing one class of degrees while doing nothing for vocational education or two-year college degrees, which is why somebody was sold a false myth to say I'll be a gender studies major in California and somehow get a head start in the American dream when it hasn't worked out that way. And they graduate college with a boatload of debt that they're not actually going to be able to pay off.

So as it relates to a policy decision, as it applies to universities, Donald Trump has made clear, I shared this position during my own presidential campaign, that we should shut down the U.S. Department of Education and return that money back to the states and to the people to put it in pockets of people like the people who are sitting in the audience right now. So you're not defrauded by your government that you're voting for and paying taxes to. And it's a very different position than what the other side has on offer, which is to expand education.

Institutions like the Department of Education, which further drive up college costs, which has been disastrous for many of the students who are graduating with debt they didn't intend to fully sign up for. So that's why it's relevant. And I imagine you're voting for Kamala, I'm guessing. Yeah. Yeah. So why are you voting for Kamala?

OK, well, I mean, I just think that the first thing I would look for in a candidate is someone that I think would be willing to accept if they lost the election. And I'm just concerned that after 2020, that if Trump if Trump if Trump did lose again, that he would again pretend that he didn't lose and lie to all the people that supported him and gave money to his campaign and tell them that, you know,

That, yeah, that their vote didn't count when, I mean, all the evidence showed that it did. What is Kamala's greatest accomplishment? I mean, I would say her greatest accomplishments would probably be when she was district attorney, when she was...

She went, she, she broke up a bunch of transnational criminal organizations. But again, I was really just asking about Trump University and your opinion because it's relevant to this topic. No, I know. I asked you like the most simple question. I asked you who you're voting for and why. I don't want to have like a whole 30 minute debate with you. I was just asking a question. Thanks for answering. No, no, no. You embodied white dude for Harris energy perfectly. Thank you very much. I don't know why. Okay. Thank you.

What happens when the power's out, your phone says no service, and the grid is down? Do you have a backup plan? If you don't have a satellite phone from sat123.com, you're risking more than just missed calls. A satellite phone from sat123.com keeps you connected no matter what. You could be miles from civilization or in the middle of a natural disaster. This phone works when everything else fails. It's your lifeline when the world goes dark, and let's be real, these days anything can happen.

But with Sat123.com, you're prepared. Sat123 is committed to American values. They believe in reliability and quality that you can trust when it matters most. Don't wait until it's too late. Head on over to Sat123.com. That is Sat123.com. Use promo code Charlie for $25 off. Protect yourself, protect your family, and stay connected with Sat123.com.

I'm a conservative political science major, and I do agree that some aspects of college are definitely a scam, like DEI. But apart from law school, do you think humanities majors are unnecessary, even though some jobs do require?

Largely, yeah. I mean, do you want to be a lawyer? No. So if you want to get into politics, I can tell you right now, college is a complete waste of time. You do politics, you don't study politics, and I say this with all possible due respect, you've been just completely lied to. You do not need a political science degree to go work for a campaign or intern for a congressman. You just don't. It's about how hard you work and who you know, and someone deceived you to go borrow a bunch of money to go here, so I'm sorry to hear that. One thing I'll just say is,

For years, we've made a mistake to say that somehow the only way to get a head start in the American dream was to go through a four-year college degree. You don't think about why you're doing it. You just take out the loan. You just go through the motions, and that's what you do. Turns out there's no alternative. I don't want to see us do some other alternative formula either.

For me, a four-year college degree was the right choice. I studied molecular biology. It gave me a head start to be able to be a biotech investor and start a biotech company. Not because that degree actually helped me, but the knowledge I gained along that way did. You can actually gain a lot of that knowledge without going to a university. So Roger Sherman, actually, you asked about law school. He was one of our founding fathers. He actually did not go to law school, but was one of the greatest attorneys at the time of the founding of the country.

And then eventually he ended up joining the governing body of Yale University where he actually wanted to do that to be able to give his kids a chance that he didn't have. But he was the best attorney of his day even though he's not actually one who went to law school because he didn't have the money to do it. And so I think there's this trap we sometimes fall into of just – you're not asking for advice, but I feel like an older man in this room, so I'll give you some unsolicited advice anyway. Yeah.

We fall into the trap of just checking these boxes and somehow think that's going to get us ahead versus actually get to the bottom of what do you want to learn and why? It's not going to be the same as the person sitting next to you. And the problem with the four-year college degree model is it assumes a one-size-fits-all solution to everybody. So whatever the alternative is, I don't want a one-size-fits-all for that either. Just ask yourself what you want to do. Nobody in this country, if we're doing our jobs right, should stop you from doing it. Pursue that with or without the path of the four-year college degree to get there. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm an exchange student from Denmark, and I'm just here for one semester. Love America, love being here. Wish I was here longer. So back home... You speak great English. Thanks. Better than many here. Back home, a lot of you know, we have really high taxes. But a lot of people are okay with paying them because we get a lot of benefits that people like. And one of them is university is covered by government taxes. They're also paying for my tuition here, for example.

And they're doing it pretty cost effectively. Only about 3% of our combined tax pool goes to give everybody a bachelor's degree and a master's degree. And I'm wondering what you think about that and if that's a bad idea. Yeah.

And what's the highest marginal tax rate in Denmark? Oh, we have like up to 50-something percent. I think it might even go to the – some of the Scandinavian countries gets into the 60s is my understanding. Right, yeah. So let me just give you a somewhat charged and controversial response, but it's the truth. A lot of the reason that some of these countries are able to get away with it is the United States spend – we spend about a trillion dollars on national defense, but a lot of that national defense goes to –

protect the very countries that then come back and preach at us about how they're able to get away with all of this fiscal balance that the United States doesn't have because they're enjoying the protection provided by the United States of America. So I do think that if we're to learn the lesson in this country that somehow high taxes and getting benefits for it is going to work based on the European model,

It does not take into account all of the ways that a lot of those European countries are free riding on the United States of America. That math would be really different if those countries had to use those resources for the purposes that the U.S. is itself paying for. Now, the U.S., we got a separate problem going on, which we ought to learn from Europe on this. Starting in the 60s, we were at an event earlier today. We talked about the great society in a different sense.

We traded off our sovereignty for stuff. Okay. Back in the 1960s, you get Medicaid, you get welfare, whatever, but you trade it off your sovereignty in the process, not just in the form of high tax rates, but a regulatory state that impeded how we do business as a country, how we conduct ourselves. And what's about to happen in the generation you all are growing up to, unless we change something big is that you trade it off your sovereignty, but pretty soon we're going to run out of stuff too. We've got a $35 trillion national debt and growing.

And that's when the country is done because if you've traded off your sovereignty but you no longer get the stuff that you were promised, that's the stuff of revolt. So I think that's the time horizon we're working with. I think it's another 10 years or so that we have that country left. And I don't think going the direction of Scandinavia or Western Europe works because while they're able to free ride on the United States, we don't have somebody else to free ride on ourselves. We're going to have to figure it out ourselves by actually –

tackling our own national debt problem with productivity increases rather than doing it by just increasing the serial tax rates that we're charging and soaking the rich with. Yeah, and the last thing I'd ask you, is there clamoring domestically in your home country about immigration lately?

Are you asking whether – could you just say that again? Yeah, sure. In your home country, are there people starting to protest or ask questions about immigration? Oh, yeah. Yeah. So that's the problem with the Scandinavian model. It's largely been based on very low rates of immigration. Recently in the last decade, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the four Scandinavian countries, and also the Netherlands, which is not a Scandinavian country, has decided to boost immigration specifically from the Middle East, and that throws off the numbers a lot.

is that homogeneity in those four countries have largely allowed a neighborly type socialism to occur, which I think you would agree with. And now that's those, those balances are being thrown off. And I want to be very clear about,

Denmark to a lesser extent, but I could speak to Norway. Norway is largely made possible thanks to oil and natural gas. It has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund in the world actually, larger than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. And so it's important to remember, not Denmark. I don't know actually, maybe you could correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know Denmark that well. I know Norway very well, which is that Norway specifically is funded because of its oil and natural gas assets and putting it into a sovereign wealth fund. So thank you very much. Okay. Thanks.

So a couple of months ago, Thomas Massey went on Tucker Carlson, revealing how every Republican congressman has their own AIPAC person pushing them to vote in favor of foreign aid to Israel.

This year, AIPAC spent over $400,000 trying to oust Massey from Congress. And in total, AIPAC has used over $100 million, ousting both Republicans and Democrats deemed insufficiently pro-Israel. So, to get to my question, why is Thomas Massey the only Republican willing to criticize this foreign lobby campaign?

or any other pro-Race world donors, such as Miriam Adelson giving 100 million to the Trump campaign. Why are both of you unwilling to ever criticize AIPAC

Or even address it or acknowledge it. Aren't they like literally fundamentally undermining American sovereignty? Well, first of all, I love Thomas Massey and I have him speak at our events. I mean Thomas has become a great friend and I – Somebody supports him. I'm never going to speak against that. I mean so – So what do you think about what he said at Tucker Carlson? That every Republican congressman has their own AIPAC person. Why aren't you talking about this?

Well, again, we have a lot of things to talk about. But yes, I mean, I am pro-Israel. I'm guessing you're not. Yeah? Not really, no. Okay, yeah. So there you go. I mean, that would be why you're against it. But yes, I think that America… I'm against the Israel lobby control. Like, $100 million AIPAC has used in total, ousting both Republicans and Democrats. I understand the situation. Just address the question.

I was just trying to figure out where you're coming from. What do you want me to denounce? Americans getting involved in the electoral process, exactly? I want you to condemn AIPAC for literally ousting insufficiently pro-Israel politicians. What is there to condemn, though, exactly? They're undermining American sovereignty. It's a foreign lobby. But these are American citizens, aren't they?

No. It's a... Well, the whole lobby... Hold on, hold on, hold on. The whole lobby... American-Israeli Political Action Committee legally can only accept money from American citizens. So what you're saying is that these are Jewish people...

You want to fill in the blank for me? Well, Mayor Middleton is Jewish. I know, but she's an American citizen. So what's wrong with Americans getting involved in the democratic process? Is AIPAC and other pro-Israeli – are they undermining American sovereignty? Well, Mel, let me ask you a question. Hold on a second. Is the American Armenian Association lobby in D.C. undermining American sovereignty?

Could you repeat that? Is the American-Armenian Association, which he represented against Azerbaijani incursion, are they undermining American sovereignty? Are Armenian lobbies paying hundreds of millions of dollars? A lot. Actually, there's a lobbying fight right now in D.C. over Azerbaijan and Armenia. For example, are Taiwanese Americans that advocate that China does not incur against them, are they undermining American sovereignty? Hold on a second. Are Ukrainian Americans that are lobbying for money...

that they can repel Vladimir Putin? Are they undermining American sovereignty? Can you answer those questions? Or is it only the Jews that are undermining American sovereignty? Can you give one specific example of an Ukrainian lobby in America?

i'm sorry what give one example of an ukrainian lobby i can't understand he's asking give him one example of a ukrainian lobby i think yeah i think ukrainian oligarchs hire american lobbyists all the time so do americans so the point is the point is that the standard that you are setting for israel which albeit is a very principled stand you should apply it to every other foreign country and the immigrants thereof that have come to this country that lobby washington dc for countries they care about right and yet israel gets all the attention

And so half the world's jewelry with a country the size of New Jersey in the Middle East that has democratic elections, individual rights, and is the most like America in the Middle East seems to be the obsession of the American media and the American college campuses. You have to wonder why. Because we're being dragged into a war with Iran. Obviously. Obviously.

But now you're changing the topic, though. You've got to help me understand why is it, and I'm not picking on you, but it's like AIPAC gets all this attention, fine, but there are hundreds of other individual lobbying groups where Americans that came from other countries are lobbying for D.C. to do specific action for or against a country they care about. There is nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with a Cuban that comes to America that then goes to D.C. and advocates for sanctions on Cuba. So I would just say, let's say we had just started this with a different premise. In general, let's say you walk up to the mic and you say that

I don't think that I want special interests funded by money to have more of a say in the United States of America than the voice of every citizen. I think that that is a coherent, respectable, and understandable point of view. I think if you came up and further said that I don't want foreign countries – and that's for the reasons Charlie explained us on AIPAC – but foreign countries, which are also lobbying the United States as registered and often unregistered agents, impacting our foreign policy decisions based on how they're propping up politicians as their puppets –

Is that something that both Republicans and Democrats for a lot of foreign influences and a lot of domestic influences of special interests have been guilty of for a really long time? Yes, is the answer to that question.

So I think that that's a perfectly legitimate beef with the way that our bastardized form of American democracy has worked for a very long time. But I do think that Charlie makes a really valid point where anybody, whoever usually brings up this issue, usually picks their pet cause that they're against to hang that at the stake rather than to actually approach the issue even-handedly across the board.

And I think if you're willing to do that, that could be a far more constructive conversation. That's where I'm at on this. Yeah, and just I guess one other question. Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist in its current form? Sure. Okay, we agree. Thank you very much.

Hey, it's great to see you guys both here. It's awesome to be here. I'd like to start off with first, I'm a registered Republican and plan to vote so in the national election, but you're here in North Carolina, and we have a pretty heated gubernatorial election. And correct me if I'm wrong that you've endorsed Mark Robinson as a Republican candidate. And I'm sure that everybody here in this room has seen the commercials regarding Mark Robinson and whatnot. So

In the gubernatorial race, it's getting pretty difficult to vote for Mark Robinson, and I guess I would like to just see what you think about that. So I'm aware of some of the accusations, some of which are more interesting than others. You've got to educate me on these ads. Okay.

Oh, I don't live here. Yeah. So I live in Arizona. So if you want to know about Carrie Lake ads, I can tell you all about them. So, yeah. So there's been a few of just him on well, porn sites talking about how he's a black Nazi and he's like made these claims and he's also talked about, uh, girls and a

And like how he said that they should keep their skirts down and legs closed. And I don't know, I just find that pretty alarming just to hear that from somebody that is like standing on the main stage and looking for votes. And I heard that recently Trump actually, who was once talking about him and was supporting him, has recently retracted his statements and said that he doesn't really know who he is.

Um, so I don't know, I guess I'd like to just know. I don't know that much about it. I will say that, I mean, of there, there's some of the accusations there that are not that interesting to me. Some of them obviously are. So I'd have to, I'd have to look at it closer. I don't live here, so I don't know that much about it, but based on any public polling, I don't, I don't think he's got much of a shot right now. So yeah, I would agree. Okay. Well, thank you. Thanks. Hello. Um, if you don't mind, could I direct this question to Mr. Roniswami?

Sounds great. Thank you. Welcome to UNC. So I have a genuine question for you. You were quoted saying that people who come to this country as family members are not the meritocratic citizens who should be accepted. I believe you achieve citizenship through your parental ties. Why would you have got the H-1B visa, which 70% of is given to Indian people? I also believe that your company hired employees on this visa. So why

Why are you turning your back on the Indian community, man? So I got two answers for you. Thank you for the question. First of all, a lot of the people who have come here through the H-1B system would tell you, as I would, that it's just a broken system no matter who you're seeking to serve. For example, you want to talk about special interests and lobbying? This is direct Silicon Valley lobbying that said that if you get your H-1B visa and you're hired by one company, you're effectively like a slave. You can't switch to a different company. That's not a free labor market. So there's so much that's broken and bureaucratized.

Here's the next question about the H-1B visa system is why the heck do we do it on the basis of a lottery when you could actually just select the very best people? So there's a lot that's broken about the administrative state, the bureaucracy. My general approach is when something's broken in government, you can't really fix it when it's lasted that long. You need to shut it down, start with a blank slate, and rebuild from scratch. And that's just a stylistic point that I've applied to this issue as to any other. Let me say a word about immigration policy more generally, though.

You could imagine an immigration system that selects for the smartest people to come to the U.S. You could imagine an immigration system that selects for the ones who are going to work the hardest. You could imagine an immigration system that selects for those who love the United States or know the most about the United States or speak the best English. You could imagine any of those, and we could have a debate which of those is the right immigration system to have. Turns out none of those is the quality that our current immigration system rewards. If I were to ask you, it would be a hard one for you to guess, but I'll give you a chance.

What do you believe is the number one human attribute that our current immigration system actually selects for? This guy next to me just said nationality, but I also just wanted to say really quick. I'll give you the answer to the question. I wrote a book about this. It just came out last month. The number one attribute that our current U.S. immigration selects for is your willingness to lie to the U.S. government.

Because if you're somebody coming from another country and you say that I can't seek asylum or say I'm seeking asylum because I'm not facing a bodily threat based on my own race or religion, the qualities required for actual seeking asylum, then you don't get in the country.

But if you show up at the southern border and check that box as you're instructed to by the cartels, whether or not you're actually facing that level of persecution, you do get into the country. So even drawn out of a hat and picking at random is still better than the system that we have right now. So my view on immigration policy is this. Make it real simple for you guys. Think about your nation like your body. No migration without consent allowed.

Consent should only be granted to migrants who benefit America, and those who enter without consent must be removed and must be punished.

And I think that those are three fair principles around which to redesign an immigration system. And number two is important. If there are immigrants who are going to benefit America, I'm obviously partial to that as a kid of legal immigrants to this country. If there are immigrants who are going to benefit the United States of America, that should be the standard that we actually use. It just turns out that's not actually the standard we're using today. So that's where I land on it. Thank you for the question.

Do you have a quick follow-up? Okay, thank you. Quick follow-up? Yeah, sorry. Okay.

Hey, both of y'all. Good to see you. Thanks for coming down to talk to students. Quick question for Vivek, if that's okay. Could you really quickly just name me the two longest rivers in the United States? Yeah, the Mississippi River, number one. Number two? Missouri. Well, you can think Missouri. I mean, the Rio Grande is not technically in the borders of the United States. Am I right? Mississippi and Missouri. Yes, it would be Mississippi and Missouri. And...

Thank you, Vivek, for answering the question. So the reason why I bring that up is – I love trivia. The Rio Grande borders us, so you've got to debate there. But I hope that was a productive use of our exchange. What is the purpose? I have a question. So obviously while we were running for president, you supported a civics test for 18- to 24-year-olds. Yay!

The current version of that test in the citizenship test asks geography questions. So I'm a full-time student. I really don't have time to study for more exams to earn my right to vote. So I wanted to ask you, why do you believe that we should be able to answer these silly questions to access our constitutional rights? So the last question was about immigration directed at me, and it directly relates to this one.

So it turns out that every legal immigrant to this country who becomes a citizen, before they cast a vote, they could have paid millions of dollars in taxes. They could have made all kinds of contributions to this country, started businesses that employed hundreds or thousands of people. But they don't get to vote in this country and they don't get full citizenship until they do two things first.

One is show that they know some basic facts about the United States of America and how our government works. And number two is swear an oath of loyalty to the United States of America. Those are two conditions required of any legal immigrant who becomes a citizen. Now, maybe you disagree with that. But my view is if we're going to require that of legal immigrants to this country, as we do,

then I think it makes sense for every high school senior who graduates from high school to be able to pass the same civics test required of every legal immigrant to this country and, yes, to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America because we've got a problem in this country. We've got a crisis of national pride right now.

Less than 16% of Gen Z. All right? Less than one out of five of your generation in this room says they're even proud to be an American. We've got a 25% recruitment deficit in our own U.S. military. So if I ran as U.S. president as I did to lead this country, I refuse to just sit idly by. Thank you, man. Refuse to sit idly by and just watch that happen. Our nation go into this decay of civic self-confidence.

And say we're actually going to step up and do something about it. And the least we could do is to demand some skin in the game that we know the basics about our country before somebody graduates from high school. That's where I'm at on that. And at least at the level of requiring a civics test for every person who graduates from high school, that is something legitimate for every governor to require in their state. And I stand by the policy. Thank you, my man. I appreciate it. I just have a quick question then. So why stop at 24? Why not that be the case with every citizen in the United States or –

So I would do it for everybody. So as a pragmatic matter, I would do it for everybody. I think it should be required for everybody for a condition for full citizenship. Difficulty comes with some practical implementation, but I'm with you on the principle there.

The practical implementation is when somebody's been voting for 40 years and then you say, I'm going to take away from something from you that you've already done. That makes it a lot more difficult to implement than to say somebody's already in school. So we can implement civic education into high school, make it easier for actual our high school young people in this country to know more about our country by replacing DEI indoctrination with actual civic education, which we're not doing in this country.

But while people are in school, you have a chance to start with a fresh slate that you probably can't do with somebody who's already 62 years old. So as a practical implementation, at least I would start with that. But if I could have it my way, would we do it for everybody? You're darn right we would. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, everybody. Charlie Kirk here. What an unbelievable start to 2024. We had last month saving babies with preborn by providing ultrasounds. And we're doing again this year what we did last year. We're going to stand for life because remaining silent in the face of the most radically pro-death administration is not an option. As Sir Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And we're not going to do nothing.

Your gift to pre-born will give a girl the truth about what's happening in her body so that she can make the right choice. $280 can save 10 babies. $28 a month can save a baby a month all year long. And a $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come. And will also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret.

Call 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229. Or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com. That is charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner. Also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I'm a donor to this organization. They're terrific. Go to charliekirk.com. Click on the pre-born banner.

Hi, Mr. Ramoswamy. Hi, Mr. Kirk. On behalf of everybody, thank you for visiting our campus. I've appreciated your work for a long time. Thank you, man. So as a proud American college student and a child of South Korean immigrants, I'm particularly invested in our country's immigration policy.

So one of the reasons that I've decided not to vote for Trump this year is because he had said verbatim, quote, what I want to do and what I will do is if you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically as part of your diploma a green card to be able to stay in this country. And that includes junior colleges, too. This is not an offhand remark. He's doubled down on this policy repeatedly at his rallies, in interviews, and on Truth Social in June, August, and again three weeks ago.

He's basically saying that green cards, which is permanent residency, should be automatic for all college graduates with no vetting and given even for two-year degrees, so not just for highly skilled workers. That's a radically open immigration policy. This is often justified by saying that we need the best and brightest from the world, but it effectively decreases wages for American workers and massively increases competition for jobs and housing. Basically, he's promising as many green cards.

as colleges will accept foreign students, while F1 OPT workers don't even pay Social Security or Medicare taxes on their wages.

And this cheaper immigrant labor only serves the Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires that are funding Trump's campaign this year, and the universities that are happy to accept tuition from rich foreigners, not American students that take out hefty loans for college and then cannot find a STEM job. There's already over 1 million foreign students in America, and there will be many more under Trump. I don't want us to become like Australia, where 3 to 4 percent of their entire population is students mostly from China or India.

Wait, last thing. I'm sorry. Mr. Kirk, I know that your stance on this topic has changed in the past. I've heard you shine light on your platform about over 20 million Americans, college students, set to enter the worst job market in American history. I've heard you mention correctly that over 15% of our nation is now foreign-born.

I've heard you call for a temporary stop to all visas. So how do you reconcile your perspective with Trump's policies? In short, why should we expect mass immigration to go down under Trump? Because frankly, I have no reason to expect. That was an interesting speech. Thank you. So first of all,

That's not Trump's current position. He has clarified that, just so we're clear. So he has clarified that that is not his current position. It would be merit-based, and not every single graduate would get a green card. But I would just be imagining – Plenty of times. Many times in the past couple months. I encourage you to look at it. But I do have a – you say you're not voting for Trump. So you're not voting for Kamala. There's no way, right? I'm not voting this year. But – so that's interesting. You say you don't want America to become like Australia –

If a lot of people don't vote, therefore Kamala wins, don't you think that would make us closer to Australia? No, not necessarily. I haven't heard Kamala espouse this green card staple to the policy. Oh, no, it's complete open borders. Well, on the open borders topic, well, that's actually really interesting that you bring that up because Trump himself didn't affirm this policy in 2016. Hold on, hold on. I just want to be clear. You think Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are in the same galaxy on immigration? I like Trump's rhetoric on immigration much more. I do. I do.

But I don't think –

We did have record high illegal immigration crossings. Well, actually, no, we didn't. It went down the record low. And right now we have record high illegal immigration crossings under Biden and Harris. That's true. But so, yeah, I just want to be clear, though. But you just said it wasn't true like 10 seconds. No, no, no. It's true that it was a record at the time, but it's not. It's now a new record. OK, so but I just want to be very clear, though.

That this is more directed at you and because you had a nice little soliloquy there. And it's just this, you staying at home will hand the keys to the kingdom to someone that will destroy this country.

And so if you actually had the objections and that wasn't some prepared speech that someone gave you, you'd be crawling over grass or glass or both to go vote for Trump because he's someone that is a much better fit for your worldview. See, Donald Trump not only is better immigration, but I'm sure that you're better fit with him for many other issues as well.

but not voting at all, that all it does is it makes you feel good while your country burns, the country that your parents immigrated to, to try to make sure that you had a future. It does no good, except it makes some point here at an event. I appreciate that remark, and I do like his rhetoric on immigration more, but...

Legal immigrations, the 85,000 H-1C visas were capped out every year of Trump's first presidency. Legal immigration, mass legal immigration stayed at an all-time high. That's fine. I have a question. Do you think the Trump presidency or the Biden-Harris presidency, which one was better for America? Generally, all issues. The first Trump term was better. So then why wouldn't the second Trump term be better than a Kamala term? Because he's changed his tune on a lot of policies and accepted a lot of funding that I don't.

Yeah, again, first of all, it's not true. But shouldn't you say, okay... Well, in 2016, he was against H-1B. Everything in life is a lesser of two evils. You're not voting for a perfect candidate. Right now, you have a binary choice. You have Donald Trump, who was an excellent president. You have Jezebel, who's been a terrible vice president. Which, obviously...

One is going to be better than the other. One will secure the border, prevent World War III, you'll have a better home. You want to own a home, right? You want to be able to have wages go up, obviously. Or you could just give the keys to the king, the Kamala Harris, be a rent for the rest of your life. Think about it. My last remark is my concern is that a Trump presidency would quell the dissidence and the dissatisfaction that's been found in the last four years while not fixing our problems simultaneously.

I'll just give you one final case. If we have a country of Kamala wins. I think just to pick up on that last point, you could just change the whole topic to the last point you made. Under whose presidency are you more likely to actually even be able to be a dissident? Right. On one hand, you have a regime that's been in charge. That's what we're going to censor you on social media. You say the wrong thing about where the pandemic began. You say the wrong thing about the Hunter Biden laptop story. You put an American flag on your profile. You're often targeted for further scrutiny.

That's not America. So if your top concern is your ability to be an effective dissident from the right, from the left, or whatever, I think this election clearly is about censorship on one side versus free speech on the other. And the fact of the matter is I think your view that you just expressed here might be pretty high on the Kamala Harris administration list of views that need to actually be silenced by the time she's in charge. So forget about the actual policy. Even your ability to express it is what I think is on the ballot this time around, and I encourage you to think about it that way. Thank you both. I really appreciate it.

So it's very nice to meet you both today. Is that a Lamar Jackson jersey? Yeah, it is. Yeah, so it's very nice to meet you guys today. Mr. Kirk, I have a question for you regarding a past thing you said about abortion.

So in a previous conversation you had, you said that if you're in a hypothetical situation, if your 10-year-old daughter was raped – I've only answered this question three times today. But yeah, so let me – I'll tell you exactly what I said. Yes, my family, if my daughter were to be raped, we would not be comfortable if my daughter would have a pregnancy without complications murdering an unborn child. That is the values of our family, correct. So I have a question for you. Somebody in this audience was conceived in rape. Can you tell me who?

How am I supposed to know that? Exactly. Because human rights apply to all humans regardless of how they're conceived. Secondly, secondly. Let me tell you something. Secondly, I have an ultrasound in front of me. One is a baby conceived in rape. One is a baby conceived in a loving relationship. Which one is which?

Repeat that again. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. There's two ultrasounds. On one screen is a baby that was conceived in rape. The other ultrasound is a baby conceived in a loving, monogamous relationship. Which one is which? Well, it depends when we're looking at the ultrasound because I would note it as a fetus rather than a baby. Well, hold on. No, no, no. But you can't tell the difference between the two. The point being is that universal human rights apply to all people regardless of the method of birth.

conception, correct? Now, of course, we acknowledge that rape is terrible and awful, but when in life is doing something evil after an evil act permissible, acceptable, or okay? So, it's not evil because it's not murder, first of all. Okay, no, that's fine. That's where we disagree. So you asked my personal position. It's very clear that abortion is murder. We can discuss that and debate it. But my position is not unreasonable...

If you were to believe that killing an unborn baby is murder, which I do, and our family does, and that's the position of our family. Now, I would ask you, since it is not a – it's a fetus, what species is the fetus? It is a homo sapien species. Got it. So it's a human. Well, then, therefore, doesn't – shouldn't it get human rights if it's a human?

Well, I think human rights apply to personhood. Got it. So when does it become a human worthy of rights? Tell me the moment, the time, and the second. I would say at about 16 to 18 weeks. Oh, that's a range. You've got to be more specific because human rights are pretty important. You've got to give me like a specific time. Okay. I would say just 18 weeks of gestation. Why there? Why not 10 weeks? Because that's when complex brainwave activity forms. Okay. Actually, brainwaves start at eight weeks, but let me be very clear here.

Why is it that brain activity is equal to moral worth? When someone is quote-unquote brain dead, which we don't even understand where consciousness resides, we know so little about the brain that neuroscientists can't even tell you where your own thoughts occur in the brain, that when someone is quote-unquote brain dead, do you know that women still have periods when they're brain dead?

Do you know that when you cut someone who is, quote-unquote, brain dead, their adrenaline was spiked? Do you know that when someone is, quote-unquote, brain dead and a loved one comes in, their heart rate increases? So someone that is brain dead is still very much alive. In fact, we have hundreds of documented examples of people that were called brain dead by hospitals and doctors that, quote-unquote, come back to full brain activity. And the difference is when you have a baby that is unborn, has brain waves at eight weeks, uninterrupted and absent intervention, those brain waves will develop into a complete brain.

and fully developed human being as you and I are. So it's not the same thing, but why is brainwaves moral worth? Well, I describe moral worth as like relation to consciousness and consciousness begins at about 20-ish weeks. That's when it first appears.

because that's when complex brainwave activity starts. You say at eight weeks that brainwave activity occurs, which is true. That is true. But I'm speaking more just mainly about... Yeah, so we just have a disagreement here. Let me intervene. I'm not 100% sure we're going to leave with a disagreement. Let's test this out. So I'll give you a true case. It's a real case. Clarence Thomas spoke about it from the bench and the hearing of the Dobbs case. Walk through it with us. There's a pregnant woman who's walking down the street. She's assaulted.

Physically. The unborn child dies as a result of the assault. Do you believe that that criminal deserves some liability for that death? That's a very good question. I get the crowd wants to react. So you think that guy should walk away scot-free? Or do you think he deserves liability for the death of that unborn child? I deserve he does, but that... So let me just pause right there. He does deserve liability for the death of that unborn child, which suggests that...

You may not disagree as much as you think you do. It's a human life then. If you deserve liability for it, then you kill the human life.

I mean, I still separate murder from abortion, so it's not, I don't agree. Well, hold on a second. You could keep saying that, but the only way that the abortionist argument works is if you have a moral dimension for people that are outside the womb and a different moral dimension for people inside the womb. Those of us who are pro-life believe that morality transcends your size, location, environment, or degree dependency. Just because you're smaller and developing within utero doesn't mean you have a different moral framework that is applied to you.

that you have universal human morality regardless of how small you are. And we don't have to agree on that, but that's the pro-life position. The pro-abortion position, you have to constantly be doing contortionist arguments. Well, it's the mom's body. Well, actually, it's two bodies because you have two sets of DNA. Well, it's in the mom. Well, okay, do people in Cincinnati get less human rights than people in Raleigh? Of course not. Oh, well, it's really small. I'm 6'5". Someone smaller than me gets less human rights? No, of course not. The moral standards that the abortionists will use on any of their arguments are carve-outs and exceptions

Because it's really hard to confront the truth of abortion, which is the murder and the slaughter of unborn children that did nothing wrong except want a place in this world. I mean, your argument is – I don't disagree completely with your argument because I know it comes from religion as well. I know that you have talked about –

But do you, and in Iceland, it is not just legal. It's the law. If a, if a woman finds out that she has a baby with down syndrome, should she be allowed to abort that baby based on that information? No. Okay. We agree. You and I, that's a very, that's a pro-life argument, by the way. Secondly, if a woman finds out she's having a girl and the couple wants a boy, should it be, should you be able to have sex selective abortion?

No. Okay. We agree, and that's a big deal because both those things right now are where this entire conversation is heading. And that's important because right now abortion is being considered birth control when it used to be safe, legal, and rare, and now it's abundant and public and taxpayer subsidized. So we're actually not that far off on this topic. And let me just ask you one question, more of a university educational matter about history here.

How familiar are you with the founding of Planned Parenthood as an organization? Do you know much about its history or its purpose when it was founded? I don't know much about it. I looked into it a while ago. I don't remember anything off the top of my head. Fair enough. And I just think it's worth understanding. You have no reason to have to be educated on this. But Margaret Sanger was a co-founder of Planned Parenthood. And this is relevant because Kamala Harris is now on one hand courting the black community, talking about reproductive rights.

when the whole project was actually started to stop the reproduction of African Americans in the United States of America. That's the ugly, sordid history of how the pro-abortion agenda expanded politically in the U.S. And so I just think it's also worth tracing. I know that's not directly responsive to the really scientifically grounded attempt at the exchange you all had, but I do think that it is worth keeping in mind the political backdrop. It does irk me a little bit.

When I see a presidential candidate talk about reproductive rights, say I care about the future of the black community, and I also think that those two things have been deeply intentional to one another because the whole project was about preventing the depopulation of certain kinds of people in America. And sadly, that's exactly the effect that it's also had.

Pertaining to also the fertility crisis that was the subject of an earlier question too. So we've got to look at these things as a whole. And I would just encourage you to look at these logical puzzles around philosophical dilemmas can get you so far. But sometimes when you see it through the historical context, you see things a little bit differently on the other side of it too. Thank you for the question. Thank you. I'm trying to have my homies report. Okay, okay.

Hello. Thank you guys for coming. I wanted to ask you guys about climate change today. So in my opinion, it is the most important issue of our time. And I'll start by saying that research shows that America, or I mean not Earth, does not have long, but that would be America too. A recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that we only have about a decade to turn things around before we go over. I know they said that 30 years ago.

A critical threshold. This is what scientists are saying. They've never been wrong. Just wear the mask in the shower, right? Trump says, drill, baby, drill. Harris supported the Green New Deal and helped pass the Inflation Reduction Act. Why is Trump's opinion better on this issue? So I'll tell you why. I think climate change does not rank as a top 100 issue for Americans today. I think, and here's why. Here's why.

Before I get into actually just a little bit of history here, I'm going to make a little bit of a historical mode today. Charlie said they've been saying that for 30 years, and that's right, that we only have another 10 years left. Actually, it's a little longer than that, Charlie. It goes back to the 1970s. So if you pull up the cover of Newsweek or Time magazine, back in the day they used to have these things called magazines that were like paper copies of things they mailed to people's homes. But I was alive when that happened. They had these Newsweek and Time magazines they would mail to your home.

On the cover of it was warning of the effects of global climate change. Unless we stop burning fossil fuels, we're actually going to have not global warming, but an ice age. That's what scientists as recently as the 1970s were worried about. What they realized was that actually they started tracking these global surface temperatures and they weren't really going down. We're not on our way to that ice age.

At which point they just changed their mind and said, oh, actually the real problem isn't the global ice age. No, no, no, no. It's actually the other thing because temperatures are going up a little bit. Let's call it global warming.

Now, there were a few years through 2012, about a five-year streak where temperatures came down. They still didn't change that strand. So now what are the actual facts we have? I don't care about what somebody calling themselves a scientist says. I care about what the actual facts say. There's facts that the hottest year on record. So I'll give – it happens to be a study, a subject that I have studied quite deeply, and I'll give you hard facts on this without opinions. Are global surface temperatures going up by a little bit? Number one, yes, they are.

Number two, is that directly attributable to carbon dioxide? Far more controversial. You can actually look at the – let me ask you a question. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is comprised of by carbon dioxide today? That is a non sequitur. I'm asking a question because it's instructive facts, science. It's a very small percentage. Nitrogen makes up – we don't breathe nitrogen. I should raise the argument. Why do we need oxygen? Of course we need – carbon dioxide can still have an impact. If I may –

0.04% is carbon dioxide today. That is one of the all-time lows in the history of the Earth. And in fact, in most periods where carbon dioxide was a higher percentage of the global atmosphere, you actually had ice ages on Earth. So the idea that carbon dioxide is responsible for the slight increase of global surface temperatures is itself at least questionable. But here's the big question that nobody asks, and we've got to get to it.

What is our level of confidence that a slight increase in global surface temperatures is on net a bad thing for humanity? It turns out that eight times as many people die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones every year. Can I – may I say that? And yet we're obsessing. I'm going to finish this point and then I'll give it right back to you.

The best way to prevent all temperature-related deaths is more plentiful, abundant access to fossil fuels. And so the Earth today is actually more covered by green surface area than it was a century ago because carbon dioxide is plant food, and they tend to grow in slightly warmer conditions. So I think the evidence, actually, if you had to pick, is stronger to suggest that on balance, a slight increase in global surface temperatures, which is exactly what we're experiencing...

is actually on net a positive for humanity rather than the thing that's killed more human beings throughout human history, which are global ice ages, which is exactly what they worried about in the 1970s. So on the back of that evidence to say somehow we got to stop burning fossil fuels when actually more people are dying of bad climate change policies than are dying of climate change itself is

I think is asinine and I think it is anti-human and I think it is going to result in the degradation of the West as we ship those same fossil fuels to places like China in the name of stopping global warming. As the same people who oppose fossil fuels are also opposing nuclear energy, the greatest form of energy production that's carbon-free known to mankind. It doesn't make sense because this is actually a cult, a substitute for a modern religion. And I think the climate change agenda, if it's representative of anything,

It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with the loss of actually faith and meaning and purpose and actually self-conviction and belief in God in our country. That's actually what I think it's about. I think that you have taken this question on a completely other side of the – the AMOC in the Atlantic is – scientists are now saying that it is struggling and may collapse within the next few years, which will bring –

cold temperatures to the northern Europe. So as you argued that cold temperatures are worse for humans than warm temperatures, heating up of the earth will bring warm temperatures to Europe. That will surely degrade the West. I don't see how you're saying that climate change is not real. I mean, like, what real... Climate change is real. It's been real since the start of the earth.

Climate change has existed as long as the earth has existed. But the idea that we as human beings are contributing to this in a way that's net negative to humanity is a myth. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with China actually laughing at every step of the way while we impede ourselves in the West. China burned more coal last year than they've ever burned in history.

of their existence as a country. The United States burned less. Are we better off for it? No, we're not. Is the world worse off for it? Yes, we are. Not only because China's catching up to the United States, but actually in the name of this climate agenda, we forget about actually what I think we should care about,

Which is clean air and clean water. And China's coal is actually far more dirtier for the air than even that which we burn in the United States. So the whole thing fails at every level. And what it is, is you got a modern Joan of Arc figure, I guess they call her Greta Thunberg, that is offering a substitute for religion that we've lost. And I do think that when you stop believing in your nation, you start pledging allegiance to new movements or flags instead.

This is just evidence of a deeper hunger for a cause. Climate change is what we've latched on to, abandoning the facts. And as somebody who majored, I was a molecular biology undergrad at Harvard, I'll tell you a simple rule of thumb to say whether you actually are following science or not.

If your conclusion was going to be the same, regardless of what the data tells you, that means you're not actually following science. So that's to say that if they said it was going to be a global catastrophe if global surface temperatures go up, that that's a problem. But then they discover the risk might be that global surface temperatures would go down, and that's a problem. It means that the data didn't matter to them in the first place. It was a separate agenda that they were using the data as a smoke screen to push, and that's exactly what's happening with the modern climate agenda. Thank you for the question. Thank you.

Let me ask a question. Do you think our country is going in the right direction or does it feel like everything is falling apart? If you're feeling alarmed, you're not alone. In fact, Americans from all walks of life have taken action to prepare for whatever is coming next. And that starts with an emergency food supply.

Restoring food in your home is the right thing to do because we're living in wild times, which explains why so many people are preparing. Right now, you can get ready to with a three-month emergency food kit from My Patriot Supply. It comes with delicious foods like creamy storgonoff, honey wheat bread, and mushroom rice pilaf. This entire kit...

offers over 2,000 calories every day. This kit lasts up to 25 years. Who knows what our country will look like then? But when the day comes, you'll be ready. Go to MyPatriotSupply.com. That is MyPatriotSupply.com to order your three-month emergency food kit. You are nine meals away from anarchy. Go to MyPatriotSupply.com.

Good evening. Thank you for coming to our beautiful campus today. I have a question about college is a scam, referring to what you said, Mr. Kirk. It's who you know, not exactly what you know or what degree you have. What do you say to the people that come to college for the connections that it provides to those and getting to meet those people? Super overrated.

So in terms of – I mean I'm here today from a connection. Someone gave me here and I'm speaking to you, gentlemen. Non-college graduates can attend this event too. I didn't – if I wasn't here, I wouldn't have known about it. I wouldn't have been here tonight. You don't have the cell phone?

I mean, yeah, we promoted it. I just think every argument about college is like so silly to me. I'm going to go meet people. Like, okay, so you want to go get drunk for a couple of years? Like, I mean, seriously, as if it's the only place you can ever meet people is a college campus. I mean, there's a great article you guys got to watch from Wall Street Journal. How many of you guys want to be millionaires? Every hand goes up. You know you could be a millionaire in five years? Wall Street Journal, new class of millionaires, thousands.

thousands of millionaires a year that are HVAC and plumbers. Private equity cannot find enough of them. They are earning $3 million a year doing plumbing. You guys aren't going to do that. You guys are going to be like a Deloitte miserable in some sort of dimly lit office. Ooh, it was so worth it going to Chapel Hill. My fraternity was a lot of fun. I'm trying to pick on you. It's just you guys are all being scammed. You're all being deceived. And meanwhile, you're going to be like, oh, wow, I need to get my toilet fixed. The guy was going to roll up in a Maserati. Oh.

And you'd be like, but at least I went to UNC Chapel Hill. So for my career personally. I'm giving you somewhat of a hard time. Yeah. That's what I mean. It's okay. For personally my career, college here and the connections it has given me has allowed me to. What are you studying?

So I'm actually studying statistics, but I'm trying to be – I'm trying to work in a football front office when I get older. So being here has allowed me to make connections with the UNC football team and provide that knowledge. So when I eventually do get in that field and working for the team, it will allow me to have that connection. That's great. I mean you make something of it. I just – I want to interrupt you. You guys don't have to defend an institution that's scamming you.

It's like, I always find it again. It's not just you. I go to these places. They're like, well, Charlie, college, not a scam for me. It's like, how much are you paying in tuition? Can I ask? 45, how much? 45, 45 a year. Yeah, dude. Imagine this. Like you're trying to tell me for a cool 200 grand and four years of free time, you couldn't get a connection at some football team.

Like you couldn't go up to someone and be like, yo, I'm going to take you out to the nicest dinner, wherever it takes. Do that in 10 cities and find someone to take a chance on you. Of course not. Like the point is that we don't teach our kids to scrap or hustle anymore. We have this ridiculous oligarchy that you have to go borrow a bunch of money and get into the secret society, the frat club. And then maybe you might be able to navigate it and meet somebody. It's all BS.

The life goes to the person who wants it the most. If you scrap, if you hustle, you have good ethics and integrity and yes, 200 grand, you could go a long way instead of, you know, studying a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter, find jobs that don't exist.

Okay. I would personally from the football world and from the people I know who have told me to come to college to learn from these people and build those connections. Okay, it's fine. I'm glad it's working out for you. I'm telling you from the outside looking in, the world is vastly changing, more than you guys realize. And your little certificate as a piece of paper means nothing for those of us that actually employ people. I employ 1,500 people. If I find out you go to college, I'm a little skeptical of you.

I mean that. I would partly agree with that. No, no, no, for sure. Again, it's fine defending it. I'm being somewhat sarcastic for a reason. I just hope you guys realize the world is vastly changing, and what you guys thought was going to be a benefit is going to be an anchor, and the people that are the plumbers, electricians, the welders, and the muscular class have no debt and right now a lot of cash. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, two more.

Well, I just want to say, Mr. Kirk, I really admire you. I love your passion. I love how patient you are answering these questions. Thank you for coming to UNC. And Mr. Ramaswamy, I have the utmost respect for you. Last year, I had no idea who you were. I saw you in these debates. The whole country knows you now. I just love how you speak. So thank you both of you guys for coming here. Thank you. So I just want to start by asking you guys, you guys keep talking about how important homeownership is in this election cycle. So can you explain why homeownership is important, firstly?

Yeah, well, I can just tell you, as someone, when I bought my first home, your mentality changes immediately from when you're renting to when you're owning. As soon as you own, you're more invested in your community. You actually look at a property tax bill. Number three, we see studies of this. The three things that create you, that create conservative politics or worldview is mating, marriage, mortgage. And those three things are increasingly not happening with young people. And not to mention the way the tax code is currently written, it's that it's rigged in favor of homeownership.

that you get a mortgage interest-based deduction so you can write it off. Number two, you're literally putting money in a piggy bank for 30 years. And if standard operating procedure continues, that asset will gain value, if not keep value over a period of time. And so whereas renting, you're making somebody else rich and you yourself are not actually putting any money in a durable, lasting way to build equity. Vivek, do you have a thought on that? Yeah, look, I think that

Part of what we miss right now is just a groundedness in who we are. Okay. I think we've lost that at every level that I'm a vague global citizen fighting climate change somewhere versus a citizen of the United States of America, that that means something to me. That goes from the climate change to the civics question from earlier. Part of what we're missing is that I'm a member of a family, that I have a mother and a father that I believe in being grounded as a member of a family. It's part of my identity. And as part of that, I just think there's something about human nature that requires a

a grounding in your home, to know that that's permanent rather than fleeting. It gives you a greater skin in the game in your own community. And our founding fathers understood this when they actually said you had to be a landowner back then even in order to vote. I'm not saying that's the right solution. But they recognized the fact that we're at our best when we feel grounded and have skin in the game in the country and the community where we actually live. Now, we've made homeownership really difficult in this country, in part because the supply of new home construction is basically limited.

I wouldn't say non-existent, but artificially constrained by all these arbitrary zoning requirements, land use restrictions. And it's especially hard for your generation because they actually restrict the ability to build smaller homes, exactly the kind of homes that young people might want to own after they graduate from college.

or graduate from high school, often with a lot of debt on their shoulders. And I think that's got to go. That's all the product of special interest and lobbying. And I don't think that you have to own a home that looks exactly like the ones next to you and have to be larger homes rather than smaller ones. I think you still can get that same sense of grounding by being a smaller home of a kind that the current regulations aren't allowing to be built.

That's a policy failure. I think Donald Trump is very focused on fixing this at a federal level. But a lot of this is a state issue, too, that's going to be fixed mostly by red states that are doing a lot better on bringing those housing costs down than a lot of blue states where they've gone up. So that's what I'm telling you from a policy. Thank you. Thanks. This will be the last question. Thank you. We've got to get to the next one. Thanks. We're over time. Thank you. One more. No, not you. One more. Thank you.

Vivek, I appreciate your candor during your appearance on the All In podcast, where David Freberg raised concerns about monetary policy and deficit spending as existential threats to our nation. I share these concerns, believing that politicians often engage in vote buying or artificially inflating markets.

Do you support transitioning to a system where the U.S. dollar is backed by gold or another standard? If not, what alternative would you propose? Additionally, why should we remain at the mercy of the Federal Reserve regarding monetary policy? Isn't increasing the money supply, thereby reducing the scarcity of our dollar, a form of taxation without proper representation?

Yeah, I mean, what are you up to right now? Are you like in college? Are you graduating from here or what? I'm in this program called CSTAP, so I'm in Wake Tech, and I'll be transferring in next year. I just asked because we need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve, and you seem to have a better understanding of it than the people who have occupied that job in the past. So, you know, we could talk after if you're looking for some jobs afterwards to get the chairman of the Federal Reserve's open next January.

Here's the thing. So people understand this becomes like an esoteric issue. It actually matters to you. So the Federal Reserve has been openly hostile to wage growth in this country. Actually, part of the reason the bottom 99% in inflation-adjusted terms have remained flat, only the top 1% has gone up, is because of the Federal Reserve. They treat inflation, historically the last 25 years, as a leading – they treat wage growth as a leading indicator of inflation.

So that means they tighten monetary policy right into a natural downturn of the business cycle because wages is the last thing to go up, which gives you these boom-bust bailout cycles. That 2008 financial crisis I referred to earlier, that was created by a lot of these failed policies. And what do you have on the back of it? You have a government bailout that taxpayers pay for. So we've been through that enough times that the right answer – I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea of tying the U.S. dollar to gold. I'd just add a few more commodities to that basket because I don't want to be tied to any one commodity.

But hard assets stabilize the U.S. dollar as a unit of measurement, period. Right now, what the Federal Reserve has been doing, it's like the analogy I'd use is like a drunken man at a bar throwing darts, trying to hit two targets at the same time with one arrow and missing badly on both. That's inflation and unemployment. They've missed on both.

And so the right thing we need to do is to stabilize the U.S. dollar as their sole goal. That's easy to do. Now, this is a broader lesson that applies to the rest of government. It's really important. We don't need 20,000 employees. It's about 23,000 employees at the U.S. Federal Reserve right now. We don't need 23,000 people to do that simple arithmetic calculation. We need fewer than 2,000, probably only several hundred to get that job done. And that reveals the greater problem with our government.

Which is that when you have thousands of unelected bureaucrats showing up to work, the biggest cost isn't even their salary cost. It's that these people find random things to do. And that's exactly what's happened with the Fed, but it's also what's happened with the rest of the federal government. And so if we're going to save this country and actually get serious about it, we're going to think about what's real in the next four years. What are you going to get from Donald Trump? I hope that you're not going to get from any other politician.

Is mass downsizing of that federal government. We got questions about the immigration policy. And yes, we're going to have mass deportation of millions of illegals who are in this country illegally. I support that.

But don't forget the second mass deportation that we also need, which is the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy. That is how you save a country. And I'm blaming – you can blame the left. I'm actually going to blame Republicans here because for years, Republicans have believed in this model of incremental reform, right? You tidy it around the edges. You cut off one head of an eight-headed hydra. It grows right back. No, if you're serious –

You've got to strike this beast at its core. You're not going to reform the bureaucracy, but if we're really serious about this, we're going to get in there and shut it down. That's the stuff of how you save a country, not just the Fed as in the Federal Reserve, but the Fed as in the federal government bureaucracy as we know it. So I appreciate the question, young man. Thank you. Can I say one thing? Thank you. We're out of time. Thank you.

I just want to remind all you guys, you have to go vote and vote early. You're not voting for Trump or Harris. You're voting for 5,000 people that will fill your government. Which one better fits and better suits your worldview? You have Donald Trump that will have Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, Bobby Kennedy, a team of all-stars, or Kamala Harris that has Anthony Fauci, Mayorkas, Tony Blinken, the most unimpressive people you could possibly put together. Donald Trump. And also, how about Vivek in the administration, everybody? How great would that be?

Go vote. Get five friends to go vote for Trump. This state of North Carolina might be the deciding state. You need to show up, get your friends out to vote, and together we'll take back this country in just two weeks. Thank you guys so much. God bless you. Thank you guys. Thanks so much for listening. Everyone emails us always freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.