our extra risk is, nor can they tell you if you have enough immunity that you're in good shape with or without a vaccination. They're not testing your antibodies or how long they're going to last. They don't know and you don't know either.

If the government doesn't know what's up with you and you don't know what's up with you, because you don't know if your natural immunity is the good kind or the bad kind, you don't really know if those extra vaccinations would give you any protection. But you do know there's a risk. You don't know how big it is because nobody knows, but you've got a risk, right?

All right, so I would say that the argument is squarely on the side of letting people with natural immunity decide for themselves whether they want vaccinations. And AP fact check might be technically true, but I feel like it's leaving out some variables here.

All right, so there was a Twitter user, Ward Q Normal. I don't think that's his real name. Maybe it is, I don't know. But he says, I will pay you a thousand dollars. He was replying to somebody else. If you can define critical race theory and point to a single K-12 school in Virginia that has ever taught it. So there's a thousand dollars if you can define critical race theory and point to a single time it's been taught.

Do you think you could do that? Well every Republican thinks they can do that and get that thousand dollars. You think he'll pay? No he will not, because no matter what you point to, what's he gonna say? "That's not critical race theory." You'll say, "Well but look at this. Here's the book. It's like totally based on critical race theory." And what would Ward Q Normal say when you ask for your thousand dollars, having proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Ward Q Normal would say, "No, that's not critical race theory. No, no, you're mistaken. That's just history. You're just reading history."

So we have this weird situation where we have this thing that can't be defined by ordinary people. I do believe experts could probably define it if they study this thing. But for ordinary people they seem to be confused. And therefore there seems to be some issue that the Democrats are arguing, "No, no, it's imaginary. It's not really there."

But let me tell you what people are really good at identifying. People are not really good at identifying if something fits a definition, so we're kind of arguing the definition of critical race theory. We're not good at that. But I'll tell you what we are good at. We are good at knowing if the curriculum is anti-white. I think we'd be good at knowing if it was anti-anything, because that's pretty easy to spot. I don't care what it's called. You can call it critical race theory if you want. Call it anything you want. But if it's anti-any ethnicity, it doesn't matter which one, you've got to get rid of it. There's no wiggle room there. If it's racist, it doesn't matter which race you're targeting. Got to get rid of it. That's not debatable.

So here's how CNN refers to it. They say the term critical race theory refers to the academic concept that racism has been systematically ingrained in American society following centuries of slavery. And I would say that most people would agree that that's what critical race theory is. Would you agree that the big picture, that's what it is? But the issue is when they try to break it down into its lessons, what does it turn into? And what it turns into is something else when you turn it into action.

And conservatives are c