e about us, they lose everything. That's why the Democrats are a hoax-y and that they run non-stop hoaxes. That's why the fake news is fake. Do you think that the people who do the news wouldn't prefer to tell you the truth? Oh, all things being equal, of course they would. Of course they'd rather tell you the truth, but not if it's bad for everything on the left. And it is.

Well, sort of a perfect accent to the day. They weren't the stars. Obviously Charlie Kirk, and I would argue that the attendees were the stars, but after Charlie and after his family and after the attendees, Trump and Musk looks like they made up. So they were up in the observation box. Trump was up there, of course, and Musk stopped by and the cameras caught them shaking hands and smiling and apparently burying the hatchet. And Trump being the brilliant communicator that he is, of course doesn't miss a moment. And he posts a picture on X taken from the back that shows the two of their heads kind of leaning toward each other in a friendly conversation way, but you only see the backs of their heads. You know who they are. And then you see the event that they're watching. And on the post on X it just said POTUS times Elon Musk for Charlie. In other words, they were inspired to make up because Charlie would have wanted that. We all wanted it. We all wanted it. But if that's what it took, if Charlie's tragic death caused them to make up for the benefit of the country, good. Very well done. Good. Good job, guys.

Trump was Trump. He gave a speech. I didn't hear his speech, but I saw some quotes. One of the quotes is this, from Trump talking about Charlie. He said, "He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them." Trump said, "That's where I disagreed with Charlie." Trump says, "I hate my opponents and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry." It should be noted that Trump's opponents wanted to put him in jail. Right. If your opponents want to put you in jail, you can hate them. There's nothing wrong with that. Yeah. I don't think it's too un-Christian-like to hate people who are trying to lawfare you out of your entire life. So maybe if Charlie knew what happened to him, he wouldn't be so happy about all of his haters. But he went pure. He went not hating his haters. You got to respect that.

So I'm going to save this note for later.

So I continue to be fascinated by the criticisms of Charlie Kirk because I wasn't aware of any of them. But apparently on the left there's a, well let's say I don't want to say understood because I don't think they understand but a well-known or they believe they know some things he said that they don't like. And I thought I would dig into, I tried to pick whatever I thought was the worst thing he ever said. I was looking into it and I think I'll cause some trouble by talking about that if you don't mind.

So no cat. Sorry. You okay? Okay. Half of my desk is on the floor now, but cat's okay. That's the important part.

So here's what Charlie said that caused people to say, "My goodness, what a bad person that Charlie Kirk is." Now of course things are a little out of context, etc. So I'll add the context so you can see what's going on here. Apparently at some point, and this I got from Grok, so Grok might be hallucinating a little bit, so you can fact check me on this. So I guess Charlie Kirk at one point made some remarks as part of a broader conversation against woke policies and affirmative action, all that. So there was a larger context but within that context he said, quote, "Martin Luther King was awful. Martin Luther King was not a good person. He was a fraud and the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake because what happened?"

Okay. All right. Now I can see why they might be a little bit mad at him. So the larger context here was that these things were meant to be positive, but they didn't work out for black people because nothing is better. I mean, things don't seem that much better.

So the first thing you need to know is, do you think that Charlie Kirk did not want what was best for black Americans or really anybody else? Who believes that Charlie Kirk in his secret mind was ever thinking anything negative about black Americans and how they could do to have a good life? Of course not. Of course not. He was not thinking, I want them to do poorly. He wanted them to do well. If you assume that he's a white supremacist, then everything he said, and I'm going to give you a little more details than this, everything he said could easily be hammered into that. Well I mean that's what bad people say. Oh yeah, there he is with that bad. But if you assumed that he was only trying to help then it's completely different. If he's trying to help, then he's saying those things that you thought were helping maybe had a downside that was much bigger than you thought. That would be his point.

Now here's where it gets interesting. And you can fact check me on this too. One of the things he said, I guess the bigger point was that Martin Luther King and civil rights were ways to sort of focus on color as being an important thing and he preferred a colorblind world where you know you want to get rid of all the bad stuff, you know still get rid of all the discrimination and all that of course but that you didn't obsess about okay you're black I'm white we're all different, that you thought the world would be better if we just sort of everybody did the best they could and nobody gets discriminated against and you don't talk about race every single second. So there's something to be said for that, right? That's not a bankrupt idea or anything. But apparently some of his argument was that homeownership used to be better for black Americans in the 60s. So that would be sort of at the tail end of the Jim Crow era, I believe. So do you believe that fact? Do you believe that home ownership was higher for black Americans in the 60s than it is now? I've been hearing that for years and I never looked it up. I just hear from everybody on social media. According to Grok, that's not even close to true. Now so I would ask you to go research that because it does not look like home ownership for black Americans was higher in the 60s according to Grok. Now if you have a source that says the opposite, you should, you know, if you can find one who said that to me on X, I'll take a look at it. I'm just sort of wading into this for the first time, so I'm not too confident. And I know some of you are now checking now.

Now would that blow you away if you learned that that was never true? Because I believe Charlie used to say that and that would have been if true, that would have been telling us something that we should have paid attention to.

How about this? Crime used to be lower during Jim Crow or in the 60s and for black Americans. Do you believe that? Do you believe that crime used to be lower when things were worse in terms of Jim Crow and discrimination? Do you believe that? Because I believe that Charlie claimed that as well. That's not even close to true. What's true is we have no idea because they didn't have good records back then. And you know didn't have good records in the sense that I'm not sure that every crime against a black person got reported if you know what I mean for a variety of reasons. It might have been sometimes because of discrimination, sometimes because they knew there was no point in even reporting it, you know no good could come from it. So apparently it is, and again I'm using Grok as my source so I don't have high confidence in what I'm saying. I'm just telling you where I got it. If Grok says it, probably that means that the most common sources also say it, I'm guessing.

All right. Now so those are two facts that were somehow seemingly important to Charlie's opinion that the changes since Jim Crow may have been well-intentioned but seem to have created a bad outcome. And we also know this part I think is true that the number of intact black families went from something like 65% in the 60s to now about 30, 35%. That's devastating. So the one thing I think both sides, both sides I shouldn't say, I shouldn't even say sides, the thing I think everyone would agree on is that family, the intact families took a hit. So that part doesn't seem to be under dispute, but the crime part is under dispute, and I think it's a reasonable dispute. And the home ownership is just I think it's just debunked. Just wasn't true.

All right. Now suppose you wanted to know for sure or get to the next level on whether or not Charlie's claims upon which he seemed to have built at least some part of his opinion. There's more to it of course. What would be the way to solve that problem where you've got th