is big prominent conservative guy who's making a lot of noise and people don't like it. They do not like it. And he's saying things which they consider just flat out racist. Oh my god. How can you say things were better when clearly the laws and everything else were just purely discriminatory? How could that be better, Charlie Kirk?

Well, if two of the facts were the crime rate and the housing ownership, you know how you could maybe work through that? How about a public debate on a college campus in which Charlie Kirk says, "You can ask me anything." And then maybe somebody could stand up there and say, "You say home ownership was better, but I talked to Grok and Grok says that's wrong." And I looked at a couple of sources and they say you're wrong. Wouldn't that be exactly the right place to work that out? A public debate, one of many, because it's an ongoing process, and you can invite anybody and they can ask anything. Anything. That would be perfect.

What about the crime rate? Where would be the perfect place to find out if Charlie was full of it on that one point or did he have some good point? How about an open public debate in which everybody can come and ask anything they want and he'll address it.

So on one hand I appreciate the push back on those particular points. I mean that seems like the right thing. There's doubt about those points. They're important to his point of view. Little bit of push back. But here's what I don't appreciate. The types of complaints against him use interesting words such as he's suggesting things. So the people who are his critics and that would include the ADL and Media Matters. The ADL and Media Matters. What do you know about those two entities? The ADL and Media Matters. They are not credible. They are both political. So they're not credible at all.

You want an example? The head of the ADL said in public that I'm a Holocaust denier recently, 2023. Now that so that's who is blaming Charlie but they don't say he said something bad they say he suggested it say he romanticized those earlier times romanticized they say he might have promoted it that the old things were better and that quote the dynamics that are inseparable from segregation. So he might have said some things that were a completely different point, but somebody thinks, well, it's inseparable from these other things you didn't mention, so you must have this opinion about the other inseparable things that you didn't mention. But he probably didn't. So, and that he was using quote white nationalist talking points. Do you know how often people on the right get accused of using white nationalist talking points which also happen to be just normal things that people talk about.

All right. So when you see that kind of attack with those kinds of words, it's like, well, he's suggesting and leaning toward and he's dog whistling. Generally, that means it's made up. Generally. But what was his point? And is there anything there that's salvageable? If you accept that he was wrong about crime being lower back then and if you accept that he was wrong about home ownership, is there anything that he did say about the changes in laws and stuff that would be valid?

And here's what I think is valid. I think it's valid to say that we've had an obsession with focusing on race instead of being colorblind. Now, does he have a good argument that if you just ignored all that stuff, you'd be ahead? Well, I don't know if that's a good argument. You know what would be a good way to determine if that was a good argument or not? A series of debates on college campuses that are ongoing in which anybody could ask him any question and he would answer it.

So unless you believed that Charlie Kirk was secretly a white supremacist pretending to be a man of God. None of this makes sense. It makes complete sense as somebody who was searching for the