right answers and wanted the best for everyone and thought that if we could at least be on the same page and understand the same set of facts, we'd probably be way ahead in figuring out how to get to a better place. If you believe that he literally was this bad person, you can kind of talk yourself into, well, he's a bad person. He didn't say anything bad. Maybe inaccurate, but being inaccurate is not that's not racist, right? That's just having a bad fact. But no, he promoted and he suggested and he romanticized. But if you don't think he's a monster, you don't see him romanticizing anything. He's just making sure that you understand the argument and which parts he's looking at, which parts he's not. That's not romanticizing anything to call it romanticizing. You're the problem. Whoever said he's romanticizing it, you're the problem. You are very much the problem. If he had simply said he said or he was inaccurate about or his argument didn't hold together because, then I would say, whoa, that's some good stuff you have there. That's a strong attack. But that didn't happen. Instead, the least credible entities in the world, the ADL and Media Matters, famously non-credible, famously biased, convinced half of the country that this man of God who loved everybody and didn't have a racist bone in his body was somehow this monster.

Now, here's what I think. I think when he was talking about Martin Luther King, he may have been talking about his personal life, which is just a matter of history. That his personal life was far from godly. You all know that, right? But does that matter? You know, I think you could argue that shouldn't matter. That his personal life was this or that. It should matter that he was focusing on what would be better for everybody, I guess. So I don't know that his criticism about Martin Luther King moves us in the right direction, but that's what the debates are for. Somebody could have asked, why do you say that, you know, he was awful. He was not a good person. He was a fraud.

Now, I'm pretty sure, you know, Charlie is well read, was well read. I'm pretty sure if you read some history books about him or any other famous person, white or black, doesn't matter their color, you could throw a dart and pick a famous person who was alive during those days and you would find some warts. You know that by now there would be okay, you know, he's your favorite president, but did you know this? Did you know this? And if you're a man of God, you might really care about the hypocrisy of a man of God not acting like one. Maybe that counted.

And as far as the Civil Rights Act, which he said was a huge mistake. Quote, because what happened? If you don't end, if you don't figure out what he means by because what happened, could you agree or disagree with the Civil Rights Act being a huge mistake? I don't think that he, I don't think the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake. What exactly did he even mean about that? I'll tell you what he didn't mean. He didn't mean that people should now have equal rights. He didn't mean that. Obviously, he didn't mean that he doesn't want what's best for black Americans. Obviously, he doesn't mean that. So he had some