How Wired Magazine Smeared Charlie Kirk – Part 3

How Media Matters Assassinated Charlie Kirk, Part 3

Let’s talk about the other article my friend sent me. It’s from Wired Magazine.

If you’re like me, you’re thinking…Wired??? Back when I was a young geek that was the magazine I turned to for gadget reviews, deep dives into innovation, and tech futurism. How did it become yet another outlet for political propaganda?

Wired is owned by Conde Nast. Sometime in the last 10 years, Conde Nast made a deal with the devil. Their publications got to stay in a business that was failing because their outdated subscription model no longer worked in an online world. But the price was that every one of their major publications would become a propaganda arm of the progressive left. The New Yorker always leaned left, but all of a sudden you had fashion magazines like Vanity Fair, Vogue, and GQ spewing out political propaganda. Even Architectural Digest got into the act, writing puff pieces about the Obamas.

By far the biggest accusation about Charlie Kirk was that he was that he was “racist”, a “Christian nationalist”, and a “White supremacist”.

The “obituary” to the right is just one example of the vitriol and hatred that the left had for Charlie after his death.

As abhorrent as the article that this “Professor Emerita of Law” wrote, here’s the frightening reality.

She believes everything she wrote, and she would swear it on a stack of Bibles and pass any lie detector test. As would my friend. As would the dancing TikTok ghouls.

She’s not the only one. Look at Google News and you’ll see news outlet after news outlet calling Charlie Kirk an “unapologetic racist” and someone who spewed out “racist and xenophobic rants”.

Even supposed “moderates” and “conservatives” are quick to distance themselves from Charlie’s words.

What do they these people all have in common?

This writer inadvertently provides the answer:

What did “social media feeds and news sources” show? Every last one showed short snippets of Charlie Kirk’s words that were presented COMPLETELY out of context or with zero context at all, with no attempt to even think critically about the point Charlie was trying to make.

If you ask any of these people badmouthing the memory of Charlie Kirk to cite just one quote in the context that he made it that proves that he was a racist, Christian nationalist, or White supremacist, they would not be able to give you one. Because such a quote does not exist.

The opinions of all of these people are not their own. Their opinions were assigned to them.

Charlie in His Own Words

So what DID Charlie Kirk say?

At AmFest 2023, there was a breakout session. Charlie fielded a question from a student who had posted social media messages against transgenderism.

After a Title IX complaint, this student was expelled from school.

Now think about this for just one second. What does the First Amendment of the US Constitution say? “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Pretty clear. And yet why is it that a law that was passed in 1972 by Congress punished this student for speech?

Title IX was part of The Education Amendments of 1972, a series of Amendments to various federal laws which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs. It was not part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was built on that Act’s framework, specifically Title VI which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.

First of all, let’s consider what Charlie was reacting to. A college kid posted something on social media that others found “offensive” and the full force of the US government was used to ruin his life. Charlie Kirk was no doubt angry when he heard this from the very student whose life was ruined.

This breakout session was so minor that it wasn’t even televised or recorded, but a yellow journalist named William Turton had his recorder taping every word. And like most modern day muckrakers, his objective in recording Kirk wasn’t to find truth, it was to capture something that he could exploit into an attack piece.

[The student] got kicked out of school under a Title IX complaint, using the Civil Rights Act, that we as conservatives worship. “Oh, MLK’s a great guy.” Actually MLK was awful. OK? He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe. [unintelligible] Go research MLK, you should go research him.

Charlie Kirk spoke thousands upon thousands of words on his podcasts, his radio show, his speeches, his debates, and his interviews. And yet it would be these 53 words, presented with zero context, that millions of Americans would hear and use to judge him as an unrepentant racist. This in spite of the fact that he has helped countless African Americans and is universally loved among Black conservatives.

And for those who say, “he should have known better than to say those 53 words” I just have one question. Have YOU ever said 53 YOU wouldn’t want broadcasted—with zero context—to millions of people?

Usually when a conservative or independent voice is “caught” saying something that the left would use to twist out of context to attack them, that person would be expected to apologize and beg for forgiveness. But to Charlie Kirk’s credit, he didn’t back down.

And good for him.

Because the whole point of freedom of speech is NOT to protect speech that everyone agrees with, it’s to protect speech that others find offensive, whether it’s questioning whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964, posting a joke to Instagram, or yes, leading a March on Selma. Anyone who views any one of these as “permitted speech” while viewing any of the others as “forbidden speech” does not understand the First Amendment.

So was that Charlie Kirk said about MLK and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “abhorrent”?

Those who are intellectually dishonest will immediately close their ears and shout you down, insisting that there is NO context where ANY human can question MLK’s character and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and NOT be a complete racist.

However, isn’t this the exact same attitude as segregationist hecklers who tried to shout Dr. King down in Birmingham, Selma, and Chicago?

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said about questioning things.

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. 

Ironically, we live in a world today where nobody cares if you question the deity of God. But question the deity of Martin Luther King, and you’re branded a heretic.

Here’s a challenge for those who are intellectually honest. If you are genuinely honest about wanting to understand the truth behind what Charlie Kirk said, do the following:

Listen to him in his own words. Watch this video of Charlie appearing on Fearless with Jason Whitlock.

99.99% of the people who hate Charlie Kirk will never do. They have made up their minds based on 53 words, and in their minds, the mere act of WATCHING this video makes someone complicit in his unrepentant racism. How is that different that religious fanatics who burned heretics at the stake or used racks to torture them into confession?

Let’s recap. First of all, yes, Charlie Kirk did say things that were provocative at the AmFest event. He’s not the first nor the last to say provocative things at a political event.

Organizations like Media Matters and their mainstream media acolytes like Wired typically quote these things out of context and then demand that the person who said it grovel and beg for forgiveness. To Charlie Kirk’s credit, he did not do this, knowing that he never said anything that was not grounded in fact and reason. Which is why the media had to twist his words.

Let’s take a look at the some of things Charlie Kirk DID say that you will never heard from Wired or Media Matters.

• MLK said admirable and heroic things.
• Academia has elevated MLK from a human to mythological status.
• Charlie Kirk has always held that in the 1960s there were legislative priorities that needed to be done to stop segregation.
• The Civil Rights Act went far beyond legislation to stop segregation and established a permanent bureaucracy that 1) sought racism where it didn’t exist, 2) implemented its own racist policies (such as affirmative action), 3) was co-opted by the LGBTQ movement, and 4) sought to promote “equity” (equal outcomes) and not “equality” (equal opportunity).
• MLK’s statement that he dreamed of a day when people would be judged “by the content of their character and not the color of their skin” was a beautiful statement. But the Civil Rights Act evolved into something that was the complete opposite of MLK’s words to the point. For example, DEI focuses solely on the color of skin and not on the content of character.
• Charlie Kirk points out that he never said that MLK was “evil”. He merely said that that he was not the “good guy” that those pushing to canonize him like a saint want everyone to believe. MLK, like all humans, had flaws and foibles. Why did Kirk mention this? If you listen to his full context, it was less to denigrate the man himself, and more to as criticism for those who insisted on raising him to god-like status who were looking to shape, manipulate, and co-opt MLK’s legacy to push for political power that in many ways went against MLK’s “Dream”.
• Speaking of “the Dream”, Charlie Kirk actually READ MLK’s writing towards the end of his life, where MLK veered into a form of cultural Marxism that was arguably contrary to the words in his own “I Have a Dream” speech that spoke of content of character over skin color. How many of those vociferously defending MLK’s positions and denigrating Charlie Kirk’s position can say that they read or listened to EITHER MLK’s or Charlie Kirk’s actual words towards the ends of their respective lives?

How Wired Magazine Intentionally Twisted Charlie’s Words out of Context

Now let’s look at the Wired piece.

As Charlie mentioned in the video at the 16:40 mark, he knew that Wired would take the “leaked” tape and exploit it to try to take him and TPUSA down.

You can see right away from the headline (which Wired knows is the only thing that the vast majority will read) Wired’s propagandistic angle.

A truly objective publication would have written the headline factually as “Charlie Kirk Questions the Long-Term Impact of the Civil Rights Act on the Black Community”.

But notice how a propagandist thinks.

Wired knows that all Americans have been taught that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was important landmark legislation that ended the horrific practice of segregation. And that MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech was one of the most iconic, beautiful speeches ever given.

Most Americans believe this, except for true racists. If you listened to the video above, you’ll know there was someone else who believed it too. Charlie Kirk.

But here’s the trick propagandists play. They paint a picture that if you even QUESTION one iota of the sacred doctrine of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the sacred character of MLK, you are just as abhorrent as the racists who reject everything about them.

Look at how Wired starts the article.

“In 2022, MLK was a “civil rights icon…In December 2023…Kirk struck a different tone. “MLK was awful”.

Wired wants you to believe that these statements are mutually exclusive and that Charlie Kirk changed in one year. What they fail to note is that both statements can be true at the same time.

Yes, MLK was a civil rights icon whose approach to non-violence and whose dream of a colorblind society was exemplary and heroic.

At the same time, MLK had personal foibles and political views in his later life that are part of history and that should be taken into consideration before anyone venerates MLK as a god.

We’re allowed to discuss the personal failings of historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy, while not tarnishing the contributions they made to American history. Why is MLK the only one exempt from this?

Let’s read on.

“For decades, conservatives have pointed to King and his idea that people should ‘not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character’ as a model for equality”.

Note the subtle use of language. Wired is setting up the premise that while conservatives once agreed with King, they no longer do. That is either intellectual sloppiness or outright dishonesty.

What does affirmative action do? Judge people not by their academic performance, but by the color of their skin.

What does DEI do? Judge people not by the content of their character or their merits, but by the color of their skin.

What does the concept of “reparations” and “income redistribution” do? Take money from a group of one skin color and distribute it in Marxist fashion to a group of other skin color.

Ironically, Conservatives has become the only political philosophy that TRULY upholds MLK’s Dream.

But like any good attack dog, Wired had its jaws fixed on Charlie Kirk and TPUSA and wouldn’t let go. The rest of the article is littered with dog whistles that COMPLETELY avoided any inkling of honesty, journalistic integrity, or even intellectual curiosity.

Notice the dog whistle words throughout. “Discredit the civil rights leader”, “right-wing politics”, “closely aligned with Donald Trump”, “reactionary politics”, “discredit civil rights law”, “extremely divisive”, “if that isn’t racist I don’t know what is”, “(he opposes) the federal law that ended segregation”, “King was wrong and maybe King was a bad person”, “attacks on King”, “discredit MLK”, “racist posts”, “abhorrent”, “attacks on King”, “extreme issues”, “totally unrestrained”, “increasingly radical’.

Notice that there’s one thing that Wired didn’t do. Examine just one point that Charlie made on its merits.

• Has the Left gone too far in co-opting exploiting MLK’s legacy to push for policies that look a lot like social Marxism?
• If you look at factual data about challenges in the Black community today, from disproportionate crime rates to broken families to an unprecedented amount of despair and hopelessness, can anything be traced back to unintended consequences of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
• If you walk into inner cities and urban centers, you see de-facto segregation on a level that is far more severe than legalized segregation prior to 1964.
  
  “He now seems totally unrestrained. He’s increasingly radical and is aligning himself with people like Blake Neff who exist in a particular subculture on the right.”

In this passage, Wired practices a favorite tactic among propagandists: guilt by association.

I didn’t know the story of Blake Neff until I watched Tucker Carlson hosting The Charlie Kirk Show. Please watch for yourself, starting at the 25:22 mark.

Oliver Darcy of CNN, another propagandist, instead of investigating real news, decided to cyber-stalk an anonymous account on social media called CharlesXII. He was able to determine through writing patterns that this account was owned by Blake Neff, a producer at The Tucker Carlson Show.

Neff was a kid at the time who posted jokes. Some of them poked fun at Blacks. Some of them poked fun at Asians. He never called for Blacks or Asians to be rounded up and sent off somewhere. The humor was just silly, stupid juvenile talk, the kind that you hear in every middle school and high school playground and locker room.

Here’s how it works on the playground in MLKs dream. A White kid makes a joke about a Black kid. The Black kid responds by making a joke about the White kid. The two of them laugh at each other and then go on being friends.

If you think that’s a pipe dream, it’s the world I saw when I grew up, prior to 2008.

But after Darcy was done with it, it was broadcast to millions of people on CNN and would follow Neff for the rest of his life.

Darcy decided to doxx Neff, which led to him getting fired by Fox News.

Charlie Kirk, to his great credit, saw Neff’s talent and saw his character: he wasn’t an unrepentant racist, he just made some dumb jokes on an obscure message board that no one ever heard of. And rather than joining even fellow conservatives in burning Neff at the stake, Kirk gave him a job.

I want to do a little experiment. Look at the image of Neff here. Knowing absolutely NOTHING about him, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind when you see his image. Is it “a gentle, loving man who treats all people in his life equally regardless of race, color, or creed”. Or is it “a white supremacist”? Be honest with yourself.

If your answer was the latter then congratulations, you have been brainwashed.

What About “Fact Checkers”

When journalists are this dishonest we look to “fact checkers” to get some objective perspective.

I used to love Snopes. But Snopes too has been co-opted by the Left. Let’s take a look at their “fact-check” article about Charlie Kirk to see what I mean.

As you read Snopes’ fact-check, don’t just look at what they say. Look at what they do NOT say. Remember that context is critical to understanding Charlie Kirk’s “53 words”.

The big green checkmark says that “Yes, Charlie Kirk did say that MLK is “awkful”. The vast majority of people will stop here, and Snopes knows it.

Ironically, Snopes goes on to provide “Context” but doesn’t give a single word of context from Charlie Kirk’s perspective.

Instead of providing balanced, transparent commentary about WHY Charlie Kirk said these things, they double down on the Leftist tropes.

They start out by accurately recounting Charlie’s words as captured by Turton’s recorder, but notice that they only consist of the 53 words, not any additional quotes that surrounded them.

That’s likely because Turton only gave them the recording with these 53 words rather than posting the entire conversation in context (which, again, was not broadcast or recorded, other than surreptitiously by Turton).

They do describe the context of the student who asked the question, but notice how this “objective” media watchdog actively editorializes in their “fact check”.

They immediately brand the student who asked the question as somone who posted “derogatory messages about transgender people”—they don’t even address the question of whether this student’s social media posts were in fact “derogatory” or protected speech.

Notice something else they do that’s clever.

They “educate” us on what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was.

While this is helpful information to have, it does NOT have anything to do with the substance of anything Charlie Kirk said.

What they’re doing is describing the best parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intimating that Charlie Kick was against them, and hoping that you, as a reader, immediately recoil in disgust at how much of a “racist” that Charlie Kirk was.

Snopes didn’t mention ANY of Charlie Kirk’s points: that the Civil Rights Act had unintended negative consequences, that Title IX was being co-opted by groups that did not fall within the law’s original scope, and that these laws actually promote and not discourage discrimination.

We can disagree on the merits of these points. But notice that Charlie Kirk’s opinion is not even allowed an airing on Snopes.

Snopes doubles down. Kirk “made negative remarks about the Civil Rights Act outside of the Turning Point USA event”. “Media matters published a transcript”. “Kirk said Jewish money was ruining US culture”. “Kirk said that empathy was a made-up, new age term”. Again, at this point the dishonest “fact checkers” at Snopes are engaged in full-throated character assassination, wielding accusations about things Kirk said that are all assertions that take Kirk’s words completely and wildly out of context.

In a world where fact-checkers are this biased, who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Here is the Video Segment that Wired “Warned” Us About

Do you remember what started all of this? Wired Magazine wanted to “warn” people about a segment that Charlie Kirk was going to air to “discredit” MLK.

Watch the segment for yourself. If the player doesn’t do so, forward to the 2:10:00 mark.

There will be those who tell others NOT TO WATCH this video because it will “brainwash” them. They are no different than religious fanatics who tell their adherents NOT to read literature or watch videos from other religious groups. It speaks more about their own inability to defend their beliefs than the supposed “heresy” on the other side.

I just watched it for the first time. Here’s what stuck me.

• As Charlie Kirk says to open the segment, this whole thing started as a one-off comment. This is how Media Matters and its acolytes work. They’re not interested in discussion or debate. They just look for one comment to twist out of context.
• When Wired Magazine contacted Charlie Kirk’s staff, they were threatening and confrontational, not interested in a productive dialogue (2:10:20)
• Charlie and Blake were fair, honest, transparent, and balanced. They began by praising MLK for the many good things he did in his life (2:10:58)
  • Blake Neff praised MLK for stopping Jim Crow laws (which he described as “bad” and “evil).
  • He praised MLK for his non-violent philosophy and for practicing and promoting non-violence in his own life.
  • Charlie Kirk praised MLK’s “that he had “a “gift for the spoken word”.
    • Nedd praised MLK’s rhetoric when it was at its best, such as in his “I Have a Dream” speech and the “Poor Peoples” campaign where we spoke of a true colorblind society.
    • He said his favorite speech by MLK was his speech at the opening of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which he called “an amazing speech”, and which contained themes that align more with conservative principles today than progressive ones.
  • He praised MLK for not becoming a “racial demagogue” like some of his contemporaries (and most modern-day “civil rights leaders”). He praised MLK for helping to keep racial tensions from exploding into civil war and major bloodshed.
  • He says this: “I don’t think it would be bad to view Martin Luther King as a great figure of the 20th century”.
  • Neff in particular came across as someone who did phenomenal research and accurately and fairly spoke about the positives of MLK and the Civil Rights movement. I learned more about the Civil Rights movement from this one segment than I did in college—where I took entire American history classes that covered this era.
  • Remember that this was the man Media Matters painted as a “White supremacist” and “unrepentent racist” based on a few off-color jokes on a private message board.

Their criticisms were less about MLK the man, but how the Left has taken MLK’s legacy and memory and turned him into a deity. Just as bad religious fanatics use their “god” to force people to “convert” to their “religion”, to punish heretics, and to ensure adherence to their version of “the gospel”, so the leaders of the modern Civil Rights movement—which bears little resemblance to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s—wish to use the legacy of MLK.

Here are the facts that they discussed.

• In the last Gallup Poll before his death in 1968 MLK had a 63% disapproval rating and a 33% approval rating. It was the public’s response to MLK’s views on issues like his opposition to the Vietnam War, his views on “economic justice” (which some viewed as Marxist), and growing racial tensions. Some of the his biggest opposition came from the Black community, who grew impatient with his non-violent approach.
• Today, he has a 96% approval rating. This shift was accomplished entirely through propaganda.
• MLK refused to condemn the rioters in Detroit and Newark who caused massive amounts of death and destruction in 1967 and 1968—riots which happened after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and after the “War of Poverty” began.
• In the 1980s, we were approaching a true “color blind” society in the United States. The worst racial tensions of the 1960s and 1970s had passed, and as someone going to school at the time I genuinely never looked at others by their race. I had friends who were black, Jewish, east Asian, central Asian, Hispanic, Eastern European, and European and race never came up. When Reagan signed MLK Day into law, to many liberals, moderates and Conservatives it signaled closure—we could formally acknowledge the great things that MLK did in his life and move on together. Yes, there were race-baiters like Al Sharpton, but they were were rightfully criticized.
• Look at the world today. We are more divided racially. In some areas of the country, children aren’t even taught about the American founding. They are taught that American history started in 1619, when the slave trade started, and that America’s true “Founder” was MLK.

Listen carefully to every word Charlie Kirk says. He never says that MLK is “evil”. He merely says that MLK is not deserving of “god-like status”. You may agree or disagree, but here were the points they raised.

• Modern day historians paint the United States as an irredeemably racist place prior to MLK, and portray MLK not as a human who helped lead the Civil Rights, but as a near-mythological figure who “re-founded” America.
  • The distinction is an important one. Michelle Obama said the quiet part out loud when she said “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” The Progressive Left’s goal is not to respect history, it’s to wipe out history and start over, no different than other “revolutionaries” like Stalin or Mao.
• There were many in the Black and the White communities prior to MLK who were working towards racial reconciliation, including heroes
  • Names that come to my mind: Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Marian Anderson, Louis Armstrong, Jackie Robinson, Mary McLeod Bethune, Earl Warren’s Supreme Court, and modern day figures like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas. To deny their place in history is to deny history.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has taken on the status of being “sacred text” that cannot be challenged, questioned, or even examined.
  • At least two of the practices that came as a result of this law, Affirmative Action and DEI programs, expressly went against MLK’s dream of a colorblind society by forcing government and private companies TO discriminate based on skin color.
  • Here are Charlie’s own words: It took years for me to get to the place of understanding that the promise of color blindness is one of the reasons people would say, “Yes, I support the Civil Rights Act”. But in reality the language and the application of the Civil Rights Act is the opposite. It’s a color preference act, not color blindness. Not to mention the whole Trans wrinkle here. One of the reasons why it’s so hard to kick men out of female locker rooms is because of the Civil Rights Act.
• Some statistics following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
  • Prior to The Great Society, 25% of Black babies were born out of wedlock. Today it’s 75%.
  • Most people assumed (and still assume) that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was solely to stop Jim Crow laws and segregation.
  • However, the Act was written in such a vague way that the government has the right to punish any activity it deems as “unequal outcomes”, whatever that word means. In recent years, this has included:
    • States being prohibited from asking for an ID to validate identity for voting (when it’s required to do everything else from boarding an airplane to opening a bank account).
    • The Obama Administration blocking a North Carolina town from removing Party affiliation from ballots under the Voting Rights Act because “Black people could not know to vote for the Democrat”.
    • The Biden Administration suing Tesla because a Tesla contractor had an incident where Hispanic workers insulted Black workers.
    • New York City having to pay billons in settlements because of a test they used for hiring public school teachers. The test contained only basic knowledge that teachers were expected to know, but because Blacks did worse on the test than any other racial group, NYC was sued.
    • Federal government behemoths like the EEOC being used as a weapon to punish companies for arbitrary reasons as long as it can be framed as “disparate impact”, or one employee having a different outcome than another employee regardless of that employee’s skills or work ethic.
    • Towards the end of his life, MLK embraced policies that were more and more similar to socialism and Marxism. As an American citizen, that was his right. But it’s also the right of other American citizens to question these policies. The illiberal Left doesn’t agree. In the meantime, they have no qualms criticizing and even erasing figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

Here’s the irony. You will NOT find a more respectful, balanced, rational conversation about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 anywhere on the Web. Trust me, I tried.

Wired didn’t even hear one word of this conversation before they “warned” people not to view it, instantly branding it as “racist” and “white supremacist”. Millions of people saw Wired’s attack piece amplified on Google News and hundreds of mainstream media sites. A fraction of that saw this video.

Again, I challenge you. Listen to it for yourself.

Here is All That Charlie Kirk Wanted

After you watch, ask yourself this question. Is this a conversation between two “White supremacists”?

Find one ONE fact in this video that is inaccurate. Just one.

All Charlie Kirk wanted was an honest conversation. Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however well intentioned and however much it did do to end evil practices like Jim Crow laws, get out of control?

If you take a look at the state of the Black community in urban America today, its hard to argue that it helped in the long run.

But of course, people don’t care about nuance. The Civil Rights Act was a flawless, perfect government action, and if you even hint that it wasn’t, you’re a racist who wants to see segregation back. The intellectual dishonesty of these people is staggering.

Let’s face it. Very few people listened to Charlie Kirk’s words. Heck, very few people are going to read this post. All they hear are the screaming headlines, the screeching commentators, and the shrieks of the social media mob.

In the meantime, 73% of African American youth are born to unwed mothers. 47% of Black mothers are single mothers. 26% of adults arrested in the US are Black, including 51% of all arrests for murder, and 52% of all robbery arrests.

I challenge anyone to find one sentence in any video where Charlie Kirk says that these statistics are because Blacks are inferior or Whites are superior. Just one.

To the contrary, Charlie Kirk spoke out of concern and Christ-like love for the Black community. He hated what progressive politicians have done to them, and desperately wanted to help free them from its death spiral.

Since 1964 the progressive Left has worked towards one thing: cultural Marxism. Don’t just people by the content of their character. Look at the color of their skin to allow them into universities, offer them jobs, advance their careers, and elevate them into positions of power. Call it “Affirmative Action”. Call it “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”.

Think about it. Isn’t that the real racism? Believing that Black people or other minorities can never advance on their own merits or character, so White people need to give them handouts?

Charlie Kirk knew what the answer for the Black community had to be, and anyone who listened to more than 15 seconds of him on the subject knew it.

• Economic empowerment: He highlighted periods when Black unemployment hit historic lows and Black-owned businesses grew rapidly, pointing to entrepreneurship and free-market policies as paths to prosperity.
• Family structure: He emphasized that stable, two-parent households are central to reducing poverty, lowering crime, and strengthening communities.
• Education choice: He encouraged school choice and alternatives to failing public schools, believing this gives Black students more opportunities to succeed.
• Faith and values: He often tied community thriving to spiritual renewal, moral grounding, and church involvement.
• Independence from government: He argued that reliance on big government programs has historically harmed minority communities, and that self-reliance and local solutions are more empowering.
• Celebration of success: He praised Black entrepreneurs, leaders, and workers who have achieved success through these principles, holding them up as examples for others.

These are all things that brought success to the White, Asian, and increasingly the Hispanic populations. And yet the Black community has been left behind.

True conservatives wish the Black community to also experience these things.

Joe Biden famously accused the right of wanting to keep Black people “in chains”. But it’s the Democratic Party whose policies have led to “chains”. The chains of government reliance. The chains of public schools that care more about indoctrination than education. The chains of broken families.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Progressives and Conservatives could meet together and exchange the best of each of their ideas? Yes, maybe a certain amount of “income redistribution” is necessary. But confiscating wealth from one group and handing it to another group simply on the basis of group identity and NOT things like merit and character has been tried many times and always ends in death. And yet the Progressive Left, like pigs returning to the trough, insist that as long as we do it THEIR way it will work.

If instead of publishing vitriolic propaganda that sought to destroy Charlie Kirk (and eventually did), what would the impact have been to the Black community and to the country if the mainstream media had instead taken Charlie Kirk up on his wish to have an open, honest discussion about these issues, helping to connect the Left and the Right instead of tearing them even further apart from each other?

Sadly, we will never know.

Media Matters For America – The Precursor Supplier

There has been one organization that always seems to be at the forefront of character assassination: Media Matters for America. Let’s take a closer look at them, and at the innuendo and lies they published about Charlie Kirk.