"Charlie Kirk’s critics branded him “divisive,” but his defense of common-sense values made him a unifying voice for millions—until the Left sought to silence him."
"As many have observed, the murder of Charlie Kirk by a deranged leftist silenced one individual, but it awakened the voices of a movement that hitherto had hardly known it had a voice."
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is exercised that Charlie Kirk once said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a mistake.”
"Rep. Bennie Thompson sees AOC’s charge and raises it: “The fact is,” he said in an official statement, “Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was divisive, disparaging, and too often rooted in grievance. The beliefs he evangelized normalized fringe views on race, sex, and immigration. Unfortunately, his rhetoric resurrected dangerous prejudices of a dark past.”
"Gosh. Here’s a question, Congressman. What sort of grievance would someone have to entertain in order to be moved to describe someone who simply sought to engage young people in conversation as “divisive” and “disparaging?” Follow-up question: Did Charlie Kirk try to “normalize” fringe ideas about “race, sex, and immigration?” Or were the ideas he espoused, in fact (you see that two people can deploy the “in fact™” gambit), perfectly normal ideas that reflected the beliefs of millions of Americans, even if those ideas departed from the Washington consensus?
"As for the Civil Rights Act, Charlie Kirk did say its expansion was “a huge mistake.” Here’s the context. A student asked Charlie whether he wanted to get rid of the Civil Rights Act. He replied that he thought we should have a one-page bill that outlawed racial discrimination and left it at that. Most Americans, he went on to note, don’t support forcing women’s sports teams to allow men pretending to be women to compete. But the Civil Rights Act has been interpreted to say just that.
"He agreed with the original intention of the bill, he said, but argued that it was “too broadly written” and played into the hands of people who wanted to expand and weaponize the bill to enforce a radical progressive agenda that included so-called “affirmative action,” i.e., reverse racism in the form of discrimination against whites and Asians. Result? A 100-page bill that created “a permanent anti-racist bureaucracy within our federal government to go find racism where it doesn’t exist and create it in new places where it otherwise did not exist.”
"Christopher Caldwell touched on an essential aspect of Kirk’s observation in his book The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. It is common in academia and the media, Caldwell notes, to regard the Civil Rights Act as a great victory for equality and social progress. After all, was it not a potent weapon in the battle against Jim Crow and other expressions of racism?" . . . More...
No comments:
Post a Comment