On Immigration

What's the issue with immigration? We're a nation of immigrants right?

I was born in 1948 so I've lived through a lot of years in this country. During the 19th century and early 20th century immigrants came here and merged into the existing American Culture. Those were the days of the great Melting Pot when various races and ethnic groups went in one end and Americans came out the other. People didn't completely erase their heritage but it was mostly a private thing in the home. They certainly did not want to change the American culture.

But today it seems different. Some groups, rather than merging into the existing culture, seem to want to change the culture and make the country more like where they came from. 

Muslims seem to be especially guilty of this. Hispanics as well. One of the biggest mistakes we made was providing Spanish language forms and interfaces. No, I DO NOT want to press 1 for English. Learn the goddamn language.

Here's a news flash, they left where they came from because the place was terrible. They came here because it was better, but now they want to make things here like the terrible place they left. And you wonder why we're resisting that? WTF is wrong with you?

Charlie Kirk, Specific Quotes from the Guardian

These are quotes and references provided by The Guardian in an article entitled "Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’" Some of these quotes will be familiar but these are more complete.

On race

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

On debate

We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.

– Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.

Prove me wrong.

– Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.

On gender, feminism and reproductive rights

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.

– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.

– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024

We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 April 2024

On gun violence

I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023

On immigration

America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

On Islam

America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 30 April 2025

We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 24 June 2025

Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.

– Charlie Kirk social media post, 8 September 2025

On religion

There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 6 July 2022

Again with What is a Woman?

When you say "woman" are you referring to sex or gender? If you don't know that they're different, then allow me to explain the difference. Sex is a physical characteristic defined by chromosomes and reproductive organs. Gender defines the attitudes and behaviors that a given culture associates with a given sex. 

The right wing pundits that use this question almost always commit the fallacy of equivocation. Sometimes when they say "woman' they're referring to sex and other times they're referring to gender. If you're referring to "sex" then the question is a tautology because you are simply using woman as a synonym "for adult human female." If you are referring to gender then the answer is more complicated. For most people sex and gender align so the answer again would be "adult human female." However, for a very small percentage of the population sex and gender do not match. So that definition would not apply. 

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” - Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5. 

This is the problem with many (most?) conservatives. They have a toddler's view of the complexity of the world. Then when they don't get the simple answers that their ignorance leads them to expect, they get their panties all in a twist and go looking for "leaders" that will tell them they're really right and not to worry about what those educated people say.

Charlie Kirk Rhetoric

I decided to collect a list of Kirk's more infamous reported statements. Note that I am reporting what Google AI says but do not have first hand knowledge of these quotes.

"If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" - I might say the same thing if the pilot was also a woman. I have no problem with black male pilots.

He critiqued prominent black women, including Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, stating they lacked the "brain processing power" and only succeeded by "steal[ing] a white person's slot" through affirmative action. - This is a perfect example of the type of thing that Kirk would say and then, when challenged, go "prove me wrong." That's not how epistemology works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

In 2023, Kirk claimed that "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people" in "urban America." See comment about "prove me wrong" and burden of proof.

He promoted the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which posits that non-white immigrants are being brought in to replace white Americans. He also suggested that Jewish people were behind this effort. - I can't find any collaboration of the claim that he blamed Jews for this.

"The American Democrat party hates this country. ... They love it when America becomes less white"

Kirk repeatedly used dehumanizing rhetoric toward transgender people. In one tirade, he referred to them as an "abomination" and a "throbbing middle finger to God".

He once suggested that transgender people should be dealt with "the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s," a period when institutionalization, shock therapy, and lobotomies were used against queer individuals.

In August 2025, he drew criticism for suggesting on X that it "should be legal to burn a rainbow or [Black Lives Matter] flag in public." - It's legal to burn an American flag in public so I don't see why it wouldn't be legal to burn other flags.

 In April 2024, Kirk called for "Nuremberg-style trial[s] for every gender-affirming clinic doctor." - OK, this is really getting creepy.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kirk made unsubstantiated claims about a WHO cover-up and promoted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. He also characterized social distancing in churches as a "Democratic plot against Christianity." - Again, claims with no evidence and a little unbridled paranoia thrown in.

In April 2025, Kirk claimed that "large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America." - Considering what's happening in Britain, I have to agree with this.

In June 2025, he said on his podcast that Islam was "at odds" with Western values and incompatible with Western civilization. - Again, given what I know about Islam, I think he's right about this as well.

During a 2023 event, Kirk stated, "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." - I have seen the video of him saying this so I can now verify it. Perhaps even more disturbing is his belief that rights are "God-given" rather than the result of human political action.

When asked in September 2024 if he would support preventing a 10-year-old aborting a pregnancy from rape, Kirk said, "The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered." - I did verify this independently. He apparently really did say it.

He publicly dismissed empathy as a "made-up, New Age term," a sentiment critics pointed to as evidence of his disregard for others' experiences. - 

That's all I have thanks to Google. Again, unless otherwise noted, I'm fully relying on Google for the accuracy of this information. Obviously we agreed on the dangers of Islam. I also agreed with him on some criticism that he had about crime in the black community and we were both opposed to reparations for slavery. But his views on trans people, abortion, gun control and his general disdain for people not like himself I found medieval and downright disgusting.

Charlie Kirk Murder Suspect Arrested

You can't make this shit up.

A suspect has been arrested in the Charlie Kirk killing. He turned himself in apparently after being advised to do so by his father and youth minister.

His name is Tyler Robinson and he appears to be about as unlike the radical leftist trans loving guy that Republicans and Fox news have been complaining about.

In fact, his family are staunch Mormons and Republicans. Robinson himself appears to have ties to far right organizations. 

Why he would decide to kill Kirk makes absolutely no sense but I'm sure that we haven't heard the last of this story.

I'm also sure we'll get crickets from Republicans and Fox news about them blaming people who had nothing to do with this.

Charlie Kirk Suspect

 These are the pictures released of what the authorities are calling a "person of interest."

I'm not sure what that is on his shirt and, like I said, I don't see him carrying anything in these photos.

Rifle Used in Kirk Killing

A Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle has been recovered in a wooded area and has been alleged to be the rifle used in the Charlie Kirk killing. 

The FBI also released two photographs of the suspect. They say that they also have video but declined to release that video to the public.

One has to wonder how someone got from the campus to the wooded area carrying a rifle even if the rifle was wrapped in something. The two photographs don't show the suspect carrying anything.

This shooting has apparently totally eclipsed the anniversary of 911 and the school shooting in Colorado which left three teenagers in critical condition.

I have confirmed that Kirk did indeed say something to the effect of having the 2nd Amendment is worth some gun deaths each year. I guess he always figured that it would be someone else doing the dying.

On the canopy that Kirk was used at the Utah event are two large "Prove Me Wrong" challenges.

This is one of the things that I had a problem with. Epistemology doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. It's not up to someone to demonstrate that your claim is false. It's up to the person making the claim to present sufficient evidence for someone to justify accepting the claim as probably true.

If that wasn't the case then we would have to believe in all sorts of absurd, and even contradictory, claims until someone demonstrated that they were false.

A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Charlie Kirk Shot

Charlie Kirk, the conservative commentor and co-founder of Turning Point USA, has reportedly been shot at an event in Utah.

The AP is claiming at 4:25 PM ET that Kirk has died from his injuries and that President Trump has confirmed that.

I'm not a big fan of Kirk. He makes a living out of going around to college campuses and debating children. I've listened to some of his "debates" and he tends to use logical fallacies, especially the fallacy of equivocation, rather liberally. He also uses definitions for things that I have to believe he knows are wrong.

He is reported to have said that the 2nd Amendment is worth having a few gun deaths a year. I cannot verify that alleged quote but, if it's true, it wouldn't surprise me.

I have my problems with Kirk although I don't disagree with him on everything. He certainly doesn't deserve to be shot. Better to keep the conversation going.

A suspect that was reportedly detained has apparently been released and authorities are looking for the person responsible.

WTF is wrong with people? Can't we disagree without shooting at each other? This is going to be a real circus especially if Kirk has in fact died. Let's hope that report is inaccurate.

EDIT: It has now been confirmed that Kirk is indeed dead. It's a shame that things have come to this. There is still no word about the shooter.

Trump vs. The Smithsonian

Trump is unhappy with the Smithsonian. 

This started with EO 14253 on March 27, 2025. Some selected quotes from the EO.

"Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth."

"Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive."

"The National Museum of African American History and Culture has proclaimed that 'hard work,' 'individualism,' and 'the nuclear family' are aspects of 'White culture."

The EO then goes on to lay out a high level plan to "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness."

On August 21, 2025 a letter was sent to the Director of the Smithsonian outlining the process for an internal review of Smithsonian exhibits and requesting information to assist in the activity.

Also on August 21, 2025, a letter from the White House entitled "President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian." It's unclear who wrote this as it isn't signed. It includes references to other documents talking about stuff that Trump apparently takes issue with.

I will highlight a few of the items.

"The National Museum of African American History and Culture debuted a series to educate people on 'a society that privileges white people and whiteness' — defining so-called 'white dominant culture' as 'ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time' and portraying 'the nuclear family,' 'work ethic,' and 'intellect as white qualities rooted in racism."

The paragraph included a link to what was a real infographic put out in 2020 by the Smithsonian in the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) about "Aspects & Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States."

The implication being that the "normalization" of these things somehow oppresses people of color.

The one that REALLY gets me here is "Emphasis on Scientific Method." What would you prefer? Wishful thinking? The display was removed almost immediately after the uproar.

"The American History Museum prominently displays the 'Intersex-Inclusive Progress Pride flag' at its entrance, which was also flown alongside the American flag at multiple Smithsonian campuses."

Meh, who cares? The flag doesn't bother me but I can see why Trump and company would be all up in a lather over it. However, some would consider it a political issue and the Smithsonian shouldn't be taking sides in political debates.

"The National Portrait Gallery features art commemorating the act of illegally crossing the 'inclusive and exclusionary' southern border — even making it a finalist for one of its awards."

I'm going to go with this is sort of iffy. Why is the gallery glorifying what is considered an illegal act?

"The National Museum of the American Latino characterizes the Texas Revolution as a 'massive defense of slavery waged by ‘white Anglo Saxon’ settlers against anti-slavery Mexicans fighting for freedom, not a Texan war of independence from Mexico,' and frames the Mexican-American War as 'the North American invasion' that was 'unprovoked and motivated by pro-slavery politicians.'"

This must be an example of the "loser" writing history. But it's not entirely wrong. Mexico's abolishment of slavery was certainly a factor but there were a few others including Antonio López de Santa Anna abandonment of the 1824 federal constitution, the suspension of republican principles, the establishment of a centralist military government, the denial of trial by jury and forced adherence to Catholicism and the Mexican language.

The Mexican-American war was the result of the US annexing Texas, the independence of which Mexico had never recognized, and the resulting border dispute over whether the border was the Rio Grande, as claimed by the US, or the Nueces River, as claimed by Mexico, about 150 miles to the north. The area in between, known as the Nueces Strip, was a point of contention.

President James K. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor and his troops into the disputed Nueces Strip in a move clearly intended to provoke the Mexican government who took the bait and attacked Taylor's troops. Polk used the skirmish as an excuse to declare war on Mexico.

"According to the National Museum of the American Latino, 'what unites Latinas and Latinos' is 'the Black Lives Matter movement.'"

I checked and this is actually what a museum exhibit says. I think if I was Latino, given the group's rich cultural heritage, I would be extremely insulted by this assertion.

"The National Portrait Gallery commissioned a “stop-motion drawing animation” that 'examines the career' of Anthony Fauci."

This is just Trump being a petty son of a bitch and reminds me why he should have never been elected.

"The American History Museum’s exhibit marking the 50th anniversary of Title IX includes biological men competing in women’s sports and argues in favor of 'transgender' athletes competing in sports against the opposite biological sex."

This is another political issue that the Smithsonian has no business getting involved with. Stick to the facts and leave the opinion at the front door.

"A exhibit at the American History Museum depicts migrants watching Independence Day fireworks 'through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall' and says America’s founders 'feared non-White immigration.'"

Another political question that the museum shouldn't be getting involved in. As for the idea that founders "feared non-White immigration," I don't think the founders had any concept of non-White immigration.

The American History Museum’s 'Upending 1620' exhibit claims Pilgrims are a 'myth,' instead framing them as colonizers.

Well, they certainly existed although some of the stories about them are certainly romanticized. But that doesn't excuse simply putting a totally different opinion on the table as fact. A balanced presentation is what a museum should be providing and not a debatable opinion. Just the facts man, just present the facts.

"The American History Museum’s exhibit about Benjamin Franklin focuses almost solely on slavery, directing visitors to learn more about his 'electrical experiments and the enslaved people of his household,' noting his 'scientific accomplishments were enabled by the social and economic system he worked within.'"

Franklyn did own slaves in his youth. However, later in life he became a staunch abolitionist. This should at least have been noted. I don't even know what "his scientific accomplishments were enabled by the social and economic system he worked within" means.

This strikes me as an idiotic and unnecessary statement since ALL accomplishments are enabled by the prevailing social and economic system. This exhibit sounds like an attempt to wipe out all of Franklyn's accomplishments because he owned slaves.

So, what's the bottom line? I've never made it a secret that "wokeness" annoys the shit out of me. So I agree with Trump and company on some of these things and disagree on others. I left out a lot of items that I thought were just petty and silly to get upset over. I suppose my basic opinion is that a museum should present facts, and balanced facts where appropriate, rather than presenting opinion as fact.

White Privilege?

A lot of people are not going to like what I’m going to say but, honestly, I think it’s long overdue for conversations like this so here goes.

It may not be “white privilege.” It may be just the opposite. It may be “black rejection,” because people have had too many bad experiences with black people in general. 

The issue isn’t skin color but culture and behavior. The behavior of far too many people in the black community leaves a bad taste in other people’s mouths and makes them not want to take a chance on a black candidate if there are other qualified options.

It’s not fair but perhaps it’s time that blame is placed where it actually belongs, and that’s with the crime, the drugs, the loudness, the rudeness and the apparent lack of self control of far too many in the black community. And, for some reason, the loudness and the rudeness seems to be especially the reputation of black women. 

I doubt it was “white privilege” that led to 350,000 black women being laid off at the beginning of 2025 once DEI protections were removed.

It even has a name. It’s called “black fatigue.” This is a term stolen from the book by Mary Francis Winters and twisted to have a totally different meaning. But don’t take my word for it. Go to YouTube and search for “black fatigue.”