Maybe one of our DP Charlie Kirk supporters can explain why the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.

[Showtime586]

Charlie Kirk believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. Please explain why?

 

[Loulit01]

Because he was a racist. He didn't hide it.

 

[Showtime586]

Because he was a racist. He didn't hide it.

True, but he did have creative insight as to how to profit from it.

 

[Mithrae]

How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

www.wired.com

Conservative activist and Turning Point USA cofounder Charlie Kirk has a lot of opinions on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2015, Kirk called him a “hero.”

In 2022, MLK was a “civil rights icon.”

In December 2023, speaking before a group of students and teachers at America Fest, a political convention organized by Turning Point USA, Kirk struck a different tone.

“MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” . . . .



For Kirk, the shift on King wasn’t an offhand remark, but a glimpse into his broader strategy to discredit the civil rights leader and the landmark legislation most associated with King: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it,” Kirk said at America Fest. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” . . . .



Kirk argues that the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, ushered in a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy,” referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion. He illustrated how the law has gone wrong when responding to a question from a student who said they became the subject of a Title IX investigation after posting an Instagram story mocking transgender people. Title IX, which was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, bans schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. King was assassinated four years prior, in 1968.

“The courts have been really weak on this,” Kirk told the America Fest crowd. “Federal courts just yield to the Civil Rights Act as if it's the actual American Constitution.” The law is ultimately a way to “re-found the county” and “a way to get rid of the First Amendment,” according to Kirk. . . . .



Kirk’s comments at America Fest were merely a preview of his attacks on King. He recently said that he plans to release content to discredit MLK on January 15, King’s birthday, which is a US federal holiday honoring King.

“We're gonna be hitting him next week,” Kirk said on his podcast this week. “Yeah, on the day of the Iowa caucus, it's MLK Day. We're gonna do the thing you're not supposed to do. We're gonna tell the truth about MLK Jr. You better tune in next week. Blake has already been preparing. It's gonna be great.”

Blake is an apparent reference to Blake Neff, a producer of The Charlie Kirk Show. In 2020, Neff resigned from his job at Fox News as Tucker Carlson’s top writer after CNN revealed he had been making racist posts under a pseudonym. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott called Neff’s posts “abhorrent.”

 

[bythoughts]

Kirk was responding to a student who was facing disciplinary action for posting an anti-trans video. I don't know the name of the student or if they were facing expulsion or something much less. But the point is, the student was being investigated and punished under "Title IX"... of the Civil Rights Act. Now you can argue that Title IX didn't exist in 1964 and its legal extension has continued over more than half a century. But it is conceivable that Kirk thought there was some key oncogenic mutation in the DNA of the original bill that led it to metastasize to the point where students were being put through a Star Chamber over their online postings.

Now Kirk is distinctly to the right of me in his positions, but he was pretty clearly not trying to go back to a racist segregated educational system in this comment. He wanted the Title xxx bureaucracy rolled back or revised in some way. It was a fair cause that needed investigation and discussion in a free campus environment, without assassinations.

 

[Showtime586]

So, Kirk's opinion was that because it wasn't "perfect" that it was a mistake. Interesting.

We had an old saying in DC years ago legislation wise. It went something like: "We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good".

 

[Mithrae]

Charlie Kirk believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. Please explain why?

Why? The self-description posted by The Charlie Kirk Show of their episode The Myth of MLK made reference to "how the 'MLK Myth' keeps America shackled to destructive 1960s laws that have replaced the original U.S. Constitution."

As an intelligent, college-oriented person, we must surely assume that Charlie Kirk knows all about the original U.S. Constitution which he so venerates, and which subsequent amendments and of course the hated Civil Rights Act sought to mitigate to his disgust. More like a bullhorn than a dog whistle.

Fugitive Slave Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bythoughts]

We had an old saying in DC years ago legislation wise. It went something like: "We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good".

Well, refusing to admit when you made a mistake is also an enemy of the good. And there's a BIG question to ask when there's a Title IX Coordinator on every campus with investigators and proceedings and rules and "representatives" (lawyers) in some kind of re-evolution of the entire legal process from scratch. When that's just one of the Titles. When everybody who works on campus is being put through yearly Title xxx trainings because the liability issue is huge and the bureaucracy is well-paid and well-represented.

It does make sense that somehow this could all have been left under the control of a real court with its regular people and procedures ... and, one would like to imagine, a respect for the First Amendment.

 

[Showtime586]

Well, refusing to admit when you made a mistake is also an enemy of the good. And there's a BIG question to ask when there's a Title IX Coordinator on every campus with investigators and proceedings and rules and "representatives" (lawyers) in some kind of re-evolution of the entire legal process from scratch. When that's just one of the Titles. When everybody who works on campus is being put through yearly Title xxx trainings because the liability issue is huge and the bureaucracy is well-paid and well-represented.

It does make sense that somehow this could all have been left under the control of a real court with its regular people and procedures ... and, one would like to imagine, a respect for the First Amendment.

I go through weeks of training every year. Sensitivity training. Hostile work environment training. Effects of "chilling" in the workplace training. Dispute resolution training. Diversity training and on and on and on. The CRA certainly has no monopoly on "over-reaching" training.

If your interpretation of what Kirk meant is correct, why didn't Kirk just say that areas of the Civil Rights Act need to be revised?
Why the "broad based" statement that leaves his intent open to interpretation. Why call the entire Act a mistake?

 

[Mithrae]

If your interpretation of what Kirk meant is correct, why didn't Kirk just say that areas of the Civil Rights Act need to be revised?
Why the "broad based" statement that leaves his intent open to interpretation. Why call the entire Act a mistake?

A "huge" mistake championed by that "awful" Martin Luther King Jr. He seems to have been deeply disgusted by whatever it is that MLK and the Civil Rights Act represented, but I'm not quite sure what comes to mind there...?

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 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

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

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

 

[Parker_Chess]

He's a provocative idiot that's why. And now he's got even Democrats fooled. Just because he was shot and killed by some psycho gunman doesn't mean we need to pretend like he was a good person. He was not.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Showtime586]

A "huge" mistake championed by that "awful" Martin Luther King Jr. He seems to have been deeply disgusted by whatever it is that MLK and the Civil Rights Act represented, but I'm not quite sure what comes to mind there...?

I find it interesting how Magas can continue to claim that Kirk's comments were taken "out of context".
I guess that I can always claim that my belief that today's Magas are simply newer versions of the same backward racist dumbshits that I have been around for far too many years, is being "taken out of context".

 

[uptower]

Charlie Kirk believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. Please explain why?

Oh that's easy. He didn't mean it that way, it needs more context, racism isn't actually racist, harden up snowflakes, and by the way he was right anyway.

 

[uptower]

 

[Showtime586]

Not exactly my idea of how a practicing Christian would conduct himself.