Masks on Kids: Science or Abuse? A Debate with Dr. Rashad Richey

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show — "Masks on Kids: Science or Abuse? A Debate with Dr. Rashad Richey"

Date: September 23, 2021
Host: Charlie Kirk
Guest: Dr. Rashad Richey

---

Episode Overview

In this Turning Point USA Debate Night special, conservative activist Charlie Kirk debates Dr. Rashad Richey, an Atlanta-based radio host and college professor, on whether masks for children in schools are a scientific necessity or a form of abuse. The conversation evolves from structured debate into a free-flowing, vigorous yet respectful exchange, exploring mandates, science, liberty, parental rights, and the role of government. They also branch deeply into systemic racism, American history, and healthcare disparities.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Are Mask Mandates for Kids in Schools Appropriate?

• Dr. Richey’s Position:

  • Mask mandates are legal, appropriate, and necessary for public health.
  • U.S. schools already require vaccinations (99% of public schools, 92% private) — mask mandates are a similar safety measure.
  • The science strongly supports masks: "92% of the field of research scientists agree that mask decreased the spread of COVID." (16:18)
  • It’s also about protecting the broader ecosystem: children are vectors who might infect high-risk adults. (07:32)
  • Even with downsides, the safety benefit outweighs temporary discomfort.

• Charlie Kirk’s Position:

  • COVID-19 poses an extremely low risk to children, especially healthy kids without comorbidities.
    • "If children are at greater risk of riding in a car to school, then why all of a sudden should we now mandate the masks for children?" (05:24)
  • Masking is detrimental to child development, socialization, learning, and may worsen mental health.
  • There’s evidence that masks “don’t do what you say” — referencing outlier and contradictory studies on effectiveness. (15:10)
  • Cites increases in suicide and self-harm, and questions whether masking helps or worsens these crises. (18:44)
  • Argues forced masking is “child abuse” when risk is low and downsides are high.

2. Science, Data, and “Study Collision”

• Dr. Richey emphasizes:

  • The scientific process is about fields of study and consensus — outlier studies shouldn’t drive policy.
  • Most research shows masks are effective, but there’s variance in the degree.
  • He calls Charlie’s sources “minority reports/outlier data.”
    • "You're giving me 8, 7% of what scientists are saying compared to 90 to 93% of what other scientists are saying. That's the argument you're making with me, Charlie." (27:33)

• Charlie challenges:

  • Science evolves — “outlier” views have often been vindicated; “majority” isn’t infallible.
    • "We were told that it was a conspiracy theory that it came from a lab… that's kind of the prevailing wisdom now." (31:40)
  • CDC and public health authorities have frequently contradicted themselves, especially on masks and vaccines.
  • Proper mask-wearing is rare among children, compromising effectiveness. (15:36, 18:04)

3. Liberty, Civil Rights, and the Authority of Mandates

• Dr. Richey:

  • School boards have clear statutory and constitutional authority to mandate safety requirements.
    • “These school boards well within the constitutional right and statutory authority in order to implement such a protocol, just as they have the ability to say, here's the dress code, here's the vaccination requirement, here's the teacher credentialing requirement, and…” (03:24)
  • Civil liberties can justifiably be limited for public safety (parallels to seatbelt laws, licensure).

• Charlie Kirk:

  • The “right answer” is to always default to parental choice, especially amidst scientific uncertainty.
    • "When things are confusing, unclear, and you have contradiction, yield to rights. Let people choose. Don't use force." (44:47)
  • Majorities can be wrong (historical analogy to Jim Crow and civil rights discrimination).

4. Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Outlier Science (Charlie, 31:40):
  “We were told that it was a conspiracy theory that it came from a lab. Well, that's kind of the prevailing wisdom now. It definitely didn't come from some bat… It's looking more and more like it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

• On Majority Rule and Rights (Charlie, 52:46):
  “So let me ask you this question. If 60% of Americans wanted to take rights away from Black Americans, is that okay?”
  Dr. Richey: “That's a dumb ass argument… that was an evil argument back then.” (52:53)

• On Science (Dr. Richey, 27:33):
  "What we typically depend on is what is the majority sentiment, what is the consensus among the scientist community. That is how we start to derive our conclusions.”

• On Parental Rights (Charlie, 38:01):
  "If we have differences of opinions on things that are constantly changing and confusing, wouldn't the right answer be allow a parent and the child to make that decision…?"

• On Systemic Racism (Dr. Richey, 69:23):
  “Hell, yeah [America is systemically racist].”

5. Broader Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Debates

• Extended exchanges compare mask mandates to:
  • Dress codes, seatbelts, and school vaccination requirements (as established safety interventions).
  • Past civil rights struggles and majoritarian injustice (counter-argument to using majority support for justification).

6. Race, Systemic Bias, and American History

Beginning at ~67:39

• Dr. Richey argues systemic racism permeates institutions, laws, and culture — giving examples from policing, job applications, and marijuana sentencing.
• Charlie contests that disparities are often class-based (“poor whites in southeast Ohio”), not inherently race-based.
• Both cite various studies on criminal justice and hiring, with “study collision” recurring.
• Historical argument over slavery, Founding Fathers, the 3/5 Compromise, and moral judgment of the past.
  • Dr. Richey: “If you own Black people, you don’t think you’re racist?” (76:50)
  • Charlie: “All human beings have to struggle with when they're born and what's around them and things they can't control.” (83:35)

7. Vaccines, Mandates, and the Biden OSHA Policy

From ~56:21

• Dr. Richey explains Biden’s vaccine/testing mandate for private sector is grounded in established constitutional and statutory authority—OSHA’s emergency standards.
• Charlie critiques government overreach, holding to business and individual liberty.
• They agree on the need for at least considering natural immunity in mandate implementation.

8. Misinformation, Historical Trust Issues, & COVID in Minority Communities

From ~64:55

• Dr. Richey: Hesitancy among Black Americans is historically grounded (Tuskegee, recent abuses).
• Trust in vaccines comes from Black medical peers and scientific process, despite historical wounds.

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Introduction & Format: 00:00–03:24
• Opening Mask Mandate Arguments: 03:24–05:24 (Dr. Richey), 05:24–07:29 (Kirk)
• Risk, Delta Variant, and Transmission: 07:29–11:25
• Free-for-All Debate Begins: 11:40
• Mask Efficacy, Downsides, & Mental Health: 13:59–19:28
• Science “Study Collision”: 24:43–29:45
• Consensus vs. Outlier Data: 29:45–35:29
• Mandates, Liberty, & Civil Rights: 38:01–44:47
• Biden’s Vaccine Mandate via OSHA: 56:21–64:55
• Mistrust in Health Agencies & COVID in Black Communities: 64:55–69:23
• Systemic Racism Discussion: 69:23–87:01
• History, Founders, Slavery, and Morality: 76:26–86:56
• Policing, Bias, and Laws: 88:08–102:56
• Final Statements & Thanks: 102:56–104:35

---

Notable Quotes by Timestamp

• "[Mask mandates in schools are] 100% appropriate. And here's why..." — Dr. Richey (03:24)
• "If children are at a greater risk of riding in a car... then why ... mandate the masks for children?" — Charlie Kirk (05:24)
• "You're giving me 8, 7% of what scientists are saying compared to 90 to 93%..." — Dr. Richie (27:33)
• “When things are confusing, unclear, and you have contradiction, yield to rights. Let people choose. Don't use force.” — Charlie Kirk (44:47)
• "If you own black people, you don’t think you’re racist? ... You damn right I am [moralizing the Founders].” — Dr. Richey (76:50–81:57)
• “Men participate in the republic … but … women couldn’t. That’s sexism.” — Dr. Richey (79:22)
• "[America is] a mixed bag. I can't praise him, but I can't vilify him because he did this other thing." — Dr. Richey on Abraham Lincoln (85:28–86:59)
• “You are authentic in what you believe. And brother, I go to war for you.” — Dr. Richey (103:05)

---

Summary: Core Takeaways

• The episode offers a genuine, at times heated, but ultimately civil debate on masks for children, COVID policy, parental rights, science, and the intersection of individual and public rights.
• It illustrates the deep divides — and surprising agreements — on how science is interpreted, how mandates should function, and the rightful place of government in public health.
• The latter half’s pivot to race and history demonstrates how cultural context deeply influences attitudes toward policy—even health policy during a pandemic.
• Both speakers model how productive dialogue can happen even across major ideological divides.

---

For further engagement:

• Dr. Richey: Twitter/IG @rashadrichey; Young Turks & News Talk 1380 WAK
• Charlie Kirk: charliekirk.com; TPUSA

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey everybody. Today on the Charlie Kirk show, no advertisers. And it's a really special episode. This was done by Turning Point USA debate night with Dr. Rashad Ritchie. I debate a leftist. He's a college professor. He believes America is systemically racist. He is in favor of masking children. And I do want to say he was a decent man and a good man just in how he interacted with us and our staff. This is a debate. So it starts like a debate, very structured and then it kind of goes into a unfiltered part of it. It remains very cordial throughout. There's some parts where I think I really made some salient points. So make sure you listen to the whole thing through. And I would just Love your thoughts freedomarliekirk.com about this conversation. And we're going to be doing a lot of these debates. In fact, we have a whole series of debates coming up and I hope that they're helpful for you to be able to kind of see where the other side comes from and see how the best respond to it. Because I know so many of you get into debates in your life. So maybe they will be helpful for you. If you like this content and you want to see more of it. No Advertisers, remember, it's charliekirk.com support or if you want to support the organization that puts on this piece of product that we are re airing here on this program, it's tpusa.com start a high school chapter. Start a college chapter. I sit down with a college professor to debate critical race theory wokeism masking children. And what do we do when you have two different studies where he says I have a study that say masks work and I have one that says the opposite. What do we do about that? How do we govern ourselves when you have study disagreement? This conversation with a decent man and a good man who I fundamentally disagree with on almost everything where he says explicitly America's systemically racist. In this podcast he goes after the founders. He goes after people I care a lot about. And we push back, I think respectfully but effectively. Share this episode with your friends. Even if you have leftist friends. I think it will illuminate the topics that matter the most in our country right now. Again, it's charliekirk.com support. Email us your thoughts freedomarliekirk.com I love your feedback from these episodes. Advertiser free. You are going to want to listen to this whole thing through. Buckle up. Here we are.

[B]

Go Charlie.

[A]

What you've done Is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

[B]

I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

[A]

Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

[B]

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his

[A]

love of this country.

[B]

He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[A]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Welcome to debate night here at Turning Point USA headquarters. Honored to have with us today Dr. Richie, a very well known radio talk show host in Atlanta, also a college professor, amongst many other things I'm sure I'm forgetting. And today we're going to be talking about COVID mandates, schools, masks, and so much more. The way that this conversation will go is Dr. Richie will begin with some thoughts for two minutes uninterrupted. I'll respond with two minutes uninterrupted. And we'll go back and forth in that format for about a minute each and we'll take about a 10 second break or a little bit break, and then we'll just kind of have at it. And so, Dr. Richie, thank you for being here. And the floor is yours.

[B]

You about to be in trouble, Charlie. All right, here's the thing. Mask mandates in schools are 100% appropriate. And here's why. First of all, the vast majority of American voters actually support mask mask mandates for school teachers and for those who are inside of the school system. But let's look at what it actually does. A mask mandate. People that argue against it, they say this is an intrusion on civil liberties. But think about it. A dress code, is that an intrusion on civil liberty? A vaccination mandate, is that an intrusion on civil liberty? Let me bring you back to K through 12 education. Again, 100% of all public schools in the United States of America require vaccination to enter. That's your vaccine passport already in play. 92% of private institutions require a vaccine in order to attend. Let's go to the mask mandate. The mask mandate protocol is in place for the safety of students. This is based on verifiable science. 90% of those in the field of science, the field of study, they say that, yes, it actually decreases the spread of COVID 19. But now you have people around this country, literally, rather than throwing on the mask, they rather throw fists. They're fighting school teachers, they're fighting those that oppose them, and they are threatening to fight School board members because of a mask mandate. I have not seen this kind of activity at school board meetings over anything except for these mandates. But remember, mandates are already in place. School boards have the statutory authority to implement administrative law given to them by the states based on the construct of the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. These school boards well within the constitutional right and statutory authority in order to implement such a protocol, just as they have the ability to say, here's the dress code, here's the vaccination requirement, here's the teacher credentialing requirement, and. And here's what it takes to pass through the next grade.

[A]

Very Good. Thank you, Dr. Richie. So here's how to first respond. First of all, we have to ask ourselves the question, is the Chinese coronavirus or the Fauci virus a serious threat to children? That's the first question. And so Dr. Macquarie wrote a story, wrote a piece, I should say, for the Wall Street Journal, where he studied tens of thousands, over 40,000 children with the virus and was not able to find one child that died from the virus that did not have underlying health conditions and that did not have some sort of immunocompromised condition. And so you look even more broadly than that. And this is from the New York Times. I just want to read this, which is annual deaths among children in the United States. Now, this is per 100,000 people. So children 5 to 14 years old have a 2.1 per 100,000 chance of dying from cancer, a 1.9 per 100,000 chance of dying from vehicle accidents, 1.5 per 100,000 to die from suicide. We'll get back to that in a second. 0.7 from homicide, 0.6 from cardiovascular disease, 0.5 from drowning, 0.3 from flu and 0.2 from from COVID Now, that's not percentage, that's per 100,000. So the question is, if children are at a greater risk of riding in a car to school, then why all of a sudden should we now mandate the masks for children? So I think we're talking about two different things and I think we'll have a fun time going back and forth at the unscripted Part of this is, do schools have the ability and the authority and is it a good idea? I'm going to start with whether it's a good idea, then we can get into the other one. It's an awful idea. It's bad for interaction, it's bad for childhood development. We already see the increase in mental health issues that I will go through some of the numbers associated with that. But everyone has kind of experienced that in their own way. And saying to a child who is not at considerable risk of dying from a certain virus that you must change the way you interact, I think is child abuse and the floor is yours. One minute, doctor.

[B]

All right, so let's talk about the numbers.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Okay. The delta variant has changed the game in many ways. Where now you have children who not only have the virus, but they are experiencing adverse reactions from the virus like never before. I take you to a place called Jackson County, Mississippi. There's a school superintendent, this guy decided to ignore all COVID 19 protocols. He says he's going to live a life that's external of the fear of the pandemic. Well, his school system, they have a 7% COVID positive rating. They've already lost a schoolteacher. Here's the other dynamic that people are considering. You think children go to school in silos. These children, who can be carriers of COVID 19 can infect their social environment, such as their parents, their grandparents, other peer groups, people that their families associate with. And then it becomes an issue of the ecosystem, of our safety, not just the silo of the school system.

[A]

Very good. I will respond. So I'm glad you brought up the delta variant. So a lot of people have done some, at least some initial studies of the delta variant. So according to Dr. Roberta Debasi of the Children's National Hospital, she was asked about Ari Shapiro from National Public Radio about the delta variant. The National Public Radio host said, wait a second. If kids under 12 are not vaccinated, is the delta variant a significant risk? And she said, quote, children are still somewhat between 12 to 15% of all Covid cases and still 3 to 4% of all hospitalizations. And we have not seen a huge change in that even with the delta variant. Now, I'll add to that where the Boston Globe, not exactly a politicized paper to the right, asked the question, is the variant more severe in children? Dr. Sharon Doran, epidemiologist at Tops Medical center, says no, I have not seen any peer reviewed data or data from a reliable source to suggest that. So I would submit, doctor, that there is no data to show the delta variant has any harsher cause. In fact, the data shows the opposite.

[B]

Let me respond. All right, so here's what we know about the delta variant. Based on CDC directives. The delta variant is more adversely affecting young people than it has previous with the original design. To suggest otherwise is silly. And here's why you can go to a place like Alabama. Alabama. For the first time, they have run out of ICU beds. The Alabama leadership governing beyond, they have blamed this on children going to hospitals that did not go before with the original COVID virus. They're now being hospitalized like never before, and they're running out of ICU beds. And at some point this week or next week, they may run out of ICU beds. That's because of the hospitalization not only of adults, but also of children. At last count, they had over 400 children hospitalized for Covid. They had a fraction of that during the first on onset of the virus.

[A]

Almost perfect timing. I got to give you credit for that. It's almost like you do radio or something. So I'll respond to this in a couple different ways. And there's a lot more to unpack once we kind of go back and forth. First, we have to ask ourselves the question, why are people being hospitalized because of COVID or with COVID Now, this is something I've been saying for quite some time, but the Atlantic, which is a publication I think we can both agree, is not exactly on the right, came out with this at the end of their article. It was actually just published recently where they asked the question. And this is the same doctor, Dr. Shara Doran, who's an epidemiologist at Tufts Medical center from Boston. Very reputable. Right. So she disagrees with the cdc. She says delta variant is not a significant risk for children. Right. And we're gonna talk about what do you do when you disagree, when you have competing studies? I think that would be an interesting discussion where she said, quote, as we shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess risk, we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don't belong in the metrics. So I would just say, doctor, when you say 400 kids are hospitalized with COVID we don't know that's necessarily true. In fact, some say that number might be even 50 times too large.

[B]

Let me tell you this.

[A]

50% too. Too large. I'm sorry, real quick.

[B]

We're going to take like a 10

[A]

second or 10 second break, and we're

[B]

going to go in about 40 minutes or so.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. And I'll. I'll let you start. Is that okay? Perfect. That's perfect, everybody. Short break and then it's going to be a free for all. All right, it's yours.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Would you like any water?

[B]

I'm good.

[A]

Okay, now, this is no rules. We can do whatever we want.

[B]

Love it. All right. Ready?

[A]

Yes, sir.

[B]

Count down. Are we good?

[A]

It's Joe. Yeah. You saw you.

[B]

Okay. All right, here's the thing, Charlie. And I keep hearing people make this argument that somehow it matters that children who have an underlying health condition are the ones who are dying or being hospitalized. That doesn't matter, Charlie. The fact is that these are children, and some of these children aren't even aware that if they have an underlying condition, and that's not 100% of the data. So when we continue to create this us and them narrative that somehow says, well, the only children who are dying are those that have an underlying health condition. Well, hell, you can have an underlying health condition. That does not make you any less significant as it relates to a virus or the spread of a virus that's preventable. So are we having an argument about a civil liberty? Cause if this is an argument about a civil liberty, then the COVID issue is a separate argument, because you have no issue with your seatbelt mandate. You have no issue with your mandate to have a driver's license, even though you can buy a car without it. You have no issue with these other mandates which are required for the safety of others. But you have an issue with this mandate, which we've already established that statutorily, school boards have. Have the authority to implement these mandates, and American citizens, by and large, are for the mandates in K through 12 education.

[A]

So I'll get to the civil liberties in a second. As you notice, I didn't mention at all. I'm saying this is a bad idea, right? This is bad for children. And also it's bad for teachers, bad for an educational environment. And so I'm going to reiterate one thing. I'm not minimizing that it's children with underlying health conditions that are dying, but children with underlying health conditions have a predisposition from dying from any sort of infectious disease. And the vast majority of children in this country are healthy, which is why we frame it in that way. And so this kind of goes to this question, a couple different questions, and I would love to ask this question to you. Let's just focus on whether this is a good idea. Then we could focus on whether the government has the ability. Do you think there are any downsides to children wearing masks in schools?

[B]

Hell, yeah, of course there are downsides to it. There are downsides to wearing a seatbelt. You know, percentage of. Of people die every year for wearing a seatbelt. But the Vast majority of them have their lives saved. So let me be clear on this.

[A]

I'm so glad.

[B]

Let me be clear on this. There will always be a cause and effect relationship with any social variable change implemented in our current structural society. No matter what mask create changes, it is a social deviation from the norm. But when you look at, at the risk of a child either having severe respiratory complications, forever potentially dying or potentially infecting their parents or grandparents, we weigh that. We weigh the same variables as it relates to vaccines that are already mandated. Brother, in the school system, the vaccines that are already mandated are very clear.

[A]

Mumps, measles, polio, and every single one of them. But let me.

[B]

But do you have an issue with those.

[A]

It's a totally different type of vaccine. First of all, first of all, those take 10 to 15 years on average to develop. Secondly, they've just changed the definition of a vaccine.

[B]

So you have an issue with the vaccine, not the intrusion or.

[A]

Well, again, we'll get to the civil liberty part of it, Right? So I'm not saying that a school does not have the ability to mandate certain things. Instead, my argument is that this is detrimental to children, their development, mental health issues, their ability to interact and it doesn't even do what it's you say it's going to do. So let me just read something that a study was done about masks that shows that if the mask is Even adjusted by 3.2%, it totally invalidates any sort of efficacy of a mask.

[B]

Who did that study, Charlie?

[A]

Well, this was written by Daniel Horowitz, who did. Stephen Petty, one of the most experienced certified industrial hygienicists and exposure experts in the country, has a study that he did on this. So Stephen Petty, the audience can look at it and they can have their own sort of interpretation. Now most of the mask studies that you're probably going to mention are done in laboratory style environments, not with six year old children. And you can agree you've seen six year olds, they're moving the mask all the time, which totally negates any sort of potential benefit. So if kids aren't going to wear them properly and the cloth mask is basically a joke, then why, why subject them to this kind of submissive kind of cloth face diaper?

[B]

All right, so you're incorrect on the data. So let me go ahead and correct that data. First off, the data that you're citing is what we call an outlier data set, okay? 92% of the field of actual research scientists agree that mask decreased the spread of COVID As a matter of fact, the only deviation from that agreement is by how much. The lowest end is 10%. The highest is 91%.

[A]

Can I ask a question about that?

[B]

I get to.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Give me one second, brother. All right, so University of California, they have a study and they posted this just a few days ago. And if anybody wants to read it, it's called. Still confused about mask. Okay. One of the lab studies that they highlighted showed in a high speed camera scenario, respiratory droplets. This is how the virus travels with the viral load. Those respiratory droplets were found within 20 to 500 micrometers. That's your size. They were generated from saying a simple phrase. So just talking to somebody creates a viral load 20 to 500 micrometers. Right. Having a cloth in front of your mouth decreased it by virtually 100%. Now that flies in the face of individuals who say, well, cloth masks do nothing. And remember, cloth masks are also now recommended for public use by the CDC and the. In the World Health Organization. So when you say they do absolutely nothing, even the data that you cite that says it doesn't do as much is at 10% effectiveness. The other data, that's the majority of the data, says it does it at 80 to 90% effectiveness.

[A]

So I just want to make sure I'm understanding your position. Your position is that first of all, does that study factor in whether they wear the mask correctly or not, Whether that they're touching the mask all the time and they're moving? It does that study factor for that.

[B]

This study factors for droplets that are.

[A]

So it does.

[B]

Transmitted. But think about it.

[A]

I mean, a 7 year old's not going to.

[B]

Not your issue, brother. Think about it. Your issue. The argument you're making with me is an argument of education. That that means that young people have to be more educated. I'm a former high school teacher. All right? There are high school students that may not wear the mask properly. They. There are grown folks that don't wear the mask properly.

[A]

That's part of the argument.

[B]

The issue then is education and proper wearing of the mask. You're literally making my argument.

[A]

For me, that's part of the argument.

[B]

Making my argument saying if you wear it properly, then it does in fact decrease the spread of COVID But they

[A]

don't and they won't. And you know that you're dealing with 8, 9 and 10 year olds. The other part of the argument, though, is that it actually makes us unfamiliar with one another, harder to communicate. It stunts childhood development. So I want to read some of these numbers And I want to, I want to ask you, do you think that masking children forcibly is going to help the 90% increase in suicide that we saw through March from 2019-20? Is it going to help the nearly doubling of mental health issues or the 333.9% increase in intentional self harm claim lines?

[B]

Is you're blaming all that on math?

[A]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm asking you a question. Is that going to help or hurt, hurt America's mental health crisis?

[B]

Let's be very clear, brother, because I want to understand exactly what you're asking. Are you saying that a kid wearing a mask and adjusting to a new social norm yields this result?

[A]

No, I'm asking you.

[B]

No, it doesn't yield that result. There's nothing in the data set that says.

[A]

Okay, so you think that masks have no impact whatsoever, potentially mental health?

[B]

Brother, I just answered that question and told you they do have an impact. But COVID 19 has even a stronger impact.

[A]

What makes you sad?

[B]

Social development. Because the risk of death, brother, is

[A]

so low for children.

[B]

No, brother, no. Let me tell you where I come from, when we talk about children, Charlie, we're not talking about a silo of just kids in an educational system. We're talking about kids that are connected to a greater community. I come from a community where this COVID 19 virus, brother, has ravaged the black community. And it's not just because children wear masks or don't wear masks. It's because of other variables such as healthcare, inequity, et cetera. But if you look at children and just say, well, the mask thing is the only thing. It's not just that we don't want young kids going back to infecting parents and grandparents. And if it's such a bad idea, Charlie, are you Disagreeing with over 60% of Americans who say, who care about their children? You can't say these folks don't care about their children. And they are saying in all of the survey data that we want mask mandates for our children so they can be safe. What do you say to those parents that say that?

[A]

I have a difference of opinion. And by the way, thankfully, we have a system. Just because you have 60% of opinion doesn't mean it necessarily only becomes law. We'll get to kind of the. I want to get to the civil rights in a second. But it's such a. Or it becomes precedent or gets implemented or whatever it is. So as I mentioned, the New York Times said that, Covid, you have a higher chance of dying from flu, pneumonia, drowning, cardiovascular disease, suicide, homicide, vehicle accidents. So to be consistent per 100,000 for children. Right. Okay. Are you okay with banning driving?

[B]

So let's go to this. I'm okay with making sure kids have a. A, A set of prerequisites in order to drive, which. How about the passenger? Oh, wait a minute. By the way, that's already the law. Children do not get to drive just because they turn a certain age. They have to get a learner's permit, go through a training process in order to get that license. We are. And why do we do that, Charlie? We do that because we know that driving is dangerous. That's why we do that.

[A]

Right. Well, also being a passenger in a car as well.

[B]

Well, everything has a danger.

[A]

If your view is to make safety a priority over liberty, then I'm just asking you. Because that is really the question, right?

[B]

No.

[A]

Do you have the liberty to be as God made you without a mask? Right.

[B]

That is, God made you without clothes. You got clothes on.

[A]

Well, and we wear clothes for a reason. We know that. We know the biblical reason for that.

[B]

It's the law. And you will be charged with indecent exposure.

[A]

God also gave us a face for a reason. Be able to interact and empathize, to communicate. So I could see your expressions. Let me ask you a question, Charlie. Come on. Do you think this debate would be better or worse if we had masks on?

[B]

It'll be the same for me.

[A]

Really? You think so?

[B]

Let me tell you something, brother, that's interesting. I teach college classes and lecture with a mask on. All of my students have masks. I go to law school. We all have mask on. My professor has a mask as well. And I've actually been in schools when schools first started, back where masks were required. And let me tell you something about real teachers. School teachers are able to teach with a mask on and without a mask. It's called pedagogy. And some of the really good teachers, they're able to translate the message of the mask into their. Into their curriculum. But once again, you're avoiding something that's huge and right in our face. Is the benefit, and this is a question of what you believe is the benefit of protecting children by saying, you do have to wear a mask. You do have to abide by a dress code. You do have to abide by a particular. Particular behavioral standard. Are those directives inside of a school system to protect the overall and general safety of students? Is that a good idea? I say yes, you say no.

[A]

Well, and I think you're coming from a false premise. The data I showed is that they're not at risk and considerably from the

[B]

delta silo thinking about their families.

[A]

The data I showed showed that they don't even wear the masks. The data I also also shows well the day again 2 percentage of kids

[B]

do not wear the mask properly.

[A]

I don't have data on that. But if you've ever been around a six year old, they don't wear anything proper, they eat dirt.

[B]

Let me tell you something man.

[A]

Let alone wear a mask problem, Charlie,

[B]

and I mean this in all due respect. I've been inside of school systems recently that did the let's come back thing and let's wear a mask, let's socially distance. Those kids were well behaved. They did not take the mask off, they adhered to it.

[A]

Even if a 2% adjustment. Dr. 2%. Well it changes everything.

[B]

Well it changes it. Based on the research that I have from 90% effectiveness and it can lower down to 10%. All right. You got a lot of wiggle room in between that. No scientist says that wearing a cloth mask is ineffective. They just argue on the effectiveness with the majority of the science and majority of the data saying it is well over 50%.

[A]

That's not true. There's a study out of Denmark that shows there's almost no increase. So that's a good question. I'm going to get to that in a second. What happens when you have different studies? What happens when the body of evidence contradicts? Because that's an important question. I think that's a great question because that what. How do you govern oneself when you have. I have this study, I have that study but I just want to make sure that the people watching can see where I'm coming from my perspective. So let me just say kind of one other point on this where you said that am I willing to make adjustments for child safety and you kind of asked. That was the open ended question where I say it's not about that at all. In fact the downside in my opinion far outweighs any sort of benefit. Especially when Dr. Macary who said he studied right here, he studied 43,000 children with COVID and was not able to find a single death. Now you say it's also a transmission issue. Dr. Macri also said that children quote are not significant carriers or super spreaders to adults.

[B]

Okay, wow.

[A]

So we're gonna have study collision. So go ahead.

[B]

So let's talk about study collision once again, outlier data. What that doctor just quoted to say that children are not carriers of COVID 19 is outlier data because over 90% of the field agrees, based on research and study, that kids are carriers of not only Covid, but of any virus. And you literally just made that argument with me. You literally just said, Charlie, that kids do not properly wear their mask. And they're spreading things by not properly wearing their mask. You have made the.

[A]

That was not my argument. I said if your argument was true and masks worked, it would only be true if every child was a perfect automaton mask wearing no student, which of course we know is not.

[B]

Seatbelt mandates work.

[A]

Of course they do.

[B]

Does everyone wear one?

[A]

Do you know what's amazing about a seatbelt, Charlie?

[B]

Does everyone wear a seat after you're

[A]

in a car accident? It doesn't give you natural immunity from getting in another car accident. That's what makes this totally different.

[B]

Everyone wear a seatbelt, Charlie?

[A]

Of course not.

[B]

Do we then go back and unravel because only 49 states have seat belt laws? Do we go back and unravel the 49 state statutes because there are some people who will either A, not wear them or B, actually die because of them? We don't do that, Charlie, because we see the benefit of wearing that safety belt. That protocol outweighs anything else.

[A]

So we haven't. I've not been convinced by.

[B]

And let's talk about the data, because we're going to.

[A]

We're going to collide on data. Okay, let me ask you a question. When it comes to driving and safety ism, do you think we should bring speed limits down to 20 miles an hour, which would definitely save lives? Is that a good handoff?

[B]

Yeah. So let me get back to that. It used to be 15 miles per hour, by the way.

[A]

Is that okay with you? Because that would prioritize safety over liberty.

[B]

Well, I think you always weigh it, but let me answer your first question. I'll get back to that one. You talked about conflict in data, right?

[A]

Yeah. Like what happens when I have a study? I have a study.

[B]

That's right. So here's what happens. Science. A lot of people misinterpret what science is. They say science is a fact. Science is not a fact. Science is a field of study. Now, there are some things that are scientific facts like gravity, okay? But science is a field of study. And I do think sometimes scientists do themselves an injustice when they do not describe science as such. It is a field of study. Now, what does that field of study mean? It means you study the field. So what's the field of science? All of these research surveys, these research, these laboratory experiments, these real world research experiments. That's the field of study. And so for you and I who are reading the data from these experts, what we typically depend on is what is the majority sentiment, what is the consensus among the scientist community. And that is how we start to derive our conclusions based on the research that we're able to analyze independently as independent thinking individuals. Now, you can still believe an outlier study if you choose it is contrary to the majority of the science that's available for review. But that is still within your right as an American. Right? So that is how you do it. You're going to always have clashing opinions and conclusions. But literally in research, there's no 50, 50 here. There's nothing. 50% of the scientists are saying this and 50% of the scientists are saying that. Literally, you're giving me 8, 7% of what scientists are saying compared to 90 to 93% of what other scientists are saying. That's the argument that you're making with me, Charlie.

[A]

And I'm always fascinated by the 7% because they're willing to buck the consensus and pursue things that they have found in the scientific method to be true. And so I guess this is an important question. Then we'll get into what do we do when we have these differences? Because that we're going to keep on going in circles of study versus studying. And I'm gonna say, well, according to this doctor, for example, as I'll say Dr. Durone Delta variant, not severe in children. And then I'll say Dr. Debozzi said the same thing and Dr. Macri, and you'll say, well, the CDC said this. I guess I'll ask you a question,

[B]

which are a lot of doctors.

[A]

Well, let me ask you a question. The CDC contradicted themselves on masks. They contradict themselves on vaccines. They contradicted themselves on Covid being on surfaces. Remember they said it could be there up to five days. We know that not to be true. They contradict themselves in almost everything. If they've been wrong on the science of 90% of doctors, why should we trust them now?

[B]

You know, that's really interesting because you trust them, don't you?

[A]

It depends on what issue.

[B]

Exactly. That's my point.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So you trust them depending on what issue. That is called confirmation bias. So, Charlie.

[A]

Well, it depends on the issue. If they're talking about, yeah, Newton's second law, then yeah, I'll trust them on that.

[B]

They don't Talk about that. The issue with the CDC is not about you discrediting all the scientists. Now, I take it back to one variable you just named the COVID The survival time of the virus. Right?

[A]

Yeah. Like, is Covid able to be on this table for five?

[B]

Right. Initially, there were scientists that came out and said, hell, it can be up there for 18 days. Well, in certain environments it can, because that was based on. On a ship crew, a cruise ship, where the virus was still there after

[A]

the Princess cruise ship.

[B]

That's right, brother. It was there after 15 days. Everybody was evacuated. They cleaned that ship top to bottom, and they still found active virus on the ship. So they came out and said, hey, listen, we're still learning this thing. We are connecting it to the field of study, which is called science. And we want you to be warned that we have active virus cultures and still on this ship. And no one infected has been here for over 15 days. They reported that. And then people ran with it and said, oh, my goodness, this thing survives all of these days. But that was in a particular environment, and that environment was conducive to the growth and the preservation of that virus. That. That's context. That's important.

[A]

So you mentioned outliers. You know, those of us that are trying to answer the question, what do we do about this? I'm fascinated by outliers. Outliers in science sometimes end up being true. In fact, we've seen this. You know, we were told that it was a conspiracy theory, that it came from a lab. Well, that's kind of the prevailing wisdom now. It definitely didn't come from some bat in the Himalayas. It's looking more and more like it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It also used to be an outlier to say that we revolve around the sun. The heliocentric theory of gravitational pull, as you know, authored by Galileo, used to be an outlier in science. You know, Newton's first, second, and third law, the idea that an object at rest will stay at rest. The. The idea that there's force equals mass times acceleration. These things had to be eventually investigated and proven. I'll give you another example. It used to be scientific consensus that eugenics was good and the sterilization of women would improve humanity. Now, those are some extreme examples.

[B]

Very.

[A]

I understand, but the point is that sometimes these. What if these studies are right? Do you ever wonder, what if there's some truth here?

[B]

Do you ever wonder, what if the majority of scientists are telling the truth?

[A]

Well, of course, I Mean, I entertain it and I just, I dismiss it on issue by issue. I'll give you an example. Like a majority of scientists right now are saying that we have to entertain another round of lockdowns in certain parts of the country or the world to try to stop the virus. I think that's a big mistake. I mean, I listen to anything that they say.

[B]

Well, you may think that's a big mistake, but you're saying that based on a socioeconomic factor.

[A]

Well, I also could say it scientifically. I could also say it epidemiologically, right? So let's look at Israel and Sweden, right? Israel was held up as this, like, beautiful country. Mass inoculation. They've now gone through their fourth lockdown. They're on their fourth booster shot. Sweden, that probably had the most mature and prudent response to the virus is wide open. And Sweden has now banned Israeli citizens from coming into Sweden. And so I don't need, you know, a PhD in epidemiology to say, hey, whatever decisions they were making in Sweden seemed far more prudent than what they were doing in Israel. And I suppose this is the question which is you have this multitude of studies, many of many of these, the consensus that was put forward. So let's go back in time. Dr. Ronny Jackson last year said, do not wear a mask. People stop wearing masks. And now we're mask crazy. That was a contradiction, right? Remember they said that at first that children might be at risk. That was a conjecture. That was not necessarily a policy. We now know it to be different. The point is that we should always be entertaining the minority opinion in science, right?

[B]

All right, brother.

[A]

And honestly, that minority opinion has ended up being true almost every time.

[B]

No, sir. No, sir. The minority opinion has said some pretty extreme things. You have a minority opinion of people who believe that the Earth is still flat.

[A]

Well, I'm not one of those people.

[B]

I understand that.

[A]

I do believe in a circular Earth that can be proven in a variety of different ways.

[B]

But remember, you have some people that are willing to die by that sentiment. They are so dogmatic about the Earth, right? And that's a scientific factor. That's Earth science. Just because the data or the proclamation is an outlier does not mean it's true. But here.

[A]

But calling Dr. Durone a flat earther is a little extreme.

[B]

That's not. Come on, brother.

[A]

She's an epidemiologist at times some other

[B]

man, you know good damn well you're

[A]

kind of conflating those two things is

[B]

what I'm I'm not presenting extreme examples. You just gave.

[A]

Very fair.

[B]

Come on. Okay, let's go to some simple things we learned about infectious diseases. Like you, I've interviewed a lot of infectious disease doctors. Right. Some of them have been all across the United States. And now they're right here, all across the globe. And now they're right here in the United States trying to fight this thing. Do you and I agree that mask decreased the spread of COVID Do we agree on that fundamental basic premise?

[A]

It's questionable. I would only agree if it's a certain type of mask that is worn absolutely properly, that followed the exact laboratory guidelines. If and only then, I would say maybe, which almost no human being outside of a controlled sterilized laboratory environment is wearing a mask that way.

[B]

How do you wear a mask properly?

[A]

By not touching it, not adjusting it. According to. Again, Steven Petty, one of the most ex certified experts in industrial hygienist. He says that even if 2% of the mask area is open, 80% of the particles under 2.5 microns will.

[B]

Thank you for saying that. Okay, now, what area is he talking about, Charlie?

[A]

It could be the top or the bottom of the mask. I'm not exactly right the terminology.

[B]

So if your mouth or your nose is exposed, then it decreases the impact.

[A]

No, no.

[B]

Of what? The mask.

[A]

That's not what he said.

[B]

Okay, go ahead.

[A]

But again, I. I'm not.

[B]

What did he say?

[A]

I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna profess, you know, to be.

[B]

Read it again.

[A]

A lifelong, you know, student of mask wearing.

[B]

But, brother read.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I'm gonna Finish it, though. 2% of the mask area open. 80% of the particles under 2.5 microns will escape.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And he says that masks will be 100 ineffective. He says he. In blocking any particles that small. When the area open, area reaches 3.2%. And he also says that if it's Even adjusted by 4%, a small adjustment, it could end it all. And also, you know, this. You could contaminate yourself. Not to mention, Dr. Macary says that if you wear the masks, you could actually be reinfecting yourself and it lowers oxygen levels. So there are some things to say,

[B]

you know, that's really. That's really interesting. Okay.

[A]

And I'm citing other people again.

[B]

Right, I got you.

[A]

And then we'll go into what we do about it. I think that's interesting.

[B]

That is a minority report.

[A]

So.

[B]

So let me take you back to what he's referencing.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

He's referencing having the mask not covering your pothole. All right, that's what he's referencing. The way it spreads through droplets primarily is through your mouth and through your nose. Once again, I cite the study highlighted by the University of California that found in a high speed camera, 20 to 500 micrometers were generated by. From a simple phrase. Hello, goodbye, good to see you. Okay, that simple phrase had thousands inside of those droplets. That's your viral load. A cloth mask. Not one that is required for medical or whatever, right? Not that one. Just as a matter of fact, in the study, brother, they used a cloth towel, a wash towel, in order to show that any covering is in fact effective.

[A]

So now this is the most important question, right? So half the country's on your couch. Half the countries on my couch. It might be less than that. According to you, it's 60%. Right. So then the question is, how do we govern ourselves? Right? If we have differences of opinions on things that are constantly changing and confusing, wouldn't the right answer be allow a parent and the child to make that decision outside of what a school district might want to do against their will? Wouldn't. Shouldn't we always resort towards parental rights in situations like this?

[B]

Let me ask you this, Charlie. Let's say we use the same standard for dress codes in school systems. That is not about what the policy is. It's about what the parent and the child wants to do. Would that be okay with you?

[A]

Well, first of all, I think that a man. A certain level of a dress code I think, is just actually really good for childhood development. I would argue I'm actually very pro dress code. I would love to have kids wear shirts and ties. So I think there could be an objective argument made that they'll pay more attention and. But you can't make that argument for masks. You think there's a downside? I don't think that if all of a sudden you said, hey, the nicer you dress, no more, it's the opposite.

[B]

There is a psychological downside. Various studies prove it.

[A]

To dress like you?

[B]

No, man.

[A]

See, if I dress. If kids dress like you, you can't

[B]

dress like me, brother.

[A]

I know, but if kids dress like you, everyone would be smarter.

[B]

So let me say this, Charlie. There are studies and. And listen, man, I have a doctorate in education. There are studies that show education is not just for academic achievement. It's also for social development. And there comes a time, especially in the teenager's life, where they would like to express themselves socially through their attire. I'm actually more liberal as it relates to attire. Right. I don't like dress codes as they are.

[A]

I'm more conservative. I kind of. I kind of like it.

[B]

I understand. I understand the decent as I wear a T shirt. Right. You know, but. But the issue is we can't create a standard that says we're willing to put your life in danger or your child in danger by. Because you have a personal issue with the school policy. And remember, once again, the vast majority of Americans are for the mask mandate policy.

[A]

So let's just go to this. First of all, I think it's somewhat of a red herring argument because some parents don't like to send their kids to private school because they have. So there's some choice there.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I guess what I'm saying though is that you support a school board coming into the school and saying every child must wear the mask. Why not make it optional? Because here's what happens is that some parents are going to yield to my opinion. Some parents will yield to your opinion. Isn't the right decision just to let parents choose?

[B]

I think the right decision is to allow the elected representatives who were elected by those parents to enact administrative law, to make common sense policies to protect the children and for them to listen to the science as is collected locally. I don't believe it's the right idea to do what DeSantis has did in Florida, which is to make a mask mandate ban, which by the way, 70% of Republicans disagree with his ban on mask mandates and defunding school systems who are in opposition to his executive action. And a Judge recently ruled Governor DeSantis that. That DeSantis in Florida was without legal authority when he used an executive order to limit a governmental entity that exists by statute. If you want to start making executive orders to restrict other governmental agencies, go through statutory processes through your legislature.

[A]

Let me ask you a question. First of all, I love what DeSantis did and I love the idea, but it's illegal. Coming in with. Well, there was a judge that is rehearing. I think he actually just won on that. But I will yield to this, that there was an Iowa decision that just said where a judge said what happened in Iowa was unconstitutional. So there are a lot of rulings there. I will give you that, that it's an open ended question. But what DeSantis is doing is actually the anti of mandates. He's telling every student in Florida. You have as a taxpayer a moral right to be able to choose. And you want to talk about local government, you're talking about local Government. Right. You know what the ultimate local government is? A parent and child. There's nothing more local.

[B]

Thank you for saying that. Because once again, the vast majority of them are for mask mandates.

[A]

Then let them mask their kid and let the other parents mask their kids.

[B]

Right, Once again. Once again. Just because their child has a mask. Right. It doesn't mean the child next to them will have one. And what is Covid? What are the mask for? The mask is for the decrease. Primarily for the decrease of COVID the decrease of the spread. I want to read some stats, man. Cause we've been all over the place. Most Americans are for the vaccine requirement. This is a Gallup poll that came out very recently.

[A]

You want to do vaccines, that's fine.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Happy to go into that.

[B]

All right, let's go to vaccines quickly. 54% of Americans support vaccine requirements and workplace settings. 53% report that they're for them. Even if you're dining out, they want you to have a vaccine. Passport. 61% of Americans would like to have that for air travel. We don't have that yet. You can still travel without a vaccine.

[A]

Some restaurants are starting to do it,

[B]

but I'm talking about travel for travel. We don't have that. Canada is implementing that in the fall. Other countries are going to do the same. If you're telling me that the school system. Just think about this, and I'm going back to vaccines. If you're telling me that the school system has the legal authority to mandate various vaccinations. That's a needle going into the body of a child. They have the authority to mandate that, but they do not have the authority to mandate a mask. That is intellectually dishonest. Either the school board has the authority to mandate vaccines and mask, or it is all governmental.

[A]

Are you talking about measles, mumps, and rubella?

[B]

Are you talking about. And some children have adverse effects of those vaccines.

[A]

I would actually be more on parental rights to that, but I'm not going to. The courts have ruled differently. My personal right would be that children should be able to go to school without the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. That's my own personal.

[B]

Are you. Are you against vaccine mandates as a principle?

[A]

It depends on what you're talking about with that right. Are you talking about the current one that's being called a vaccine with a changing definition of a vaccine?

[B]

So you have an issue with COVID

[A]

Well, do I have a. Do I have an issue with the one that was put on the marketplace without the usual 10 to 15 years of study and the peer reviewed studies and the explosion. So you have various responses.

[B]

So, Charlie, 10 to 15 years later, you will agree with me. Well, that's what you're saying.

[A]

I don't know. The issue here is prudence, is how are we gonna use practical judgment to see what's in front of us and ask ourselves the question, should we use force to all of a sudden say to a family? You know what doesn't matter about all these studies. That may very well might be a small percentage of doctors. But you know what's so great about science? It's not an up or down vote. We don't vote on Newton's third law.

[B]

Okay?

[A]

So if there's not 100% consensus, it is an open question and you have to keep on going through it and

[B]

assign method, follow the data.

[A]

The data can send you in different directions, as we've shown. We're not going to. We're asking ourselves, what do we do? So my opinion is that when things are confusing, unclear, and you have contradiction, yield to rights. Let people choose. Don't use force.

[B]

All right, man, that's a funny argument to me. Let me tell you why there's a lot of disagreement about voting. Okay? You got state legislatures, they have passed laws saying you need to do A, B and C in order to vote. You can't vote by way of absentee without having this prerequisite is all over the place. There is no federal uniform to voting, right?

[A]

Well, there are. There is some. There is the Civil Rights Act. That's not true. Yeah, but which is very specific that

[B]

the, the Voting Rights Act, I think, is what you're referring to. The Voting Rights act was gutted by the Supreme Court a few years ago who set it aside and said the United States Congress needs to now handle this statutorily. Which is the reason why Southern states like Georgia, Mississippi and others do not have to seek pre clearance from the Department of Justice in order to change the electorate rules in their state. Before the Supreme Court set aside the Voting Rights act, they would have to get pre clearance from the DOJ in order to change voting rules before we get to voting.

[A]

Can you complete the point though, because you were trying to connect voting with COVID Texas.

[B]

They passed a law, they passed this legislative standard that said constitutional carry. You familiar with that?

[A]

Big, big fan of it.

[B]

All right, I'm glad you're a big fan of constitutional carry. Right. Because it says you do not need a prerequisite in order to get a gun, no license, no government bureaucracy, no id, no permit, no nothing. Constitutional carry. Because bearing arms is what, a constitutional right?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Correct. Boom. I'm good with that 100%. Is voting a right?

[A]

Depends on if you're a felon or not.

[B]

But it is a right. Because if you're a felon, you can't have a gun either.

[A]

Yeah, that's the question. Right. So an extreme libertarian would say that we should allow felons to vote. We should allow people to vote. Voting is a right. Absolutely. But it's also. It becomes not a right when it's not secure. You agree with that? You don't want to all of a sudden question your elections.

[B]

So let me now pose this to you. Constitutionally, you have the right to bear arms.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

That right can be limited. You have to age into that right based on the state law.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Okay. You also can have that right taken away from you based on your criminal activity.

[A]

Felon, as we agree on.

[B]

Right. But you do agree it's a right?

[A]

Yes, but all. I mean, like, look, rights are conditional under the current agreement we've made with our government, where the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment. There are exceptions. I think there's far too many exceptions. I yield to rights most of the time.

[B]

Okay, let's yield to rights on this. And this is the point I'm making to you. If you're a big fan of constitutional carry.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Meaning no id, no permit.

[A]

No. I think that's an oversimplification of the Texas law.

[B]

No, the Texas law says you don't need nothing. As a matter of fact, you just

[A]

said felons can't buy the guns. Then how do they know if they're a felon?

[B]

Exactly, brother.

[A]

No, no, but.

[B]

Exactly. That's my point.

[A]

I think you're misunderstanding, Charlie.

[B]

I've researched this up and down the Texas law. Constitutional care does not require a prerequisite. You can just get a gun, carry it, and no law enforcement agent. Agent. Can ask you for a permit. Nobody. You can walk around with your gas.

[A]

I understand the point you're making. You say if you want to have laissez faire policy on guns, then why don't you want to have laissez faire policy on voting? Is that the question? You're.

[B]

Here's the point I'm making.

[A]

I don't know how that relates to Covid.

[B]

I'm about to help you, brother. If you believe in constitutional carry.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Why don't you believe in constitutional voting?

[A]

Well, I do, which means voter ID

[B]

and security, but no ID for Guns, no permit.

[A]

ID for guns. The problem, Voting for voting. Let me tell you why. Voting is how we build our government.

[B]

I thought you don't defend your government.

[A]

It's true. That's also true. Which is why we should have widespread gun ownership and we should be able to protect ourselves against usurp tatious government. Let me. Let me build this out.

[B]

All right? And I finished my point. I'm going to make the change.

[A]

I don't know how it gets to Covid.

[B]

You'll see.

[A]

It's interesting. Okay? But voting is how we express our values and put people in positions of power. And if there's any question in the efficacy, the integrity, the transparency and how those elections are done, the entire system falls apart. Which is why I believe in transparent and fair elections. And this idea that Georgia somehow has oppressive voter laws. They have 18 days of early voting way more than Delaware has. They allow Sunday voting, which is sold to the polls, which is, I'm sure, something you're very well aware with. So that's a misinterpretation of that. So I do believe in constitutional voting, which is, leave it to the states. Let the states do what they want to do with voting. And that goes with gun laws as well as voter laws.

[B]

All right, so let me make the connection. Okay. Constitutional carry in Texas. No id, no permit.

[A]

Again, I think you're oversimplifying that law. Let me tell you why. There are federal laws like the Brady bill in 1986 that says that felons cannot buy weapons, that the federal agents are able to get subpoenas against weapons. You're oversimplifying.

[B]

I'm not oversimplifying the Texas law. The Texas law says we're not going to check a damn thing if you're walking around this state with a gun.

[A]

Right. Which I have no problem with. That's. You have no requiring the weapon.

[B]

Right. You have no problem. Well, remember, you can purchase a gun from a private dealer without showing an id. They don't have to require that.

[A]

You call that the gun show loophole? That's been largely misrepresented.

[B]

No.

[A]

Pretend you're right. Finish the argument. We have to take a 10 second break in just a second, but finish your argument.

[B]

Let me make this quick. Constitutional carry. All good voting is a right. Constitutional voting. Ah, wait a minute. Y' all need IDs now.

[A]

I'm big into constitutional voting.

[B]

Okay. All right, now here's the final point. Everything we're talking about as far as regulatory agencies, mandates for vaccines or mask or protocols for COVID 19 is derived from the Constitution. There are two dynamics that the Constitution allows.

[A]

No, I never said it was unconstitutional. It might be. I said it's wrong.

[B]

Wait a minute.

[A]

But if you're listening, there's plenty of things that are constitutional that are wrong. Charlie, not everything that is constitutional.

[B]

Listen to my point, brother. If you believe in the Constitution, why do you dismiss Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, or the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which gives states and gives regulatory agencies and give school boards these particular powers? These powers are expressions.

[A]

I don't.

[B]

But they're expressions of the Constitution.

[A]

No, no, but I say they're wrong to do it, not that they don't have a right to do it. Okay, two totally different.

[B]

So. So you're making a moral argument.

[A]

I have been the whole time against

[B]

kids wearing a mask to school.

[A]

Yes. Not only that, I'm making a moral argument of imposing oneself into a parent's decision to either have their child wear a mask or not. That's what my argument. I have not made a constitutional argument. You know why I haven't made a constitutional argument? Because the courts are open on this discussion.

[B]

I would, but the Constitution is not.

[A]

Well, with the. Again, it depends on states Constitution. That's on precedents, courts, decisions.

[B]

You know, the law of reciprocation.

[A]

Hold on, a second.

[B]

State cannot override.

[A]

Courts change their minds all the time. We had Dred Scott. Praise God we reversed that. We had the forced sterilization of women in the 1920s. Praise God we reverse that. We had Jim Crow. Praise God we reversed that right.

[B]

That was in the Constitution.

[A]

I'm intentional. Well, the.

[B]

Some people Crow Jim Crow was not

[A]

in the Constitution, but Now they use 10th amendment.

[B]

Bias is. Well, they use the state's rights right.

[A]

Which is your argument right now. Which bizarre way.

[B]

No, no, no. They use a state's rights clause and perverted the statute. So we've always had those who mishandled statutory legislation. That's something common.

[A]

I'm making a moral. I had the whole time and an argument about childhood development.

[B]

I get it. But Charlie, you're literally disagreeing with the damn parents. The data shows that over 60% of the.

[A]

What about the 44? So you are. Let me just make sure I'm clear. We have to take a 10 second break. You are okay with saying the 60% of parents can use force against 40%.

[B]

They can use a mandate. Yes. They can use a mandate for vaccines. They can use a mandate for dress codes. They can use a mandate for that.

[A]

So let me ask you this question, 60% of Americans wanted to take rights away from black Americans. Is that okay?

[B]

That's a dumb ass argument.

[A]

Why?

[B]

And let me tell you why.

[A]

Because that's the argument they used to make for Jim Crow, sir, is a democratic.

[B]

And it was an evil argument back then.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

And. And let me be clear. We're talking about the safety of children and mask mandates inside of a local school system that the majority of taxpaying Americans actually agree with.

[A]

So in the minority here, we have clarity. I don't believe just because a majority of people believe something they should.

[B]

Neither do I. The other side on this case, I'm with.

[A]

So we're going to take it. If you guys want to watch the rest of this Charlie Kirk show podcast, hit subscribe on the Turning Point USA feed. That's it for take. Go to the Charlie Kirk show and we're going to be back with more. Okay. If you want to take a water break and then we'll keep going, that's okay.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Is that okay with you?

[B]

Yeah, it's good. Are we okay, y'?

[A]

All? Yeah, we're good. Right? Okay. Good to keep going.

[B]

Yeah. Hold on, brother. Hold on, man. You're younger than me, brother.

[A]

I'm sorry. No. Yeah.

[B]

Do I need some powder? Yeah. Okay.

[A]

All right.

[B]

Okay, we're good. Oh, all right. Don't touch the hairline.

[A]

Oh, no, no, sir, I won't. We're just gonna go. What time is it?

[B]

All right. Do we want to jump? Okay, Charlie, when is this going to air, brother?

[A]

Probably next next week, right, Joe? And we're going to give you the full file to do whatever you want to do with it.

[B]

Thank you. All right, we're good.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Do we want to jump into the crt? Crt.

[A]

Is that okay with you?

[B]

Yeah, I'm good with it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. Do you want to talk about the Biden mandate?

[A]

Which one?

[B]

Well, yeah, you sound like four of them. The private sector.

[A]

Yeah. Let's segue naturally, because I. I'm gonna air this. I'm gonna air the whole thing on my podcast. Right. And we'll keep going. So we're good. 5:30, right? Okay. Okay. Tell me when. Okay. Okay, Ready? So, welcome back Charlie Kirk show podcast. Dr. Richie, you said I made a what kind of argument? Because I compared.

[B]

I think I said it was a

[A]

dumbass or silly elaborate, because I kind of almost cut you off. I felt bad about that.

[B]

All right, so I don't remember because you've made so many great points today.

[A]

Thank you. Well, I know, yeah. What I said was this. And it was provocative, intentionally. But it got your attention. But it's true, which is that this idea that just because 60% of Americans want something, make it right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I said they used to use that to justify segregation.

[B]

Yeah. So my argument is not simply a majority argument. My argument is an argument based on data safety, my common sense, and also a majority argument. So no way should we compare good faith parents who are trying to genuinely protect their children to some type of misguided, evil and perverted sentiment of white individuals in the 60s.

[A]

And I think, I think there is obviously a difference between the two. The point is, though, is that majorities can be wrong and they can be dreadfully wrong. That's the point I was trying to make. So let's talk about the Biden mandate. You and I were joking. You said, I want to talk about the Biden mandate. I said, which one? So go ahead.

[B]

You know, it's interesting. So it's not a mandate. Let's talk about private sector. Because that, what, that's what's in the headlines, right? The Joe Biden mandate, and I'm using air quotes intentionally, is not a mandate at all. And shame on Democrats, dammit, for not knowing how to tell people what this was. This is a COVID 19 vaccine protocol, but not a mandate. So literally in the executive action, it says that if you have a private company which has 100 employees or more, then there's a certain protocol this company must adhere to. And that protocol says either you have the vaccine or you take a test once a week, and that's it. That's not a mandate for a vaccine. That's quite the opposite. That's literally telling you there is absolutely no mandate for you to get the vaccine, but there is a protocol to make sure others are safe. Now, a lot of people are, you know, they're, they're raging about this.

[A]

That would be me.

[B]

Okay, you're, you're. Once again, you are in the minority for that, by the way. But, but you, you're a loud minority.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

And let's talk about where this comes from. OSHA is the regulatory agency that President Biden says will enforce this executive action. Now, first of all, man, OSHA is still trying to figure out how to get tires from the back of certain industries. Okay. All right. OSHA does not have the manpower to implement and enforce these COVID protocols throughout the entire country. They're going to write it and they're probably going to spot check if there's a surge in Covid outbreaks in a particular company, but they are not able to actually implement the law all over the United States. But let's be very clear about osha. Once again, I'm back to the Constitution. OSHA was created statutorily in 1970 because of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution where Congress has the ability to create regulatory agencies. And the Commerce clause says that the federal government can regulate through administrative rule, policy and law anything that impacts interstate commerce. That is your law derived from the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to realize you do need a federal government with the authority to do this. And listen, this is not an ongoing mandate from osha. This is not an ongoing protocol. This is simply a 100 day ETS. That's an emergency temporary standard that ETS expires after 100 days. And after that 100 days, the agency will have to go through all of the bureaucratic process, including public opinion, which is required by federal law in order to make it a permanent rule. All of this that's happening is within the context and confines of not only the US Constitution, statutory law, and also settled case law that has been well established. 1990 Dole versus steel workers. And before I forget this part, I want to make it very clear. OSHA by statute can do two things in an ets. One, when employees may be exposed to substances or agents that may be harmful. And two, such a standard is necessary to protect employees. You all had no issue with osha. You all had no issue with the regulatory powers of the US Congress, UI had no issue with the Commerce clause of the Constitution until it came to Covid.

[A]

Well, I would say I would probably. I had a lot of issues with the fourth branch of government for quite some time. What I will agree with you though, Doctor, is that yes, OSHA is so inefficient, so bureaucratic, so slow, and not exactly the most agile government agency that you're probably right, it's gonna take them so long, they're not gonna come marching into places. But the reason there's the outrage from people like me and, you know, employers, because we have 100 plus employees here at Turning Point USA and we vowed to fight this in federal court.

[B]

All right, is are you going to comply first, though?

[A]

Oh, we're not going to comply. No way. Oh, hell, no way. Let me tell you why. Now, first of all, Joe Biden has no business telling us how to run our business here. Now that's a moral argument. Legally, you know what? The courts might side with that and that's that's going to be a common refrain here, because I think the courts can be wrong a lot. The courts were wrong with separate but equal. They were wrong about many other things. Right. They were wrong about forced sterilization of women in the 1920s with the same sort of 1905 decision, the Jackson decision, that set the precedent for that. In essence, here's the big issue is that I've made the choice not to get vaccinated. Many of our employees have made the same decision. Some of our employees have made the choice to get vaccinated. All of a sudden, we have now a company where employees are enjoying the added benefit of. Of having medical freedom. Now you might say, just get a test. Go do that. I find that to be a grotesque invasion of how we do our own protocols here in our office. Who are you to say I should have a test for that? What about people that have already had the virus? And basically, the argument, the outrage, if you will, is less about the technicalities, OSHA or the irs, whatever. It's. No, no, no. This sets the precedent for massive government intervention.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

For all of a sudden, the federal government usurping employer and employees rights, that's really where the backlash is rooted.

[B]

And I definitely understand it. And let me be clear about my point of view. The Biden administration would need to find a way to make sure people that have already contracted Covid and have the antibodies can benefit from some of the same policies. He's.

[A]

That's a reasonable middle ground.

[B]

They haven't done that yet.

[A]

Natural immunity hasn't been talked about at all recently.

[B]

Right. And so I think they need to make exceptions or caveats for that. Now, let's go to your proclamation about the workplace.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

We're at a workplace right now. Okay. This workplace is already regulated by the federal government and by your local government. There are various protocols, mandates. There are compliances that you must adhere to in order to continue to operate legally.

[A]

Yeah. And OSHA was mostly for construction sites.

[B]

Let's just be clear initially, Right. Yeah. And biohazard.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, come on. This is not exactly osha's sweet spot.

[B]

Well. And that may help you out. Okay.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You're not going to be compliant.

[A]

I just want to make everyone clear that this is a little bit of a mission creep for osha. This is for people that are all of a sudden working in steel workers. Like, that's. That's a legitimate place where you could. It's occupational safety hazard, I think, in Minnesota.

[B]

And I get your argument. And you're a brilliant person. So I know the argument that you're making. Your argument is this is another expansion of government. This is an intrusion of workplace independence. And I get the argument right. But I get the other argument better. And the other argument is everybody who works with you, everybody who works in an office, especially. We're talking about 100 people or more. Once again, they're not in a silo, brother. They're not in a silo, Charlie. They go back to a family. They have children, they have parents, they have grandparents. They have a peer group. And if the place where they will spend roughly eight, maybe up to 12 hours of their day. Right. The place where you may get the most exposed to somebody who has COVID 19. If that place is unwilling to just go through a temporary standard because by nature of the statute, they can't do it forever. Okay? It's against the law for them to do it beyond 100 days. I think it's a good sacrifice. Listen, I'm a business owner too. I don't wanna do it right. I'm president of Rolling out magazine. We have way more than 100 employees. I don't want to. It's not something I'm jumping up and down to do. But I get why it needs to be done. So I understand it from both sides of the argument.

[A]

So let me. I wanna ask you about a couple things that I'm interested. I think it will lead us in a good direction and we can get into vaccine efficacy, but we're gonna just kind of go back to colliding studies. I'm curious, though. Cause I saw a tweet that you sent that really fascinated me about how you said you understand black people's skepticism towards getting the vaccine. Because of course, the Tuskegee, you know, idea of medical experiments and kind of how federal health agencies have been abusive before, especially towards black people and people of color. Something I will fully admit. And so can you help me unpack, like, why you trust the health officials now and why you trust this vaccine? Because some people like Nicki Minaj and others are kind of playing into this kind of medical freedom argument. I'm just curious, as someone who obviously speaks on behalf of the black community.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely, man. And I stand by that statement. So anyone who tries to shame black folk, you don't understand the history of black people. If you try to shame black folks who are vaccine hesitant, you don't understand the reason of their distrust with governmental agencies, period. Especially as it relates to healthcare. So I stand by that and I defend Opportunities like this. Because I think it's very important to understand the why. Right. You talked about Tuskegee, but it goes deeper than that. We've had localized studies all throughout the United States. Hell, there was one two weeks ago of an actual medical director of a county jail who decided to secretly treat inmates with Ivermectin. I reported on that on my show.

[A]

Well, I don't mind that.

[B]

Yeah, but come on, man.

[A]

The secret that wasn't done, I don't think to hurt people, do you?

[B]

But come on, man.

[A]

But I'm actually leveling. I agree with you that let's pretend he was a racist, which I don't know if he was right, and I

[B]

really don't give a damn if he was racist or not. He was wrong. He's now under investigation by the medical board. Because these inmates, they learned that they were being treated with ivermectin, brother. On the news. They were literally inside of their pod.

[A]

Did it work?

[B]

Watching news? Well, not according to them. Because the person that was the whistleblower said not only did I get. Did it get worse. I had stomach issues. I had diarrhea, vomiting, sweating. And they lied, man. They lied to these black folks incarcerated so that. Only I don't care if he was being treated with one of the approved FDA medications for Covid. If he was being lied to, it is wrong.

[A]

So what makes you trustworthy of this?

[B]

Well, let me tell you.

[A]

This regime.

[B]

I trust Dr. Howard. I trust Dr. Chica Akua. I trust individuals in research science. I trust people at Morehouse School of Medicine, where I lecture. I trust these black scientists and black doctors and infectious disease specialists that look like me who have said they were hesitant at first, too, but they got involved in the data. They're inside of the science. They're in the research. They're reading the studies they're conducting. Some of them and part of some of the clinical trials. And they come on my show, they talk to me personally. I have communion with these brothers and sisters, and I trust them because their process was like mine. It matured to this place because they. Even though they're in the medical field, they were hesitant, too, brother. But once again, Covid impacts what community more than any other community who's more likely to die from a COVID virus than any other group?

[A]

This is a perfect segue into race in America.

[B]

All right, so you know the answer to that. Black folks.

[A]

It's.

[B]

Black folks are more likely to die from COVID Let's let any.

[A]

Let's put race aside Which I can't put race aside. I'm a black man. Okay, so poor white people are just as likely to be as this as a poor black person. You got to look at this in class, not based on race.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And you could agree with that, right, Charlie?

[B]

I think access to health care has something to do with it that goes back to your economic or financial strength and ability and platform. But when you look at the communities that are dying, more so from a COVID infection, you're talking about black communities.

[A]

Why do you think that is?

[B]

I think it's a plethora of reasons. I think it's because of the disparity in healthcare relationships. I think it's partly due also to issues related to our medical background and sometimes even genetics and diet. All of this contributes to COVID 19 variables hurting certain communities worse. But when you look at our disconnect from being able just to call a doctor, right. I talk to these folks every day, man. There are some black folks don't even have a physician, brother. All right? You think they're going to trust a vaccine? They don't have anybody that's really common to them that they can talk to about it. And there's so much misinformation from these outlier studies and from Donald Trump politicizing the whole damn thing, even though he got the vaccination himself and also wore a mask himself. This misinformation has harmed communities that are not in the flux of information or connected to medical health care.

[A]

So. So let. Let's talk just kind of generally in about race. This is kind of segue, the whole conversation, if that's okay with you. Do you think America is a systemically racist country?

[B]

Hell, yeah. Tell me why systemic racism? Let's first define the.

[A]

That would. That would be helpful.

[B]

Systemic racism is different than racism. I think we can all agree that racism exists in America, right? You agree with me on that, that.

[A]

Oh, totally.

[B]

Right. Racism exists.

[A]

We have one as president.

[B]

Damn, Biden. Was Trump one, too?

[A]

Absolutely not.

[B]

That's. I don't know if we have time for that debate. All right, so, Charlie, think about systemic racism this way. Systemic racism is typically what we call implicit bias. It's unconscious. It's not really known to the individual. Distributor of the racism is also codified in statutes, institutions, laws, etc. I will give you an example of an early form of systemic racism. The Declaration of Independence refers to Native Americans as savages. That was acceptable language at that time to refer to Native Americans.

[A]

Why did they use that language?

[B]

Just, you Ask them. I mean, that's derogatory because they wrote

[A]

about it, because they were killing their women and children. It wasn't because they hated them, because they looked different.

[B]

Think about it, brother. Trail of tears.

[A]

Well, that's Andrew Jackson. That's. That's a different generation of leaders.

[B]

No, man, we don't talk about that.

[A]

18.

[B]

That was a bunch of white folks slaughtering natives on this land against the federal court order.

[A]

So happy to talk about indigenous and right kind of, you know, Euro American relations. But finish the point of systemic racism so that I don't want to get away from what we're.

[B]

Systemic racism. That's an. That's an ancient formation of it. Let me go to a modern one.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Systemic racism and marijuana. You have individuals.

[A]

So sentencing reform is what. Sentencing issues, Right?

[B]

Part of it. Okay, so. So I give you a personal story. What? Five years ago, when I first became a professor, right? I'm in class, man, there's this guy. He. He's from the same hood I was from. So I connected to this guy like that. Cause for you to come be in my class from that neighborhood, you have done something miraculous, right? Four weeks into the semester, semesters are 15, 16 weeks. Four weeks into the semester, he gets this letter from financial aid saying that he did not get approved for financial aid. Guy had no issues with his credit. It's not even based on credit. He didn't know what this was coming from. So I said, listen, send me the email. I will investigate. Right? I go to the financial aid director on behalf of this kid. He had a minor marijuana possession conviction at 17 years of age, less than an ounce, four guys riding in the car, one bag of marijuana. Nobody took the blame. They charged all of them. Right? He can never have financial aid in his life now.

[A]

So. Okay, go ahead. Sorry.

[B]

All right, here's the systemic issue. According to all of the research science, white people use marijuana at the same rate as black folks, but are five times more likely to be arrested for it and actually charged.

[A]

Blacks are.

[B]

Blacks are. Yeah, excuse me, blacks are. And charged with the use or the possession without giving remedy for pretrial diversion and other programs. That's systemic because a lot of these prosecutors who gave these prosecutorial discretions to white communities, right. They didn't give them to the black communities they served in as well.

[A]

So let me ask you a question.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Is that a race issue or a class issue?

[B]

Once again, you cannot. You cannot disconnect.

[A]

Let me ask. So, for example, for the poor family in southeast Ohio, that is Mostly white.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And they get arrested with an opioid charge. Trafficking opioids. They have. Let's say they earn $32,000 a year. Okay, let's just do a hypothetical. Near Athens, Ohio. They're going to have a tough time navigating the court system. Just like that young man you just mentioned.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The point is, why racialize it when class, which is a much more fair and independent marker, would do? The point is what I think.

[B]

Why try to disconnect? Because class is a.

[A]

You're going to have to. So go ahead.

[B]

I mean, I don't mean interrupt, but I want you to understand the way the variables work. Class is a social perspective. Right. Class is a social.

[A]

I mean, if you're earning $40,000 a year, you're into. You're objectively at the lower level, but

[B]

still, there are some people that don't give a damn what you make. I'm one of them. So if we're talking about classism, we're talking about a social perspective. Meaning I interpret you a certain way.

[A]

No, no. But hiring an attorney is not an interpretation. Right. So let's give an example. Denzel Washington's case. If he's pulled over with marijuana, he's getting off. Right. He's a black guy. LeBron James. I could go through the list right now. Those are outliers to go kind of to a theme you've been saying. But it means nothing if they're black. In fact, it means, can you hire the best attorney to get them off the truck?

[B]

So let me give you another data set that's actually available for your review. Job applications. Another systemic issue of racism. Okay. Multiple universities have done this study over and over again. Some of these universities have tried to disprove the previous studies that were done.

[A]

I was going to cite the ones that disproved. All right, so we'll just have study collision.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

But the majority familiar with what you're about to say.

[B]

All right, but, you know, the majority, you know, debunked.

[A]

It was Thomas Sowell.

[B]

Okay. Soul has a bias ingrained in his economic policies already.

[A]

He's a black American.

[B]

Yeah. So he grew up. That doesn't. I don't give a damn. See, that's the part. Proximity. See, when you say something like that, Charlie, you know why that's offensive to me?

[A]

Because I didn't mean it as offensive,

[B]

but I want you to understand what that means. Because he's from the hood, I'm supposed to agree with him. We're not monolithic.

[A]

No, no, but you were just making arguments from authority saying that you are from the hood.

[B]

But I am. See, this is just a fact. But just because, just because he is, it doesn't mean that I agree with his ideology. And just because he's an American black person doesn't mean I agree with his political philosophy or economic philosophy.

[A]

Here's the, here's the point I'm.

[B]

But I still want to make, I

[A]

still want to finish the point. Then I'll.

[B]

Yeah, I don't forgot the damn point. All right.

[A]

It was something about job workforce applications.

[B]

Applications. All right, so the majority of the studies show that if you put in an application, you list your education experience, you put in an ethnic sounding name, you don't get called back at least 20% or more drop off rate for those who have an ethnic sounding name. Same application submitted, same company, boom, put a white sounding name on that application. Study after study show that with the same background, same educational information, they got a call back 20% higher or more than the application. That was the exact same thing with the ethnic sounding name. Now I mean there are studies that debunk that a minority of studies have

[A]

soul wrote a whole book on that. Right. With discrimination and disparities. I'm not going to be here because to get into the details of that, you know them better than I do. But I want to broaden it where it actually could be helpful for our viewers to kind of see where they might fall on this. Which I guess the question is, you say, yes, America is systemically racist, right? Yes. That means the systems and the laws reflect a desire to get outcomes different for.

[B]

Well, they were written by people that were racist. Like, like who, who wrote the Constitution? Were they racist?

[A]

James Madison was not a racist.

[B]

Come on, man.

[A]

Alexander Hamilton.

[B]

If you can own black people and then.

[A]

Right, come on, let's ask the question.

[B]

Yeah, so if you own black people, you don't think you're racist. If you own black people.

[A]

So how many states had already abolished slavery by the Constitutional Convention?

[B]

That's fine, brother, you can make that argument.

[A]

9 out of 13.

[B]

You can make that argument all day.

[A]

We're ending slavery.

[B]

Doctor, they weren't defending who framed the Constitution, thought black folks were property.

[A]

Okay, come on, let's go away from that. No, this is super important. I'm glad you brought it up. All right, show me one time. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay said

[B]

that in order to be a racist, in your opinion or in order to be discriminatory against a group, you must say it out loud. Okay, so that's your premise.

[A]

No, no, no. No, it's not. So let me say this.

[B]

What about the behaviors?

[A]

Let's talk about. The founders were anti racist. To use an Ibram x Kendi term. We are all born into a world we did not create. You agree, right?

[B]

That's right, brother.

[A]

So thousands of years before Thomas Jefferson walked the Earth, George Washington, Whitfield, Adams, all these guys, slavery existed. The question should be who started the movement to stop it? The first ever anti slavery convention was hosted in Philadelphia in 1775, chaired by Benjamin Franklin. 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights was written by George Mason, which proclaimed that all men are created equal, which heavily inspired the Declaration of Independence. Let me finish. Okay. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Vermont was so inspired by that. They were the first sovereign community of people to abolish slavery. Okay, I'll keep on going.

[B]

All right.

[A]

In the Constitution, how did they own black people in the. They weren't allowed to in Vermont.

[B]

Why did they own. Why did framers of the Constitution own black people?

[A]

Some did, some didn't.

[B]

Why? But why did.

[A]

Some of the tradition predated them and they were. Tradition? Yeah. The tradition to own a human being,

[B]

which was discussed behind tradition.

[A]

Hold on a second. Let's. First of all, there's more slaves in the world than there ever have been before. And there's still slavery happening on this continent. And it's inexcusable and it's illegal.

[B]

It doesn't matter.

[A]

Let me finish, though. You should be thanking Thomas Jefferson for saying in the Constitution.

[B]

I think. Harriet Tubman.

[A]

Let me. Let me finish. Please. Let me finish. Thomas Jefferson signed the moratorium saying no new slaves are allowed to come into the United States as one of his first acts as president in 1807. The question should not be whether or not slavery existed. The question should be why was it starting to end? That's the most important question.

[B]

Well, probably for you from your perspective, but for me, all of it is very important. So let's talk about not only the racism of those who wrote the Constitution, but the sexism as well.

[A]

Sexism?

[B]

Oh, absolutely, brother.

[A]

No, let's talk about names. Tell me why James Madison.

[B]

Well, I'm gonna get to that.

[A]

You're too general.

[B]

Like, let's get specific.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Let me. Let me. Let me give some background to my proclamation. Cause it may be provocative for some. Okay. And intentionally so. We call this place a democracy. You believe that?

[A]

No, it's a republic.

[B]

The framers of the Constitution.

[A]

We don't agree with that.

[B]

Wanted a representative government. Right.

[A]

But they wanted a republic, not a democracy. So we're, we're not agreeing.

[B]

There's a huge difference. Listen, we're splitting hairs on that. Well it's important because the public is a representative form of government. That's the definition.

[A]

I agree. I'll give you representative form of government but I will not use the word democracy.

[B]

Okay. And that's fine. That, that's, that's a distinction without a difference by the way.

[A]

No it's not. One, One naturally enshrined rights. One has the will of the majority.

[B]

So, so, so let's go to who could vote in that report Public based on their writing of the Constitution.

[A]

At, at, at the gratification of 1787. What. Whoever the states deemed. Okay. Now the question you might bring up is the three fifths clause. Right?

[B]

But not only that.

[A]

No, no.

[B]

But why that's not, that's actually not what I'm bringing up.

[A]

Why did they put that in? To help actually limit the power of the slave owning.

[B]

I, I, I get it. That's another argument. We'll be here all day for that.

[A]

Because they wanted to limit slavery.

[B]

I'm tell you something. But brother, I do not give a damn about what you think their intention was. But they wrote any document that says that me or my people are 3/5 of an actual person is a flawed document.

[A]

So let me ask you a question.

[B]

But let me, let me make sure I make.

[A]

They would have given full representation. Slavery would have existed well past the slave civil war. Just so we're clear.

[B]

You are. Here's what they should have done and I still need to make my point about sexism.

[A]

Okay, I'll write it down.

[B]

All right. Here's the, the bigger point. You're splitting hairs on the 3 5th compromise. Okay. That's what you're splitting hairs about. Because this was a population configuration in order to determine the electoral college matrix of that particular state so that they could have a national.

[A]

South Carolina and Georgia wanted it not to give blacks a voice.

[B]

They wanted them to be to manipulate the system. Right. They want them to be counted as we agree on. Now here's what the good hearted people should have done if they were actually good hearted. You create a process and you make them citizens, dammit. Or you tell the southerners that they have to stop the mandate.

[A]

So let me, let me just be clear. You are now moralizing people in 1787.

[B]

You damn right I am. Really, absolutely, 100% okay. Moralizing the hell out of so.

[A]

So you moralize, Noah, David. I mean, you're a Christian.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How about Solomon? Too many wives. We shouldn't listen to him.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, he found that out.

[A]

He was an adulterer.

[B]

He found out he had too many damn wives. He almost lost his entire life.

[A]

Because you look at history and bear them by the fruit and say, wow.

[B]

So let me go back to the

[A]

sexism, because that's such a. Just respectfully, that's fine. That's such a prideful way to view history, isn't it? Like, how dare you be, like, not smart as I am.

[B]

How dare you own my ancestors?

[A]

Well, they didn't. They actually tried to eliminate it, but they owned them. No, they didn't.

[B]

They did own.

[A]

Not every single founder. Did not every founder.

[B]

There was a minority of some that did not.

[A]

Let's talk about.

[B]

And those are. Those are some of the decent guys. Because there was a great. Took a stand. But man participate in the republic.

[A]

So let's talk about the Northwest.

[B]

It was written to make sure that women could even participate.

[A]

Let's talk about.

[B]

Stand by that.

[A]

Of course not. But let me talk about the Northwest Ordinance.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Northwest Ordinance was the New Territories, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, which they were asking ourselves, what do we believe? This new territory, Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance, ratified by every single state, said slavery is illegal in the New Territories. So if they were getting rid of slavery, why shouldn't we praise them?

[B]

Yeah. So thank you for bringing that up. And as long as they own slavery or own slaves and engage in the enterprise of slavery, they didn't. They were trying to end it, but they owned them. But listen, Charlie, I want you to hear me. You blame me for moralizing them while you're praising them.

[A]

Oh, I'm totally praising.

[B]

Okay. And you're going back.

[A]

Because all human beings have to struggle with when they're born and what's around them and things they can't control.

[B]

Why is it that all of the framers of the Constitution didn't own slaves?

[A]

They didn't.

[B]

I know.

[A]

That's the point. Is that because the. The point is society were moral enough

[B]

to say, hell no, we will not own a human being. Others were immoral enough to say, hell yeah, we will.

[A]

So they're complicated human beings. How do you interpret someone like Thomas Jefferson? Right? Someone who is not complex. Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for the elimination in slavery in Virginia, signed the moratorium of new slaves, but owned slaves himself and released them. Had a child with a slave. That's a complicated person. Aren't we all.

[B]

So let's go back to something that I want you to understand from my point of view. Slavery wasn't just about being enslaved. Okay? Slavery was also. And I've done a trace of my lineage, right? Slavery was also about the slave owners who could legally rape black women, who could molest black children, who could kill without any penalty or repercussion from the government. It was more than just the labor brothers. That's my point to you. It was more than just the blood, sweat and tears equity to build a nation. It was also the evil atrocities within the construct of a limitless environment to do what you wanted to do to another human being without penalties.

[A]

So you just a couple things and then I'd like to get your opinion on another person in history, which is the founders at nine out of 13 estates had already abolished slavery. It was on the way out, doctor. It was. It was being killed until the cotton gin, Eli Whitney and John C. Calhoun, who I believe is one of the villains of American history. But how should we view a man like Abraham Lincoln? I'm curious.

[B]

You know, Abraham Lincoln did what he did out of political necessity. And we talk about, we uplift these individuals. And you're right, they are complex characters.

[A]

And we all are.

[B]

We all are. Right? But when we talk about somebody needs to be praiseworthy. Charlie, I would rather you just be neutral. Damn it. I would rather you just say, you know what? This guy's a mixed bag. I can't praise him, but I can't vilify him because he did this other thing. So I would just call him a mixed bag. He did some good, he did some bad. Hell, a broken clock, it's right two times a day. So I would rather you have that opinion of some of these people that did extreme evil and committed massive atrocities against other human beings.

[A]

But the reason why. And I'll get to Abraham Lincoln in a second, why I think that Jefferson and Top and, and Madison and Jay and Hamilton were so amazing, is they didn't invent slavery and they never wrote extensively defending it, ever. Instead, they made real structural changes to eliminate it. But Abraham Lincoln, isn't that evidence that America made movements towards all of a sudden saying, hey, here's a president who called, if nothing is wrong, then slavery is not wrong. Who gave the Cooper Union address, who talked about a moral right that all men are created equal, who made the divine connection between the principles, the Declaration.

[B]

And he matured to that.

[A]

No, totally. And isn't that us all right, that we tried to grow in that I'm just curious what your opinion is of Abraham Lincoln.

[B]

No more than I can holistically praise Abraham Lincoln because of some of the atrocities. I also cannot discount some of the progress.

[A]

I think that's a fair.

[B]

That.

[A]

That.

[B]

That is a fair.

[A]

There's too much Lincoln bashing going on. And.

[B]

But, well, that. That's me on the record about Lincoln. That's what I have to say about Lincoln.

[A]

So let's go back to systemic racism. And so we kind of define that. So what can I, as a white person in America do that you can't do? Are we at a place where now at least we're able to make the same choices? If so, then how is America systemically racist?

[B]

Well, it's not about your perspective of discrimination. That happens to me. Okay. It's one about believing the stories of black folks when they tell you, you know, over 90% of black people say they've experienced some level of workplace discrimination or discriminate. Discriminatory. Discriminatory activity inside of their social circle. That's. That's a massive number to be discriminated against in that matter. And I think when it comes to. We can look at all the studies, the studies are very clear as far as biases that exist against people of color, et cetera.

[A]

Like biases where.

[B]

Well, biases in the workplace. Well, so biases. When you get pulled over by a coping studies. Well, sentencing structures.

[A]

The cop thing, I'm happy to go into. Which is totally misleading.

[B]

Right, okay.

[A]

Which is, you know, a black person is much more likely to shoot and kill a police officer than a police officer is to kill a black person. But I want to get to something you said because I think that's interesting.

[B]

What? Listen, man, a black person is more likely to be pulled over.

[A]

That's not true.

[B]

They will put profile.

[A]

First of all, that's not true. It's because blacks live in areas that have higher crime and therefore police patrol them more. No, this has been done by Dr. Rowland in Harvard University.

[B]

Let me give you a study again.

[A]

We're going to go study. So let me just give you one, whatever one you got.

[B]

I got three out of New York. Right out of New York. This came from their own data. New York reported this. Chicago reported it. Maryland reported it. You got a lot of it. That said, listen, we're pulling over black folks in this community at a rate 10 times higher than any other racial group. And we're not finding any higher percentage of contraband or illegal activity than the black.

[A]

The illegal activity is not True cops make up 50 plus percent of the. I mean, not cops. Blacks make up 50 plus percent of the cop killers in New York.

[B]

Come on, man.

[A]

Every single statistic is that there's a disproportionate amount of crime committed in New York versus the percentage quartile. But that's fine.

[B]

I mean, once again, I'm going back to the systemic racism issue that police departments have reported on themselves and then invited diversity experts because these cops see a problem in their own implicit bias. Their own implicit bias. So you're arguing something that they actually agree. We have implicit bias. So when we looked at our pullover ratios, when we looked at who we're actually engaging with based on a. What's called a pretextual stop, they tend to be black and brown. And we need to stop doing that based on a profile structure. And they have brought in diversity experts to help them understand, acknowledge and hopefully eliminate their own biases.

[A]

So I just want to give a shout out to. I think it's Dr. Roland Breyer. I could be wrong from Harvard University. Blacks, black professor who said there is no evidence of what you just said.

[B]

But again, that's a lot.

[A]

But again, you could go debate him. That's the point.

[B]

Now let me say what's his name

[A]

again, I could get it wrong. And it's Dr. Roland Breyer.

[B]

If Dr. Roland Bryer said that where you came from, your camera, right?

[A]

Harvard University.

[B]

You a damn liar. And I would appreciate you to debate me any day. Whoever said he did a study of hundreds, but he said there's no evidence to suggest that that is a damn.

[A]

Let me ask you a question. Okay. When Obama's DOJ studied police departments, why didn't they find that sort of profile? But they did not. Wait a minute. Ferguson.

[B]

Wait a minute, Wait a minute, wait a minute, Wait a minute. Charlie, you done stepped in. And now, Charlie, not only did the DOJ find bias and racially motivated practices, the DOJ also reported that white supremacists were the greatest domestic threat to infiltrating law enforcement agencies. And that is something that the federal government needs to keep their eye on. That's in the same report. That same report also created.

[A]

I'm familiar with it.

[B]

You are familiar with it. So you know what you just said is bump.

[A]

Well, no, the thing that they were talking about was Ferguson in particular, which was a big issue in 2014, 15 and found no systemic bias. And also they did a study in Baltimore, which is another one of that. But we could go study, study collision back and Forth. I guess the question is this. So systemic racism. Yep. Would imply laws. So what law on the books harms black people more than white people?

[B]

I give you one because I could

[A]

give you a law that hurts white people more than black people.

[B]

All right, which one? Go ahead.

[A]

Affirmative action.

[B]

Okay, that's, that's untrue.

[A]

Okay, well, a black person with a lower test score that's able to go. It is. I mean, it's, it's true. I mean, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action with that sort of.

[B]

I want you to do some homework on this. You know the number one demographic to benefit from affirmative action,

[A]

I wouldn't say it would be Asian Americans.

[B]

I don't know. I'm going to tell you.

[A]

Tell me.

[B]

White females, white women are part of the affirmative action directive. White females, based on all of the data of affirmative action and the diversity hires, white women benefit more so than any other demographic under the affirmative action clause. Now, the reason why you assumed it was black people is because you've heard these talking points.

[A]

I didn't say it about, but I have said though that we know the data based, submitted in the Supreme Court case, that black people were being submitted with lower test scores. But.

[B]

All right. And by the way, for the record, I disagree with that practice just on the face of it.

[A]

I'm glad we do.

[B]

But as far as affirmative action is concerned, the number one demographic that benefits from affirmative action are white.

[A]

I'll keep an open mind to that. You might be right. So, but tell me what laws on the books might benefit black people more, benefit white people more than black people? That would go to the argument of systemic race. Absolutely.

[B]

And sometimes it's not the policy, it's the culture. So let me put it this way. You can have the right policy in writing, you can have the right policy, but then you have a culture inside of that agency. Culture will eat policy alive every day. So you may have a no profile policy, right. That's on the books. That's actually part of your standard operating protocol. But you still profile black and brown people because your culture will eat policy alive any day. And let me, let me highlight a simple law that I think we can all understand in the state of Georgia, Senate Bill 202. Even Lindsey Graham went on Fox News and said it was a dumb ass rule. Senate Bill 202, which is a voter restriction bill, Republicans spend it as a voter access bill. There's a part of the bill. There are many parts of the bill. There's a part of the bill that says it's a misdemeanor, a crime, up to one year in jail if you give someone food or water that's waiting in a line. Now, some people try to say, no, no, no, no. This is. If you're electioneering. No, we already had that on the books. It's already illegal to campaign at a precinct. The law was clear. It said anyone, anyone who gives a person food or drink in a line will be punished by up to one year in jail.

[A]

So, you know the practice of warming a line, going up to a precinct. But. But the point.

[B]

Let me. Let me.

[A]

Happy to dive into that. But, yeah. So why does that affect black people?

[B]

98% of the long lines in Georgia are black precincts, number one. Number two, during the last election cycle, churches, nonprofit organizations, these are nonpartisan groups, they ran massive commercials and put out leaflets in black communities. And they said, listen, we know that your precinct always has long lines, okay? That's just the reality. In this particular precinct, we want you to come out anyway and vote. And if you do, we got chairs for you. We gonna have food for your mom and Elle. We're gonna have water for everybody. And we are nonpartisan. We're not gonna tell you who to vote for. That's already against the law that impacted 98% of Black precincts, brother. When they passed a law, they said, you can go to prison for one year. Even Lindsey Graham said that vision was super nuanced.

[A]

But if the intention.

[B]

It is nuanced, but it's not nuanced.

[A]

I'm going to ask. I'm going to ask questions about it. Question about it, because I think it's important. So the water thing, it's been months since I've talked about the Georgia bill. I know there was some nuance to it that I've probably forgotten. But SB202, you said, right?

[B]

That's right.

[A]

If it was designed against black people, why did it expand Sunday voting, which helps black pastors go sort of the polls? Why would that happen?

[B]

See, that's another misnomer. I'm glad to educate you, brother. So what they did In Senate Bill 202 is require a weekend voting standard on Sunday. See, no, they did not require it on Sunday. That's not true. That's not in the bill. Georgia has 159 counties before this state law of Senate Bill 202. Each county was able to utilize their own determination as to when they would do early voting or weekend voting. As a matter of fact, brother, most counties did not do weekend voting. Most of Them did not. Okay, but the metropolitan counties did. And that's your large concentration of black folk.

[A]

But it is expanded to Sunday voting.

[B]

Just listen to me. They were able to do Sunday voting for weeks. These counties could make the rules based on the matrix of the statute that already existed. Okay, if you wanted to do five Sunday votings, you can do it, no problem. Here's what the state did. The state said, okay, y', all, we're gonna limit this down to just a couple of weekends where you could choose to do Saturday or Sunday voting. So for the other counties that are ruling white, they now are mandated to do at least one weekend voting standard or two. And the counties that are black, urban, and Democrat, to be frank with you, they now have to limit how many days they do early voting based on the statute. And because of the statewide part of the statute, Republicans can argue it was an expansion, but it limited the metropolitan counties.

[A]

So I'm not going to obviously know those details.

[B]

Yeah, but why mess with it is the question.

[A]

Let me just make sure I'm understanding this, and I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond.

[B]

Okay?

[A]

Which is, I asked, is America systemically racist? You said, yes. Yep. And the evidence is that all of a sudden, there's a restriction of giving out water and voting lines and Sunday voting.

[B]

I'm just giving you some examples of how certain laws impact 98% of black communities.

[A]

Yeah, but you got to be. You got to admit you're reaching at straws.

[B]

No, no.

[A]

I mean, come on.

[B]

From. From. From arrest.

[A]

Bring a Nalgene or something. You get so thirsty in line to vote. I mean.

[B]

Charlie, Charlie, listen, man.

[A]

Is that really a force for you?

[B]

You can say that from your point of view. We have seen these laws passed that are adversarial to us. I mean, think about this. You're in a black community. You're going up to give somebody water. We don't need any more pretext for arrest. We don't need that. We already know disparities exist. We already know that targeting exists.

[A]

Disparities don't exist.

[B]

It does exist.

[A]

The only disparities that exist are based on class, not race. But go ahead.

[B]

Do some black folk get targeted by white cops? Has that ever happened?

[A]

And vice versa.

[B]

But has it ever happened?

[A]

Of course it's happened.

[B]

Okay. All right, so is it systemic?

[A]

No, the opposite is actually true. The study showed that cops are less likely to actually arrest and abuse black people and more likely to abuse Asian or white people.

[B]

That's what studies have shown in the Hell study.

[A]

Are you reciting anything from the Manhattan Institute to Roland Breyer to Thomas Sowell to independent analysis of data.

[B]

So I will take you to Ohio State University, California, University of California, Berkeley. I take you to Clark Atlanta University. Many of these research scientists have conducted not only these studies in real life but, but they've reviewed the data and the data is clear. But when we talk about disparities, man, or racial profiling and systemic prejudice, systemic bias, we're talking about laws that adversely impact a particular group, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. Remember I told you that the bias can be implicit. Now the Georgia you can't prove implicit bias.

[A]

I was going to get to that.

[B]

Well, implicit bias, that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt. That's me saying, okay, you just wrote a law that only impacts 98% of black people. You just wrote. I'm going to say you were implicitly biased. Because if I don't say that, I would have to say you were hyper biased.

[A]

So let's just be very clear. The reason that was written is because people were giving out things of value in exchange for voting.

[B]

No, no sir, that's not why it was written. That was already the law in Georgia. You could not do that. You're going and it's against federal election law.

[A]

You're blaming something on racism that could be blamed on something.

[B]

Let me give you. Now you're in. What about ism now? So let me go to the anti gang laws, right? Georgia has them. A lot of states have these gang laws. Anti gang laws. What do they say at the root? They say if you commit a crime and we can prove that you're part of a gang, we can add this much to your sentence. We can enhance the sentencing of Dynamic Charlie. In the state of Georgia, 99% of that clause has been used against black kids. 99%. You know how many KKK members have been arrested in Georgia? Plenty. They never charged him with the gang statute? Never.

[A]

So why do you think it's because of racism?

[B]

You damn right it's because of racism.

[A]

Not because the class.

[B]

The law wasn't written. Do you think the KKK is a higher class than a Crip? Come on, man.

[A]

That's the question, isn't it?

[B]

Okay, so just think about this, brother. You have an anti gang statute on the books. 99% of your application from prosecutors is to black kids. So what percentage? Even though they are still locking up Klan members and not charging them under

[A]

the gang status, I'm not going to get into the specifics. I don't know. But what percentage of gang violence in Georgia is black on black gangs?

[B]

Yeah, I don't have that.

[A]

Okay, so that would be helpful, right, to see what that number is and correlate it with prosecution.

[B]

We know that. Do you think if you remember the damn Ku Klux Klan.

[A]

I'm no fan of the cake.

[B]

I got you.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

If you remember them, you're in a gang, right? That's a gang.

[A]

I would. I would agree. That's a gang.

[B]

Right. I also believe that that's a game.

[A]

It's insignificant, small, and ever decreasing. It's not an exit. I've never met one of these people. I don't know where they are, who they are.

[B]

The largest gang bust in the history of Georgia happened three months ago. They arrested 78 gangsters. Eight of them were still at large during that massive arrest. They were called the Ghost Face gangsters.

[A]

All white.

[B]

You heard about it?

[A]

No, I didn't.

[B]

Isn't that a shame? Because if it would have been 78 black gangsters, Crips, pirate blood, gangster.

[A]

Make that.

[B]

Come on, brother. If the largest gang bust in the history of a state. See, this is the second largest in the history of the country happened, and you being a person, that's a conveyor of news. Never heard of it. Why?

[A]

See, this is. The problem is just because there's a disparity doesn't mean there's discrimination. It doesn't mean that there's racism. There's other reasons why there could be disparities.

[B]

Tell me why. And tell me why I got all their mug shots on my social media page.

[A]

Well, I'm not getting why I haven't heard of it. Maybe because it's not a story that I felt would necessary of covering. Maybe it wasn't on national news. I'm not exactly sure I agree with you. It should have been. But you can't possibly blame racism on that. So we only have a couple minutes. Like, we literally have two minutes remaining. I want to give you this opportunity just to kind of make your closing argument and kind of summarize it all together, man.

[B]

Let me say this, brother. I don't want to make a closing argument to argue with you, whatever, just like that. I want to say this to you. You are a brilliant mind.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

What you're doing here. Thank you. What you're doing here is going to provide clarity. We don't have to agree the push and pull of the republic or the democracy, whatever you want to call it. All right? Is based on open, free, transparent and authentic dialogue. And even though I disagree with you about 90% of the time, you are authentic in what you believe. And brother, I go to war for you. Interview.

[A]

Thank you. And this sort of discussion is exactly what makes America special and to be able to disagree and still figure out kind of what we're doing. So I just want to make sure I plug all of give an opportunity for people to follow you or to engage with you, please.

[B]

Absolutely. Social media, Twitter, ig rashadrichey that's R a S H a D R I C H e y. You can check me out on the Young Turks Network indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richie and also my radio program, Newsletalk 1380 Wak, the Rashad Richard Morning show Monday through Friday.

[A]

Very good. Well, thank you so much, doctor. It's a lot of fun.

[B]

Thank you, man.

[A]

Thanks. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your thoughts. Freedom, charliekirk.com and if you want to support our podcast, it's charliekirk.com support. We're the organization that put on this wonderful conversation, something very close to my heart, tpusa.com, tpusa.com who puts on the series of Debate Night with Charlie Kirk where we try to find truth through freedom of speech and dialogue. God bless you guys. Speak to you soon.

[B]

For more on many of these stories

[A]

and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.