Greetings, Dear Reader,

Here we are yet again, State of the Day, where I strip the euphemism and misdirection off that day’s politics.

I read something interesting yesterday.

Let’s open up The New York Times, eh?

CHARLIE KIRK. ‘EXTREMIST’

Nestled parenthetically near the top of a New York Times news report was this absolute gem about the late Charlie Kirk.

Mr. Kirk, they said, was more than a leader and organizer of a sprawling, well-funded conservative youth organization. He also helped build, define and unite Mr. Trump’s movement, all while selling a right-wing Christian vision to a new generation. Despite Mr. Kirk’s attacks on the Civil Rights Act, feminism, Islam and transgender people — and the fact that he helped pull formerly extremist views into the mainstream — his tone in his speeches and debates was less angry than that of other leading figures on the right.

The reporter, again in the news section of the Times, not opinion, made no attempt to support the charge that Kirk was an “extremist.” Beyond citing “attacks” on the CRA, feminism, Islam, and “transgender people,” we are left to simply accept the designation as if it were self-evident, like the color of the sky, our own mortality, or the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

Therefore the New York Times would like you to assume that criticism of any of those things, even in the moderate tones Charlie was known for, would be an example of “extremism.”

Without litigating too much, the “extremist views” Kirk had on the Civil Rights Act were largely lifted from famed black conservative intellectual Thomas Sowell. It’s hard to think of the soft-spoken, ever-coiffed Sowell as an “extremist.”

Sowell, for what it’s worth, was considerably more hawkish than Charlie on the CRA. It was his contention that it did “comparatively little,” and that the black community writ large would have been better off without it. He wrote an entire book on the subject.........

© The Daily Caller