Tag: charlie-kirk

CHARLIE KIRK’S LEGACY

In my view, we can all agree that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a senseless, horrific tragedy (those of us that are sane, anyway). Charlie was a healer, not a divider, and the outpouring of praise, respect and love for him since his assassination has been astounding. It’s almost what one might expect for a Head of State. As his wife, Erika and many others have said, if the goal of the assassin was to silence Charlie and his cause the assassin miscalculated greatly, and the repercussions for those who opposed Kirk will be just the opposite.

In fact, it has already begun. His death has sparked international attention and has reignited the condemnation of violence rather than peaceful and respectful discourse as a means of resolving political differences.  To paraphrase what Erika said in Charlie’s eulogy and what many other commentators have since reiterated, “they have unleashed the whirlwind.” Trump announced that Kirk would posthumously receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the highest medal that can be awarded to a civilian.

Charlie has been martyred. As I said, he has become more popular in death than he was in life. In the aftermath (of his assassination), millions of people who had never heard of Charlie Kirk and his forum, Turning Point, have become ardent supporters. They have become cognizant of what he stood for and his ability to communicate peacefully and respectfully with young people, especially college students. TP’s popularity has never been higher. Recently, tens of thousands of fans have been attending TP’s sessions and often there have been many more who could not get into the venue. Fox News has reported that there have been in excess of 120,000 requests for new TP chapters.

Kirk was born and raised in the Chicago suburbs of Arlington Heights and Prospect Heights. He attended Harper College, but he dropped out after one semester to pursue his real dream, political activism. (He was a prime example of “college is not for everyone.”)

He published a range of books and hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a talk radio program. He co-founded Turning Point (USA) (TPUSA) in 2012 and was its executive director. Kirk described it as a student organization advocating for free markets and limited government.  Kirk remained the executive director, chief fundraiser, and the public face of Turning Point USA until his death. Kirk was one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement and an ardent supporter of President Trump. Many people viewed him as an icon of contemporary conservatism.

He became renown for visiting college campuses where he would debate peacefully and respectfully with anyone, not only students but also anyone in the audience who espoused an opposing viewpoint. He would listen patiently to their side of an issue and then say “prove me wrong” as he rebutted their arguments.

According to the Associated Press and other media outlets video clips of these campus appearances spread online. AP reported that the result was “a steady stream of donations that transformed TPUSA into one of the country’s largest political organizations.”  Eventually, TPUSA began holding massive rallies in which top conservative leaders addressed tens of thousands of young voters. 

Commencing in October 2020 Kirk hosted a daily three-hour radio talk show, The Charlie Kirk Show, on Salem Media Group’s “The Answer” radio channel. Also, he launched “Turning Point Live,” which was a three-hour streaming talk show aimed at Gen Z’ers. It was among the most-popular podcasts on Apple Podcasts. According to internal data from TPUSA, Kirk’s podcast was downloaded between 500,000 and 750,000 times each day in 2024.  

In 2021, TPUSA launched Turning Point Academy, an online alternative to schools that were “poisoning our youth with anti-American ideas.” TPA was intended to cater to families seeking an “America-first education.”

In a March 2025 interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom Kirk related that while building TPUSA, “I recognized that there was an ideological imbalance on a lot of these college campuses, and we wanted to provide a counterpoint rooted in conservative, pro-freedom, pro-liberty, America First ideas.”  He added that when TPUSA began, about 75% of college students identified as Democrat. Non-progressive students were afraid to voice their opinions and beliefs for fear of retaliation from students, professors, and school administrators. TPUSA provided emotional support for them.

TPUSA sought to make both the colleges and professors accountable for their actions. TPUSA’s goal was to shift the youth vote at least 10 points toward Republicans, a target that they achieved by the 2024 presidential election. I believe this shift helped Trump win the election. TPUSA’s other activities include the publication of the “School Board Watchlist” and the “Professor Watchlist,” which are lists sourced by published news stories that describe instances of radical behavior among college professors and schools.

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, it is easy to see how Kirk became a target of the radical left. In retrospect it should not be surprising that a deranged far-left activist, fueled by the irresponsible, hateful and inaccurate characterizations spewed by Dem politicians and their supporters in the media would decide to assassinate him. Erika Kirk has said she “forgives” the assassin, which is her right, but I and many others cannot. Charlie was a great man, an icon, who was an inspiration to millions. The assassin’s goal was to silence him, but as I said above, it has had the opposite effect.

Rest in peace, Charlie. You will be sorely missed and long remembered.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

WHO REALLY KILLED CHARLIE KIRK?

In my view, we can all agree that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a senseless, horrific tragedy (those of us that are sane, anyway). Charlie was a healer, not a divider, and the outpouring of praise, respect and love for him since his assassination has been astounding. It’s almost what one might expect for a head of state. As his wife, Erika and many others have said, if the goal was to silence Charlie and his cause the assassin miscalculated greatly. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. More on this later.

So, back to the title of this blog. Who really killed Charlie Kirk? We all know that the disaffected dirtbag loser Tyler Robinson, pulled the trigger, but who financed him? Who supported him? Who inspired him? How did he conclude that Charlie was such a “danger to society” that killing him was “justified?” Good questions. Read on for my opinion as to the answers.

1. Utah records disclosed that Robinson was registered as a voter, but he was not affiliated with either political party. His voter status is inactive, (which means he did not vote in the prior two general elections).  However, according to Utah Governor Spencer Cox speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, there clearly was a leftist ideology [regarding Robinson]”  Indeed, Robinson’s family and friends denoted he had become “more political in recent years, had “turned left politically,” had become “more supportive of gay and transgender rights,” and had become a persistent critic of Kirk. The AP reported that it was unclear what had caused this transformation of Robinson’s personal politics, but I believe his relationship with his gay, transgender roommate likely played a significant part. Cox added that the ammunition found at the scene was engraved with taunting, anti-fascist and meme culture messaging.

2. The AP reported that last week, the House observed a “moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family” at the request of Speaker Mike Johnson. A subsequent request for a “moment of prayer out loud elicited vocal objections and chaos on the House floor,” primarily by Dems. I view this as a blatant lack of respect, but that’s just me.

3. The left-leaning media and social media outlets have traditionally slanted their news coverage. Much of what they report as “fact” is often exaggerated, taken out of context or simply false. Unfortunately, a goodly number of people believe it as fact and formulate incorrect opinions. For example, on MSNBC, which has largely been discredited as an objective news outlet, Rachel Maddow, who is well-known for her far-left politics and virulent hatred of Donald Trump, devoted just 22 seconds of airtime to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She characterized Kirk’s murder as “horrific,” but then quickly shifted to speculation that the Trump administration could use the assassination as a pretext to intensify “crackdowns.” I believe Maddow had an axe to grind. According to Outkick last year Maddow had devoted an entire segment on her show denouncing Kirk as a “racist.” Kirk had then denounced Maddow for “calling me a racist,” which he described as a “typical leftist smear.”  Maddow’s disrespectful characterization of Kirk was in violation of a company-wide directive from Comcast and MSNBC executives that condemned violence and urged employees to “uphold civil discourse across its platforms.” The statement stressed that while employees may “disagree, robustly and passionately,” debate must be conducted “with respect.” “The tragic loss of Charlie Kirk … reminds us of the fragility of life and the urgent need for unity. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and President Mike Cavanagh added “our hearts are heavy … there is no place for violence or hate in our society.” Clearly, Maddow and other commentators at MSNBC are out of step with the brass.

4. The FBI and the DOJ are cognizant that although Robinson pulled the trigger he may not have acted alone. They will be conducting an extensive investigation in order to ascertain whether or not Robinson was part of a broad conspiracy. For instance, he may have been influenced by some of the participants of various radical chat rooms he frequented, and he may have been supported financially by “dark money” from surreptitious radical groups, domestic and/or foreign. During a recent interview on Hannity Patel disclosed that the FBI will be “interviewing scores of people, on not just these chats on Discord, but any communications that this individual [Robinson] had.” When asked by Senator John Kennedy whether Robinson had acted alone Patel hedged replying “There are a number of individuals that are currently being investigated and interrogated – and a number yet to be investigated and interrogated related to that chat room…. We’re running them all down.” That may just be the FBI being thorough, but it sounds to me like it is considering at least the possibility of a conspiracy.

Furthermore, Patel confirmed that investigators had confiscated electronics from both the suspect’s home and that of his alleged partner. “We’ve seized multiple electronic devices from the home of the suspect and his romantic partner. We’ve got computers, we’ve got laptops, gaming systems, cell phones.” Patel added, “the evidence and information will come out. I won’t stylize the evidence, but I will say what was found in terms of information was a text message exchange where he, the suspect, specifically stated that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do that.” When pressed on Robinson’s possible motive, Patel noted words attributed to him: “And when he was asked why, he said some hatred cannot be negotiated with.”

Therefore, I maintain that although Robinson pulled the trigger all of the foregoing had some responsibility for Kirk’s murder to some degree.

Conclusion

Writing in the NY Post columnist Miranda Devine asserted that “we are suffering through an epidemic of leftist violence. She characterized the Kirk assassination as “the latest manifestation of the hateful rhetoric aimed at President Trump and his MAGA movement. Any negative incident is seen as justification for violence.” Several additional commentators have opined similarly, and I concur. To buttress her point, she cited a recent poll that 48% of self-identified “liberals” felt it would be “somewhat justified” to murder Elon Musk and 51% said the same with respect to Trump. Most of you will recall I cited several examples in my previous blog.

In my opinion, clearly Robinson was influenced by his association with the radicals who populate the chatrooms he accessed, his roommate, and incendiary statements by political figures and celebrities. Over the last few years, they were able to change his political ideology. In addition, he came to believe that violence, rather than respectful debate, was an “acceptable” even “necessary” way to resolve personal and political differences. Moreover, it is very possible that he was influenced and supported financially by dark money emanating from radical domestic and foreign groups.

In addition, as I mentioned in my previous blog let’s not overlook the atmosphere of hate and divisiveness created and perpetuated by hateful speech of left-leaning politicians, celebrities, and the media. Labeling a person as “fascist,” “Hitler,” “evil,” and “a threat to democracy” resonates with a disaffected loner like Robinson. If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes perceived as the truth. In their twisted mind they come to view the murder of those persons as justified.

As reported in the NY Post as predicted by Erika Kirk in the wake of Charlie’s assassination we are experiencing a massive shift of voters from the Dem Party to the GOP. Florida reported that the rate of GOP registrations has tripled. Other areas have reported similar GOP gains.

People are fed up and turned off by the excessive violence on the left. For instance, Christopher from Bucks County, PA said he was “embarrassed for voting left in my life.” Sheilfer, a farmer in CA, was turned off by the “jubilation” [exhibited by some Dems over Kirk’s murder]. Finally, Siqi a finance executive said “my entire life I voted Democrat… Today, I registered Republican. Obviously, this does not augur well for the Dems in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond.

by Tags: , , , 2 Comments

LEFT WING VIOLENCE

The empirical evidence keeps mounting up. The senseless, horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk was the latest example of an alarming trend that began a decade ago. Just off the top of my head I can recall several examples of left-wing violence since then, such as:

  1. The two assassination attempts of Donald Trump in Butler, PA and at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. In the first one the assassin missed by a fraction of a millimeter and only because Trump fortuitously turned his head at the last minute to make reference to a chart off to the side. Unfortunately, an innocent bystander was killed. In the second instance an assassin was able to hide in the bushes on the golf course for hours lying in wait for Trump to pass by until an alert secret service officer discovered him.
  2. The near murder of Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise as part of a mass shooting in June 2017 during a practice session for the annual Congressional Softball Game in Alexandria, VA.
  3. The “Black Lives Matter” riots in various cities including Minneapolis, NYC and Portland in May 2020 after the killing of George Floyd by police. These were characterized by instances of vandalism, looting, and clashes with authorities. Many Dems dismissed these riots as “nonviolent,” but tell that to the victims.
  4. The over 8,700 Antifa-inspired riots that occurred in 68 locations throughout the country between May 25th and July 31st, 2020. The images of cities burning, businesses being destroyed and people being carjacked, assaulted and worse are indelibly etched in my mind.
  5. The assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. The assassin planned to break into Kavanaugh’s home, kill him, and then commit suicide, but, for some reason, he had a change of heart.
  6. The continuing lawlessness being perpetrated in our cities predominantly those run by Dems due to sanctuary policies, lax law enforcement, no cash bail, and woke DAs and juries. Ironically, most of the victims of these crimes are minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged, the very people that the Dems profess to sympathize with and seek to help.
  7. The wanton destruction of much of Minneapolis, Chicago and other cities during the summer of 2021.
  8. The assassination of Charlie Hurt. This was a huge blow to the psyche of America. Charlie was beloved by a goodly number of people. In particular, many young people idolized him. He was not an antagonistic person. Far from it. He was a healer, a good person whose aim was to foster discussions of differences of opinion openly and peacefully, often on college campuses, and he was very good at it. His assassination was such as waste. His legion of fans and supporters are beside themselves with grief. Many of them as well as his wife, Stephanie, have vowed to continue or even enhance his work.

These are merely a few examples. The Dems are fond of saying that there is violence on both sides, but that is a false narrative. I cannot think of any violence within recent memory planned and perpetrated by conservatives. (I don’t count the January 6 protest because it was overblown by the Dems and their allies in the mainstream media to damage Trump, and the protesters didn’t kill anyone. A cop shot one of the protesters unnecessarily.) If you can, I would like to hear it.

Why is this? Why do lefties have the urge to settle political differences violently rather than by peaceful debate? There are several reasons for this, but in my view the primary factor is the hateful rhetoric emanating from (1) left-leaning politicians, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, (2) news commentators such as Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe and virtually anyone on CNN or MSNBC, (3) celebrities such as Robert DeNiro, and (4) social media postings.

It has become quite common to refer to any conservative or Republican as “racist,” “Nazi,” “Hitler,” “evil,” and “a threat to democracy.” If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes believable. Most of us realize that these monikers are ridiculously false, but there are many unstable people that take them seriously. In their twisted minds they perceive that those characterizations from the types of sources I mentioned give them license to attack those persons so labeled.

In a moment of sanity Comcast, which owns MSNBC, fired Matthew Dowd, one of its political analysts, for his “insensitive” and “inappropriate” commentary regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination. In my view there are many others in the media who deserve the same fate. Furthermore, Comcast cautioned its commentators to “maintain a respectful exchange of ideas” regardless of whether or not they agree with Kirk’s views.

Conclusion

The details of the Charlie Kirk assassination are so horrific that many people hope that it will be the “last straw,” that it will shock Americans enough to put an end to the senseless violence that has been plaguing our country. I, too, hope so, but I fear it will not.

The only way to stop the senseless and arbitrary violence is to win elections. Get out and vote, vote, vote!

by Tags: , , Leave a comment