Factcheck.org is described as being affiliated with the Annenburg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. It is generally considered a reliable site. Let's look at their 9/15/25 post about some of the comments allegedly made by Kirk. One of the most egregious, especially without context, was his comment about the assault on Paul Pelosi, husband of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Kirk said the attack was "awful." So far, so good. But he also said that a patriot should bail out the perpetrator. That sounds bad. Why would he say that?
Here's why: "But why is it that in Chicago you're able to commit murder and be out the next day?" So, taken in context, what he was really stating was his objection to cashless bail for all crimes in some cities and states - even when the crime is murder. Now, one can disagree with how he made his point. But, given the context, he clearly did not side with the perpetrator who attacked Paul Pelosi, as some have alleged.
But didn't Kirk hate gay people? Obviously not. Just see Part I of the prior 3 posts (dated 9/13/25) explaining how two openly gay and prominent men (Ric Grenell and Dave Rubin), both married to other men, described themselves as being good friends with Charlie Kirk. Then I saw a clip of Kirk debating a stridently anti-gay person, and explaining what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's business. But he hated gays? Does not sound like it.
But Kirk was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. So, didn't he get what he deserved? That would be true only if you believe the murder of those holding opposing views from your own is justified. Simply based on their beliefs and speech. Here is what Kirk did say: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It is drivel...I think it's worth (it) to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other G-d given rights." Maybe you disagree with the private ownership of guns. But Kirk thought it through. As I said in the earlier 3 posts, people die from using legal products. Cars definitely kill. So do cigarettes. And so do knives.
What about the Jews? Yes, Kirk discussed how wealthy Jews donated to many leftwing causes. Most frequently named is George Soros. But there are others. One of his concerns was his support for Israel, and the difficulty he had in understanding why leftwing Jews would support groups that would just as soon see them dead and see the end of Israel. Let me be clear. I did not always like the way Kirk made this point. (See my June 5, 2025 post, "What Charlie Kirk Doesn't Get.") After I wrote that post, I was asked if I thought that Kirk was an antisemite. I said I did not think that. I was merely critiquing his choice of words. And Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu called Kirk "a defender of our common Judeo-Christian civilization."
I have often heard from Christian friends and readers of the blog, telling me it seemed to them that Christians are more supportive of Israel than many Jews are. I am asked why that is the case. I have offered various explanations, but that is not the purpose of this post. The point is, Kirk was clearly not alone in trying to understand leftwing Jews who side with the Palestinians over Israel. And readers of the blog know that I have frequently criticized my fellow Jews. It is difficult to understand, other than to say their leftist ideology is more important to them than their Judaism.
As a conservative, he was also unhappy with leftwing Jews supporting so-called "progressive" (arguably socialist and communist) ideologies. But so are all conservatives, including conservative Jews, such as myself. My beef with those comments was with how he expressed it. And in neglecting to point out the various Christian organizations and wealthy Christians who also supported leftwing causes.
Didn't Kirk hate Blacks? I'm not convinced that he hated anyone. But he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? He felt that it led to a "permanent DEI-type bureaucracy." Well, it did lead to affirmative action, which has been very controversial since its inception. And which the Supreme Court eventually struck down (at least as to the college admission process) in a June, 2023 decision (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. vs Harvard College and the University of North Carolina). The Court declared race-based affirmative action to be an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Colleges were instructed to treat people as individuals, not as members of groups.
When we judge people as members of a group, we get "identity politics." Your race, sex and gender are all we need to know about you. From there, the Left identifies the oppressors and the oppressed. But Kirk said some not very nice things about MLK, right? He did. I would not have. But he felt that King was tied to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's, which he viewed as being contrary to the U.S. Constitution. And the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with him on much of it.
It should be readily apparent that not everything attributed to Kirk by the mainstream media or people on social media is accurate. Much of their hatred is based on falsehoods - and a willingness to believe them.
No comments:
Post a Comment