The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What It Means For Our Country, Part III (Conclusion)

William Bennett had an opinion piece online on Fox today.  He discussed what his son experienced while in graduate school in 2016, during Trump's first capaign.  Said his son:  "I used to be like Charlie Kirk - I used to think people could be persuaded with reason."  But his son learned that reason did not work with people who viewed Trump as Hitler.  He ended up being called a Nazi himself, and losing friends at the time.  That sounds all too familiar to this writer.  And I also recall my younger daughter being unfriended by a college friend for daring to express her sadness over the events of October 7.  

Bennett:  "Charlie Kirk died because we have forgotten how to hate properly."  And this:  "We teach our young people to hate their opponents rather than love their own principles.  We have made politics a blood sport precisely because we have drained it of transcendent meaning.  When you believe in nothing greater than your own righteousness, the only thing left is to destroy those who challenge your certainty."

I have a lifelong friend who is also a reader of the blog.  He has frequently texted me, about me:  "always certain, often wrong."  Yes, I do feel confident in my beliefs.  But I have always encouraged people, especially young people, to read multiple points of view.  And I have made offers to various people who have disagreed with me, to write their own opinion piece, and I said I would post it on my blog.  I have consistently been turned down on that.  

Bennett then tells us that his son's solution was to withdraw.  After all, he was understandably tired of being called a "Nazi, racist, sexist" and undoubtedly other "deplorable" type names for stating what he thought were common sense notions.  So his son stopped watching the news.  He stopped reading political articles.  And he stopped discussing issues with people who were, presumably, friends.

Bennett:  "The problem is not that our universities are too political.  They are not political in the classical sense of "political" that Aristotle meant when he called man a political animal.  The university problem is that they are factories of indoctrination, especially in the liberal arts.  Real politics requires engagement with difference, the ability to live alongside those you disagree with, the skill of persuasion rather than coercion.  Our campuses have replaced politics with theology, and a particularly intolerant theology at that."  Yes, it's called Leftism.  

Bennett:  "This is what we have done to our young people.  We have made the cost of conviction so high that capable, principled people retreat from public engagement entirely.  We have made a world where it is safer to be silent than to speak, safer to conform than to question, safer to hide than to stand."  

"If we cannot make America safe for argument again - not just civil argument, but vigouous, passionate, even angry argument - then we should stop pretending we live in a democracy."  Yes, and how sad is that.  But the anger on the Left seems to know no bounds.  Bennett:  "If you are not consumed with rage, you are at home raising your family and going to work.  So radical political movements naturally attract the angriest among us, not necessarily the wisest."   

[My apologies to Mr. Bennett for the extensive use of his opinion piece.  But he said it as well as I could have.  Better perhaps.  As a country we must decide.  Do we want to destroy those who challenge us?  Do we favor anarchy and civil war?  Because make no mistake, if you justify murder based on someone's beliefs and speech, then you have thrown out the rule of law.  Or, do we want to keep our democracy?  Where Democratic and passionate Senator Triple H (Hubert Horatio Humphrey) maintained friendly relations with those Senators across the aisle with whom he disagreed.  Where Ronald Reagan could sit down with Tip O'Neill and hash out differences.  And where I could have rather heated court hearings with opposing counsel, and still go to lunch afterwards.  This is a decision that the next generation will have to make.  I hope that they choose wisely.]

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What it Means For Our Country, Part II (Did Kirk Really say Those Things?)

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.

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What It Means For Our Country, Part I

Usually, after writing a post, I start thinking about my next topics.  But after the last 3 posts discussing the murder of Charlie Kirk, I was unable to get my mind off the tremendous amount of vitriol directed at him, even in death.  I did some more research on Kirk.  And some more thinking about it.  My initial thought returned to the issue of when murder stopped being universally condemned, and might even be something to celebrate.  I thought, do those people celebrating have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the 10 Commandments?  

What is often interpreted as "thou shall not kill," was explained by commentator Dennis Prager as "thou shall not murder."  Because killing was always permitted, such as in cases of self defense.  Has the country become less religious?  Kirk's murder is likely to cause some awakening of religiosity on the part of Christian young people.  And, for some time now, the orthodox Chabad Lubavitch movement has been the fastest growing sect within Judaism.  Because Chabad offers teachings in Judaism, not politics.  The Chabad Rabbis offer meaning.  

Okay, maybe fewer people think about the 10 Commandments.  But what about our Constitution?  If you are accused of a crime, what about the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers?  Clearly, these people do not believe in the First Amendment, a right that Charlie Kirk was exercising when he was shot down.  What about not losing your right to life and liberty without due process of law?  Do all these people no longer care about the Constitution either?  Don't they say it is the Right/Republicans who don't believe in the Constitution?  I wonder how many of these people who have been gleeful after Kirk's death oppose the death penalty.  If even after a trial and appeals, they oppose a convicted murderer being put to death.  Do they not see the irony in any of this?

I was sad to see that a local teacher piled on with the celebrating.  I know her and her husband from when our kids were in school.  As reported in the local paper, she posted this:  "Sorry, not sorry.  Karma is a bitch.  Real Christians, real people of faith, would never support this fake Christian who was so un-Christ like and full of hatred for people of color, LGBTQIA+ people and women...Please unfriend me if you ever supported the filthy Nazi propaganda-spewing racist misogynist who got what he deserved yeseterday."  

This made me think - I have already compared the thinking of the Left (not classic liberals) to radical Isalamists.  How exactly does this celebration of death, of murder, differ from the celebrations we saw by Hamas and many people in Gaza, after the rape, torture and murder of Jews in Israel after October 7?  Anybody?  Is this why the Left supports Hamas?  Could it be because both groups are on the side of evil?

In the 3 prior posts, I explained that I did not know that much about Kirk.  I did a little research into his beliefs before posting.  Recall that in Part I of the prior posts, I pointed out that Stephen King had to apologize for accusing Kirk of making a comment that Kirk said someone else had made.  I began to wonder how often that had happened.  After all, the Left does have a habit of taking sound bites out of context.  

Then, lo and behold, the self-esteemed New York Times had to issue a correction about Kirk.  Here was the Times in an online post:  "A correction was made on September 11, 2025.  An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast.  He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it.  It was not his own statement."  Was there an apology in there somewhere?  

It was apparent to me that I needed to find a reliable (hopefully) fact checker in order to find out what is true and what is myth?