This Post Is About Me...And You...And Everyone Who Cares About Maintaining the Judeo-Christian Basis For Western Civilization

(Note.  In some ways this is a follow-up to my 7/4/25 post "I'm Sick Of It!  Really Sick Of It!"  It is also a follow-up to my 6 part post "Are We At War With Islam?"  The first 2 parts were written in 2010, Part III in 2012, Part IV in 2013, and Parts V and VI were written in 2016.)   

In only two days, two years will have passed since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023.  I'd like to say a few words about my reaction at the time.  I have never been to Israel.  (Lifelong orthopedic problems made long distance travel too difficult.)  I have no family, no relatives, as those terms are commonly understood, in Israel.  But when I heard about the rape, torture, murder and kidanpping of so many Israelis, I could not help but feeling extremely angry and sad all at once.  Because the Jewish people are my family.  And because these types of attacks on Jewish people, just for being Jews, have occurred far too often - throughout history, and in my lifetime.  

Yes, my family was under attack.  How else could I explain my inability to sleep for two weeks after 10/7.  How else to explain that for two weeks I would get up in the middle of the night at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. in order to turn on the TV and watch the news for one to two hours in order to see the latest developments out of Israel.  Since October 7, 2023, there have been countless attacks on Jewish people and institutions around the world, as much of the world has blamed Israel for having the audacity to fight back against the evil terrorists of Hamas.  At no time did I ask myself if those wounded or killed were liberals or conservatives.  It did not matter.  People were being killed because they were Jews.  Hitler (who should rot in hell forever) wanted all the Jews dead, just because they were Jews.  The Nazis never asked - do you support the Fuhrer's National Socialist Party?  No.  It was - you're a Jew - die!  Does anyone really need a reminder of 1930's Germany?

Readers of this blog know that there have been plenty of times that I have expressed my disappointment and even anger at some of my fellow Jews.  Jews who not only refuse to support Israel in this fight for the country's survival, but who condemn Israel for fighting back, and who advocate cutting off military aid to Israel in the middle of this war.  Jews who have replaced a belief in Judaism with a belief in leftism.  Nevertheless, I stand with my Chabad Rabbis, who have told countless stories of Jews finding their way back to their religion, and back to their support for Israel.  After October 7, I have read quite a few stories about this return to Judaism and support for Israel.  About leftwing Jews discovering their "friends" did not care at all about the slaughter of Jews.  It was quite a wake-up call for many.    

And just three days ago, on Yom Kippur (October 2), the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people, another terrorist attacked Jewish people, this time outside their synagogue in Manchester, England.  He drove his car into people out front of the synagogue and then got out of his car and stabbed people.  Ramming people with motor vehicles and stabbing them, are favored methods of attacks by Palestinian terrorists.  This particular individual managed to kill two people and wound others.  The deceased were Adrian Daulby, age 53, and Melvin Cravitz, age 66.  And while readers know that I never state the names of the evil perpetrators, in this case I'm making an exception.  For his first name only - Jihad.  That pretty much sums up all we need to know about this Syrian living in the U.K.  

Of course, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the "horrific" attack on Jews on Yom Kippur.  But his words mean nothing.  He had previously accused Israel of causing an "unspeakable and indefensible" catastrophe in Gaza.  London's Muslim Mayor accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.  And just last month, Starmer saw fit to recognize a "Palestinian" state.  No action was required in exchange by any "Palestinian" leaders.  So the message was clear to the Arab Muslim world - kill Jews and we will reward you.  

In an Op-Ed in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Dominic Green wrote:  "The blood of British Jews is in Labour's hands - and the fate of Britain is in the balance."  P.M. Starmer is the head of the Labour Party.  There are 300,000 Jews in the U.K, but approximately 4,000,000 Muslims.  Because the European countries opened their borders to so-called "refugees" from across the Middle East.  In his address to the U.N. General Asembly last month, President Trump told the Europeans:  "It's (unrestrained migration) destroying your country(s), and you have to do something about it."  Just yesterday, millions of people across Europe were out in the streets in support of Hamas.  

And who are the Muslim leaders in the U.S?  Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.  And perhaps the soon to be Mayor of N.Y.C., Zohran Mamdani.  Mamdani refuses to criticize the phrase "globalize the intifada."  Want to see what globalizing the intifada looks like?  We just saw it three days ago in Manchester, England.  What about Tlaib, who constantly accuses Israel of "genocide."  She is no different from Hamas - she'd rather keep the fighting going.  She opposes Trump's peace plan for the Hamas-Israel war, saying:  "Trump and War Criminal Netanyahu, perpetrators of the genocide, do not get to decide the future of Gaza.  Palestinians get to determine the future of Palestine."  

Oh really?  When was the last time there was an election in Gaza?  That would be 2006.  But Tlaib, like the terrorists, would like to keep the fighting going, because they don't actually give a damn about innocent civilians.  And just how many are "innocent" we don't know.  Because multiple polls have shown overwhelming support for Hamas within Gaza.   

I'll end with this quote from Josh Hammer's 9/28/25 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times:  "Four of America's nominally closest allies - Britain, Australia, France and Canada - disgraced themselves this week by recognizing a so-called Palestinian state.  In doing so, these nations didn't merely betray their Western civilization inheritance.  They also rewarded terrorism, strengthened the genocidal ambitions of the global jihad and sent a chilling message:  The path to international legitimacy runs not through the difficult work of building up a nation-state and engaging in diplomacy, but through mass murder, the weaponization of transnational institutions and the erasure of historical truth."    

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?

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Conclusion

I've been told that the nasty rhetoric mostly comes from the right.  I do not buy that at all.  Biden was a nasty President.  And, while Obama spoke more nicely, his words were often anything but.  However, I am certainly not going to assert that there is zero nasty rhetoric coming from the right.  I have often cringed at some of the things Trump has said.  But which side is more violent?

After George Floyd was killed, there were nationwide riots, with looting and burning.  There was an estimated $2 billion in property damage.  Some estimate the number of deaths as between one and two dozen.  Since Charlie Kirk was killed?  Anyone see conservatives rioting, burning and looting.  How about Occupy Wall Street?  Fights with police.  Claims of sexual assault and other crimes.  Usually left their protest areas a filthy mess.  The Tea Party?  Peaceful, neat and orderly. 

In a poll from the Network Contagion Research Institute, based at Rutgers University, they found that 55% of self-identified left of center respondents said it was at least somewhat justified to murder President Trump, vs 20.3% on the right.  15% said it was completely justified.  48% felt it was somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk, vs 14.3% on the right.  And 59% said it was somewhat acceptable to destroy a Tesla dealership, vs 23.6% on the right.  In a YouGov poll, 14% of Democrats said it was sometimes justified to use violence to achieve political goals, compared with 6% of Republicans.  We have a serious problem in this country. 

However, the biggest problem may be generational.  According to a survey by the Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, each generation was asked if political violence is never acceptable.  93% of Baby Boomers agreed never acceptable.  But that number decreased in each generation.  86% of Gen X agreed political violence was never acceptable.  That decreased further with millenials at 71%.  And Gen Z?  Only 58% agreed that political violence was never acceptable.  (The alleged shooter of Kirk is 22 years old, part of Gen Z.)  Clearly, these younger people have not been taught about Free Speech.  About the First Amendment forming the basis of our democracy.  They have been taught that they are entitled to "safe spaces" in order to avoid speech they find objectionable.  College age kids!  The age of many of our soldiers. 

This hatred from the Left towards those who hold opposing viewpoints, certainly reminded me of my own experience.  During Trump's first campaign, a friend of 25 years yelled in my face about the election; and when I refused to promise that I would not vote for Trump, he loudly yelled "I'm done with you" as he walked away.  A colleague got in my face in Court, and I thought he was going to start beating on me.  A friend of 45 years decided he could no longer talk to me.  And one of my first bosses, a man who my wife and I were quite fond of, decided I was not good enough to speak with or be around.  Basically, all these people were no different from those who called Kirk a "piece of shit."  And they believe they have the moral high ground.  

Then there are the extended family members who have not been willing to speak with me, or attend any family events with me in attendance, since the November, 2024 election.  I have had people on the right disagree with me quite a bit.  But none stopped being friends with me.  Rather, they have tried to persuade me as to why they believed I was wrong.  Now, you can argue my experience is anecdotal only.  But clearly something is going on here.  

I've said it many times before.  Many Democrats, who think of themselves as liberal, have actually become leftists.  Leftists do not value free speech.  They do not believe in the First Amendment.  Rather, they are willing to ban what they deem to be "offensive" speech.  A quote usually attributed to Voltaire says:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  And, in my post on Classical Liberalism, from July 17, 2016, I quote John Stuart Mill on speech.  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."  But those views of Voltaire and Mill were the views of classical liberals.  Few and far between in today's Democratic Party; but those are views commonly held by Republicans.

Of all of our political leaders who have commented on Charlie Kirk's assassination, believe it or not Bernie Sanders said it best.  "Freedom and democracy is not about political violence.  It is not about assassinating public officials.  It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue.  Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice.  It means that you cannot convince people  of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force.  We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view.  That's what our Constitution is about, that's what our Bill of Rights is about.  That, in fact, is what freedom is about."  And that is what Charlie Kirk was all about - a free and open exchange of ideas.    

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part II

Speaking of Ilhan Omar, here is what she said about Kirk.  "There are a lot of people who are talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate.  These people are full of shit and it's important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness."  She goes on to say Kirk downplayed the death of George Floyd.  I would say that's backwards - much of the world overplayed the death of George Floyd.  That does not mean I wished Floyd dead or thought he should die.  It means that somehow a common criminal was turned into a saint.  

Omar also accused Kirk of hateful rhetoric postings on social media.  As an aside, that is rather ironic coming from Omar, who a few years ago made one hateful antisemitic comment after the next.  But Omar's comment is a perfect example of the thinking of the Left - any comment that goes against their beliefs is deemed to be "hateful."  Once given that designation, the Left follows it up with calling the person a Nazi or fascist or Hitler.  Once that happens, they no longer view the person as a human being, and any action taken against that person can be justified.  

Once I started looking into Charlie Kirk, I came across an online site called "Bluesky."  Here are some of the comments I saw.  "Do Ben Shapiro next."  "Nice, can we do Ben Shapiro next?"  "I hope they shoot Ben Shapiro next."  "Can someone shoot Ben Shapiro next?'  And, "J.K. Rowling next."  Ben Shapiro is another young (albeit 10 years older than Kirk) conservative political commentator.  Whereas Kirk was a religious Christian, Shapiro is a religious Jew.  But many people on the Left have no respect for those who are religious.  And, Shapiro, like Kirk, also likes to speak on college campuses.   

Bluesky also had quite a few calls for the assassination of President Trump.  There was an interesting article in the New York Post, quoting teachers from around the country.  One teacher posed in front of a screen announcing Kirk's assassination and sang "G-d bless America."  In Naples, New York, a teacher referred to Kirk as an "aspiring Goebbels," and added "good riddance to bad garbage."  From Greenville, South Carolina:  "America became better today.  There I said it."  From Iowa:  "1 Nazi down."  

A teacher with the DOD said this:  "He was a garbage human.  I won't mourn for him one second."  And:  "Fuck the high road,"  "Fuck that guy."  From Baytown, Texas:  "Could Kirk have baited just ONE too many people?  Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him."  And from Cleveland, Ohio:  the writer expressed the hope that Kirk "never finds rest and always suffer(s) in eternity."  These are teachers.  The people who are supposed to educate our children.  Imagine what message they are passing along to their students - if someone says something that you find objectionable, they should be dead.

And this from a restaurant owner in Cincinnati, Ohio:  "Good Riddance.  What a piece of shit."  After getting some backlash, the restaurant owner replied with this:  "If you think threats of social media attacks on me or my business will in any way keep me silent about what I believe, you are sorely mistaken.  I know exactly who I am and on what side of history I stand."  I think that pretty well epitomizes the feeling of moral superiority felt by those on the Left.  He will not remain silent, but it's fine that Charlie Kirk was permanently silenced.  I am sure that none of these people see the irony in what they are saying.  They call Kirk a Nazi, a fascist, a piece of garbage, or a piece of shit - based on what?

Based on the fact that they don't like what he says.  Who exactly justifies murder based on one's speech?  Fascists and Nazis.  Could there be any better examples of the Left's loathing of free speech and the First Amendment and our Constitution?  Then we have the antisemites, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting that since Kirk was murdered there have been over 10,000 posts on X blaming Israel.  Just ridiculous given Kirk's strong support of Israel.  Here is what Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu said of Kirk:  he was a "lion-hearted friend of Israel."   

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part I

This was a difficult week for America.  On Wednesday, Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking to an audience at Utah Valley University.  Then Thursday was the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 terror atacks on America.  When I heard that Kirk had been murdered, I felt both sadness and anger - two emotions that have haunted me all too frequently.  Sad because Kirk was a young man, a husband and a father of two little girls.  Angry over the silencing of a prominent conservative voice.

I can't say that I listened to Kirk all that much over the years.  From what I heard, I know I did not always agree with him.  Reading more about him, I would not have said some of the things he said the way that he did.  Kirk passed on college.  At age 19 he became a co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), which has become the most influential political organization reaching out to young people.  He loved going to college campuses, knowing he would be challenged by leftwing students.  He would engage them with his "Prove me wrong" debates.  

And that was his approach.  A non-violent free exchange of ideas.  Exactly what our Founders intended with the First Amendment, forming the underlying basis of our democracy.  The Independent, a left leaning paper out of the UK, described Kirk this way.  He was a Christian.  Yes, he was a religious Christian.  He was anti-abortion.  Many people are.  I am not opposed to all abortions.  He opposed mask mandates.  Some say that most masks were ineffectual.  He was a believer in the Second Amendment, while acknowledging that some would die from guns.  People die from many things that are legal.  And he said that Democrats "stand for everything G-d hates."  (A response to that would take up several posts.)

The Independent continued, saying that Kirk called the Russian-Ukrainian war a "border dispute."  Readers know that I strongly disagree with that.  Russia, led by Putin, invaded Ukraine; because Putin wants to regain the old Soviet Union.  While he opposed the US bombing Iran, which I favored, he was a strong supporter of Israel.  Knowing that he was a religious Christian, I was quite surprised when I first heard him say at the conclusion of his Friday show:  Shabbat Shalom.  The Jewish Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown.  It turns out that Kirk was friends with a Rabbi Pesach Wolicki.  Rabbi Wolicki would help Kirk with advice on how to defend Israel.  Kirk was concerned that many members of Gen Z did not support Israel.  

Said the Rabbi:  "Charlie stood alone to a great extent in that whole Gen Z conservative world as far as being pro-Israel...there were prominent people...actively working to (get him to) drop his support for Israel on a daily basis.  And he resisted."  The Independent ssaid Kirk opposed "gender affirming care."  When I hear about doctors doing any such thing to minors I am greatly disturbed by it.  The paper said he was against the LGBTQ Agenda.  What specifically?  They said he opposed same sex marriage.  There are various Biblical references that suggest gay marriage would not be acceptable.  And the paper said he supported Leviticus 20:13, describing it as "G-d's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."

After claiming that Kirk advocated for stoning gays to death, Stephen King apologized, saying "what he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages."  David Rubin, an openly gay conserative commentator, said he was a good friend of Kirk's.  Ric Grenell, the highest ranking openly gay member of the first Trump Administration, also called Kirk a good friend.  He said Kirk had asked him to join the Board of TPUSA.  And, there is a Tik Tok video by a group called Gay Bear Patriot with one pesumably gay person after the next saying "I am Charlie Kirk."  

According to The Guardian, another leftwing paper out of the UK, Kirk said:  "America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank:  large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America."  And:  "...Islam is not compatible with Western civilization."  Is anyone seriously going to argue that Muslim run countries have the kind of freedoms that we associate with Western countries?  Free elections?  Often not.  Freedom of speech?  Often not, especially with regards to criticizing the government or Islam.  Women's rights, gay rights?  You get the picture.  The misnamed "honor" killings?  Sadly too often.  

As for large Islamic areas being a threat to America, if they adopt Islamic values, if they adopt local sharia law, then, yes, clearly a threat.  I will once again fully acknowledge that there are Muslim Americans who desire nothing other than to live the American dream.  To raise a family, have a home, get an education, start a business or make a good living.  But, when I look at the elected Muslim office holders, such as Rashida Tlaib (see the prior post) and Ilhan Omar, I am very concerned.  When I see Zohran Mamdani possibly becoming the next Mayor of America's largest city, I am very concerned.