I've not yet made up my mind as to which side of the right to support in the aftermath of the most consequential political assassination since 1963. It is perhaps absurd to think we can get out of this mess and back to liberty and law without meeting the left on the field of battle that they have chosen.
Perhaps…
But if we can, we should; we must try and see how it goes. If they let us.
I get those calling to "Be Charlie," and don't start blowing stuff up. But who wins wars? The side that "gets there the firstest with the mostest." And who is that? Well, since 1968, it's been the communist Left.
We may call them “Democrats” because we don’t want to “be mean,” or refuse to grasp their true intention, or just aren’t paying attention. They are communist totalitarians who want you – us – dead. If you don’t get this, you are not paying attention.
In death as in life, he has had a crystallizing effect. If you didn’t understand that there exist evil forces on the left who want you dead because you believe the same things Charlie did, you should now. Understand that a significant subset of people on the left are celebrating the death of a husband and father who stood for the same things you do, and understand that they will not be assuaged by generic words about unity because they do not want unity with you.
Charlie believed everyone was persuadable with facts and reason. And he moved voters from left to right. So they shot him.
In death, he still is moving voters from the left. They may not wind up on the right, but they are vocally and publicly done with the murderous left.
It’s a massive trend sweeping TikTok right now, where lifelong Democrats and even self-described liberals… nose rings and all… are announcing they’re done with the Democrat Party. What brought all this on? Watching their fellow Dems openly celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And it’s not just nobodies… it’s famous influencers, as well, like the kid of John Lennon and Yoko Ono.
I did NOT agree with Charlie Kirk’s views on MANY important topics. I know he helped get Trump elected and people hate him for that. But he was a conservative Christian. What do you expect a conservative Christian to believe? How can those views surprise you? He argued those views calmly, reasonably, and considerately as far as I’ve seen.
What will be the longer-term result of these people leaving the D party? Collapse.
Back in April, Charlie Kirk posted on X about how assassination culture is spreading on the left. He cited a recent survey that found 48 percent of liberals think it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk, and 55 percent think the same of President Trump.
/snip/
The violence and intolerance of the left, in other words, isn’t confined to a radical fringe. It’s foundational to the left’s entire revolutionary political project going back more than a half-century in this country.
Having learned in 2024 that “demographics is not destiny,” that blacks and Hispanics can and do think – and vote – for themselves, the loss of the youth vote that Charlie addressed and moved – especially the men the D party is spending tens of millions to get back – may, indeed, herald the death of the left. Adults can certainly hope.
Many on the left are yakking the reaction to Kirk’s death is the result of his race. Nope.
WWJD? After He threw the money changers out of the temple, you mean? After He used violence to achieve His ends?
Well, here’s a brief primer from Old and New foundations of Western Civilization:
(For those who fail to grasp the admonition to buy or “gird on” a sword: The sword was the most common weapon of the day. Were this to be rewritten today, we would be admonished to sell our cloak and buy an AR15.)
Await the Midterms and a political democratic solution?
It's reasonable to await the midterms and see if the reaction to Charlie's assassination moves enough people to the right and/or away from the left... The celebration of the assassination of Mr. Kirk that is moving thousands of people – especially kids – away from the left, has an obvious generational impact. If we can move forward peacefully against a determined enemy.
But … what if we can’t? What if they won’t let us?
To repeat: They just SHOT the guy who wanted to talk with them, exchange ideas calmly and peacefully, who wanted to and did treat everyone as a person capable of and interested in a peaceful exchange of ideas. If they shoot the guy standing for peace, how, exactly, can they be debated, convinced, enlightened?
Who are the big names in D politics today? Commies. Totalitarians. AOC, Zamdani, Mark Kelly, Commie Sanders, Kerosene Maxine, Ilhan Omar. NONE of these people should ever have been heard of in a mature society. While I understand that elections are won in the middle and that finding a peaceful way forward is the ideal... I don't see a peaceful way forward with those who keep killing us.
Who killed Lincoln(R), Garfield(R), McKinley(R), JFK(D), RFK(D), MLK(R)? Who attempted to assassinate T. Roosevelt (R), Reagan (R), Ford(R), Trump(R)? From what side do Antifa and BLM terrorists come? ALL the killers are lefties.
And if they kill again? Do you see any reason for them not to? It seems another prominent young man in the conservative movement, Matt Walsh, has been receiving credible death threats. When killing starts, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop or to contain. Ask Gavrilo Princip.
Another who has promoted free speech and the exchange of ideas, who put billions of his own dollars forward in the effort, is Musk, also a recipient of multiple death threats. And the reaction of standard-bearers for the left?
Elon Musk’s exchange with Chris Cuomo is more than a heated media spat. It serves as a proof of concept for a broader and deeply troubling dynamic: when faced with legitimate criticism, many on the left respond not by addressing the substance of the claim, but by attempting to delegitimize and silence the speaker. Cuomo’s comments, delivered in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, provide a case study in this pattern. His reaction was not to condemn political violence unequivocally, but to turn his fire on Musk and call for algorithmic censorship on 𝕏. In doing so, Cuomo confirmed the very point Musk was making.
Not only does the left not want an exchange of ideas, they censor and cancel and murder those who do. How can one reason with those actively substituting murder for discussion?
And the idea that the media will present unbiased ANYTHING is as ridiculous as the idea judges will interpret the law evenly or with its intent in mind.
As Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing... after they've tried everything else.” Well, Charlie may have been the end game of "everything else."
How do we leave to our kids and theirs the freedom we were left, without engaging and defeating the left?
Charlie tried talking with them.
It didn’t work.
They killed him.
Now what?
I repeat, I do not condone violence as the first step of a response.
It seems we're well past that first step now, so the answer, to me, is an aggressive defense of our freedom with a built in kinetic next step.
By all means talk when possible. When the response is any of the trigger words the left loves (Hitler, racist...) the response must be "provide facts or STFU". If the left doesn't like that, they're asking for the sword.
You can't wait for violence if you wish to protect you and yours.
Again, I'm not advocating violence for violence's sake, however I am stating that "I'll call the cops" is no longer enough. You need to be prepared to end the confrontation before the police get there.
In many of these instances the police end up investigating a homicide. The question is whether you're willing to be the victim.
Violentiam exsecror, nisi necessitate exigitur.