Charlie Kirk, co-founder and CEO of TurningPoint USA, was assassinated at Utah Valley University yesterday (10 Sept 2025). I really don’t care if you hated him, thought he was a racist, misogynistic, homophobic asshole, or whatever; only a sick, twisted individual would think that somebody deserves to die for the crime of holding different opinions. Since at least Reagan and Nixon, the Left has made a point of calling all Republican opponents Hitler and comparing Republican/conservative policies to Nazi policies. They did the same thing to Kirk. Everybody the Left disagrees with is now “literally Hitler.”
A friend pointed out on Facebook that when it is your M.O. to call all your political opponents “literally Hitler” or “actually Hitler” or any other similar phrase, it is just a small step from there to justifying killing your political opponents because they are “literally Hitler.” Kirk’s murder is being justified by a number of commentators because they consider his views radical and thus worthy of murder. That is sick and disgusting.
Charlie Kirk traveled to college campuses and appeared on various shows to start conversations, ask questions, answer questions, and engage in dialogue with both supporters and opponents. Please explain how that made him “literally Hitler?” I’ve watched many clips of him engaging with students (both traditional and returning), and I’ve never once seen or heard him be rude and insulting even when those asking questions, making comments, or in the crowd were rude and insulting toward him. I’ve seen him shut down his own supporters when they booed or heckled a questioner. How is that Hitler-like behavior?
Kirk was assassinated because he tried to start conversations. And there are people all over all the social media platforms celebrating his death. Matthew Dowd, now formerly of MSNBC, was fired last night because even MSNBC couldn’t tolerate an employee of theirs suggesting that Kirk brought about his own murder.
Victim-blaming at its finest.
The Left has long used the tactic of shutting down opposing opinions through the heckler’s veto (shouting down anyone who dares to question your statements), and throttling open, public, and online discussions. You may not like how open the conversations on X have become, but that’s what free speech is all about. Free speech means being exposed to opinions that differ from your own. Sometimes those opinions differ radically from what you might like. But, guess what? Others have as much right to express their opinions, in public, as you do. And, yes, they should expect others to disagree with them. But nobody should worry about being killed for their opinions. If you find those opinions insulting and/or offensive, then it’s on you to explain why and offer a different opinion. You do not have the right to shut down anybody you disagree with simply because you disagree with them.
Now, before anybody goes haring off into the day screaming that I’d allow Nazi opinions to be aired and that makes me a Nazi, allow me to clarify something. Yes, I’d allow those opinions to be heard… How else do you expect to understand where your opponent is coming from? If you refuse to listen to an opposing opinion, how do you know how to counter it? If you refuse to listen, you have no idea what your opponent is saying and thus cannot formulate a complete response. So, yes. Let everybody have their say, then you can point out the flaws, the wrongheadedness, the evil, the correct, all of it, in their arguments.
I got yelled at for my last post where I argued that emotions do not make a logical argument. I was told that I was a hypocrite because I, myself, was guilty of venting. Of course, I vent. We all do. BUT… venting is not an argument. Screaming at someone that they’re trash and don’t know what they’re talking about is not an argument. I’ve noticed that a number of left and left-leaning folks in my Facebook friends list have posted comments saying that they’re appalled by the assassination. However, they also made a point of prefacing those comments with a listing all of Kirk’s wrongthink and “hurtful” statements (e.g. questioning LGBTQ doctrine, his public profession of his faith, etc.) prior to stating their horror at murder. This habit has made me angry and got me venting. See? I do vent and I admit it. For those prefacing their comments about the assassination, why is it necessary to appease the speech monitors when you’re condemning a murder? Why do you find it necessary to say “he said totally mean things, but oh, yeah, his murder was bad?” Why? Who and what are you so afraid of that you cannot simply say “The murder of Charlie Kirk for his views was a vile and horrific act?” Why can’t you just say that? Why do you have to preface it with anything?
Charlie Kirk was trying to have calm rational discussions with people. He was trying to understand their point of view and to explain why he disagreed with them. He let them speak, something the Left tried to prevent him from doing. For this he was killed.
Rest in peace, Charlie.
6 Responses
Really well said.
[…] AS ALWAYS, THE VOICE OF SANITY: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk. […]
BRAVO ZULU
Mr Kirk embodied those balanced qualities of innate intellect, humour, swift cutting wit, gobs of balls…. a combination that makes very rare appearances and leaves a burning chest wound when taken from your reality.
I liked his political views but when Kirk ventured out into religion, he was out of his league.
Those celebrating his murder are now upset that they’re being listed as vile people. Some of those have lost their jobs and are now complaining about cancel culture. While there should be consequences for actions, I don’t think they should be losing their job outside of a few situations. Those situations being: education, health care, and government/military service. We shouldn’t have to worry about whether our children will be taught to hate at school, or if the person taking care of our injuries would like to see us dead, or if those serving the public are going to treat people differently simply because of our views. Private employers should decide for themselves as to how they want to deal with the lost business of their employees offending their customers.
I agree. However, I’ve seen at least one who worked in an equity firm managing money. As a client, I’d be worried about any advice she’d give me if she knew my political leanings. I expect she lost her job because her bosses thought the same thing.