Donald Trump is now President of the United States for a second term, having survived an unprecedented campaign of lawfare that has included no fewer than four criminal prosecutions, two state and two federal, brought during the four years that he was out of office. All were brought by highly partisan Democratic Party prosecutors.

The four prosecutions of Trump are all now essentially dead. However, much of the process of killing off these prosecutions has occurred either since Trump’s re-election, or only because of the fortuity of Trump getting enough appointments to the Supreme Court during his first four years in office to have an effective majority on that Court.

To get an idea of how things might have gone differently for Trump, we need only look to the country of Brazil. There, a couple of weeks ago, on September 11, the prior President and leader of the opposition party, Jair Bolsonaro, just got sentenced to some 27 years in prison. According to the BBC, the charges against Bolsonaro included “armed criminal conspiracy,” “attempted abolition of the democratic rule of law,” and “attempted coup d’état.” In other words, the charges against Bolsonaro sound very similar to the charges against Trump in the Jack Smith Washington DC prosecution.

And yet the BBC also states that the subsequent and current President, known as Lula, “was sworn in without incident on 1 January 2023.” To be fair, there was unrest following the October 2022 election that was ultimately called for Lula, and on January 8, 2023, after Lula took office, Bolsonaro’s supporters staged a large protest in the capital of Brasilia, that turned violent. Bolsonaro himself was out of the country at the time, actually in Orlando, Florida.

The underlying merits of the case against Bolsonaro are almost impossible for an outsider to evaluate. However, the process employed against Bolsonaro is not difficult to evaluate: it had no semblance of fairness. Somehow the tribunal that rendered the verdict on Bolsonaro consisted of five Supreme Court justices, the majority of them closely allied with Lula. The head of the tribunal, one Alexander de Moraes, has made a name for himself taking on what he calls the “digital far right” in Brazil, and for shutting down “misinformation,” otherwise known as speech by political opponents. Among other things, de Moraes personally shut down Twitter/X in Brazil after Elon Musk took it over. Two other judges on the five-judge tribunal are close allies of Lula: a former Justice Minister in a prior Lula presidency, and a former defense lawyer for Lula in a corruption trial that he faced prior to his current term as President. Those three constituted a majority to convict Bolsonaro. One judge, a guy named Luiz Fux, voted to acquit Bolsonaro on grounds of insufficiency of evidence. Fux wrote a lengthy dissent.

Back here in the U.S., Jack Smith was the special prosecutory named by the Merrick Garland Justice Department to go after Trump while he was out of office. Smith brought two criminal cases against Trump — one in DC for conduct related to the January 6 demonstrations, and the other in Florida for alleged mis-handling of classified information. Smith did everything he could to get his cases to trial before Trump could get re-elected. In the DC case, that goal was frustrated by the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States in July 2024, holding that Trump had immunity as President for any official acts he took while in office.

Trump v. United States was a 6-3 decision, along straight party lines. In other words, if Trump had not had his appointments to the Supreme Court, the case would likely have gone the other way, and he would have found himself a defendant before a DC jury in the Jack Smith prosecution. Irrespective of the merits, he could well have found himself in the position of Bolsonaro.

You may think that Jack Smith has completely disappeared since he got fired upon Trump resuming office. However, Mr. Smith re-emerged giving a lecture last week at George Mason University. Here are a few excerpts from a September 22 piece in the New York Sun reporting on Smith’s talk:

The prosecutor declared that “what I see happening at the Department of Justice today saddens me and angers me … the government, using the vast powers of the criminal justice system to target citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.” The special counsel, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, reflected, “My career has also shown me how fragile” the rule of law can be. “As an international prosecutor, I have seen in other countries the rule of law erode. … One of my concerns is that we have had the rule of law function in this country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted.” . . . Mr. Smith insisted until the end of his tenure that he could have convicted Mr. Trump “but for” his victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

According to the Sun, Smith got a standing ovation for his speech, which gives you a good indication how a DC-area jury may have viewed the case.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT “SUBMISSIVE STEPHEN” (“SS”) MILLER IS THROWING THE BIGGEST, MOST PATHETIC “TANTRUM” IN THE ENTIRE WEST WING. CRYING, STOMPING, WAILING, “OUR QUOTAS! OUR ARRESTS OF CHILDREN! HOW WILL WE SURVIVE WITHOUT RAIDING THE INNOCENT?!” HIS TANTRUM WAS SO LOUD IT TRIGGERED A SMALL EARTHQUAKE IN SAN FRANCISCO (SCIENTISTS ARE CALLING IT THE “MILLER QUAKE”). HE IS FURIOUS THAT I, GAVIN C. NEWSOM (THE REAL LEADER OF AMERICA), JUST SIGNED BEAUTIFUL NEW LAWS TO HOLD TRUMP’S SECRET POLICE ACCOUNTABLE: NO MASKS, NO RAIDS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS. KIDS, TEACHERS, NURSES ARE SAFE AGAIN BECAUSE OF ME! “SS” MILLER IS NOW GROUNDED. NO JUICE BOX. NO CARTOONS. WHEN YOU’RE READY TO STOP TERRORIZING AMERICANS, STEPHEN, YOUR DADDY (ME!) MIGHT UNGROUND YOU. UNTIL THEN, IT’S “TIME OUT.” YOU ARE WELCOME, AMERICA! — GCN

Governor Newsom Press Office

Two days after missing a game in Cincinnati to attend Charlie Kirk’s memorial, Cubs rookie third baseman Matt Shaw said being among the tens of thousands who honored the controversial figure at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, was ‘‘meant to be.’’

As for any blowback — for his friendship with Kirk or for leaving his team during a critical closing stretch of the regular season — Shaw is ‘‘not concerned at all,’’ he said before the series opener Tuesday against the Mets at Wrigley Field.

‘‘My connection with Charlie was through our [Christian] faith,’’ Shaw said. ‘‘And that’s something that drives me every day, the reason why I’m able to do what I do every day, and that’s something I’m extremely thankful for. I know without my faith and without the many blessings I’ve been given in my life that I wouldn’t be here, be able to talk to you guys, able to help this team eventually go and win championships. That’s something I feel really, really blessed about, so whatever backlash comes is OK.’’

The 31-year-old Kirk, a conservative podcaster, founder of Turning Point USA and ally of President Donald Trump, was shot and killed Sept. 10 during a public appearance at a college in Utah. Shaw, 23, was scratched from the Cubs’ lineup that night in Atlanta. He and Kirk had become friends last offseason while living in the same apartment complex in Arizona and had remained in regular contact during the season, according to Shaw.

‘‘When that happened, a lot of emotions came over me,’’ Shaw said. ‘‘I didn’t foresee that happening. I don’t know how to describe everything that happened and how I was feeling, but I will say I was tearing up pretty good. I had a lot of [teammates] supporting me, and that will be something I’ll remember for my entire life.’’

Shaw called Kirk ‘‘one of the biggest Cubs fans I ever met’’ and said he received texts from the Arlington Heights native after every game.

Erika Kirk, Kirk’s widow, asked Shaw to attend the memorial, he said.

‘‘I felt as though it was something that was really important for me to do,’’ he said.

Requesting permission from the Cubs to make the trip wasn’t an easy decision — ‘‘I kind of had turmoil about [it],’’ he said — but after speaking with manager Craig Counsell and several teammates, he felt supported. Counsell communicated with president Jed Hoyer and the front office on Shaw’s behalf.

Left fielder Ian Happ, the team’s longest-tenured player, expressed empathy.

‘‘For him to go and be a part of a celebration of life and grieve, from a human level, I understand it,’’ Happ told the Sun-Times. ‘‘We’re baseball players, and that takes up a ton of our life, but there’s a huge human element to this game, and it’s really hard to lose a friend and really hard to lose someone you’re close to.’’

Said Hoyer: ‘‘When a player has felt it’s important to attend a memorial service or funeral, if it’s that important to the player and it’s part of their grieving process, then we want to be supportive of that.’’

Shaw said he hasn’t had social media for four years and wasn’t a follower of Kirk’s content before meeting him. While Kirk gained millions of followers and fans as an influential voice in the hard-right movement that has come together around Trump, he expressed some views — on religion, race, women and guns — that repelled others.

‘‘I think that he talked about a lot of really big questions,’’ Shaw said. ‘‘I think everyone thinks about a lot of things. . . .

‘‘The reason Charlie and I connected so close was because of our faith. That’s something that drives me every single day, something that I think about all the time. So if people are wondering who I am and what I stand for, I’d say that my faith and the many blessings I’ve been given is why I’m able to be here, and I just want to make sure that I can give that back to people, that I can support people around me, that I can love people around me the same way that I’ve been blessed.’’

At Kirk’s memorial, some leaders of the MAGA movement didn’t hold back on invective for those opposed to it. Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, spoke of a ‘‘spiritual war’’ with the left. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, described a ‘‘righteous fury that our enemies cannot comprehend or understand.’’

Trump said: ‘‘[Kirk] did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagree with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.’’

Shaw’s takeaway, however, was vastly different.

‘‘After something that was really horrible happening, the amount of joy that was in that room, with everyone coming together and realizing how important their faith was to each and every person that was in there, I just think is so powerful,’’ he said. ‘‘Nobody was angry. Everyone was really joyful of how this had brought everybody together. . . . It’s something, that feeling, that I can hopefully bring to other people.’’

As for any Cubs fans holding any of this against him, Shaw has this message:

‘‘Disappointment is something natural for people you disagree with, and that’s OK. I think any way that I can support them and love them, I’m going to do that.’’

Steven Greenberg, Chicago Sun-Times

Contributing: Maddie Lee

Charlie Kirk was known as a staunch ally of the state of Israel and a vocal defender of the U.S.-Israel partnership.

His support went far beyond political talking points.

Rooted in his Christian faith, admiration for Israel’s democratic resilience, and belief in shared cultural and biblical history, Kirk’s devotion to Israel was a consistent theme in his public life.

Alert: Charlie Kirk’s Last Words in Print – You’ll Want to Read This.

For Kirk, Israel was not only a modern nation but also a living testament to biblical promises.

He often framed his support in explicitly spiritual terms, saying that visiting Israel had “changed [his] life,” strengthened his Christian faith, and made “the Bible pop into reality.”

On social media and in speeches, he described Israel as both America’s “sister democracy” and a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian civilization.

Kirk frequently emphasized the unique historical and religious bonds that tie the United States to Israel.

“Israel is our ally, our friend, and a reminder of the biblical truths that still speak to us today,” he once said.

Special: You can follow in Charlie Kirk’s footsteps, he explains how, See More Here.

His position placed him in line with a large segment of American evangelicals who see Israel not only as a strategic partner but also as a central part of God’s plan.

Kirk’s words were not limited to distant commentary.

He visited Israel personally, including a 2019 trip to Jerusalem, where he spoke at events organized by Israeli groups such as Im Tirtzu.

There, he said: “I’m very pro-Israel … and my whole life I have defended Israel.”

The trip left a deep impression on him, reinforcing his view of the Jewish state as a beacon of freedom in a hostile region.

He was invited on more than one occasion to return to Israel for conferences and speaking engagements, including an appearance at the Zionist Organization of America gala.

These events underscored how connected Kirk had become to pro-Israel networks, both in the United States and in Israel itself.

Kirk regularly defended Israel in the American media, particularly during moments of international controversy.

During conflicts in Gaza, he forcefully argued that Hamas bore responsibility for civilian casualties, rejecting what he described as “visual warfare” intended to turn world opinion against Israel.

He also questioned reports of famine in Gaza, accusing Israel’s critics of exaggeration.

His stance often placed him in sharp contrast to progressive voices in the U.S. and abroad, who increasingly questioned Israel’s policies.

The depth of Kirk’s support for Israel was not lost on its leaders.

In the wake of his passing, tributes poured in from across Israel’s political spectrum.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called him a “lion-hearted friend of Israel,” praising him for standing firm “against lies” and championing “Judeo-Christian civilization.”

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar described him as an “incredible friend” of the Jewish state.

Special: Charlie Kirk’s Final Wish: ‘Read, Internalize, See More.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and former Defense Minister Benny Gantz offered similar praise.

Gantz highlighted Kirk’s steadfast defense of “Judeo-Christian values, America, and the state of Israel,” underscoring how central Israel was to his public mission.

Israeli media outlets took note of Kirk’s unusual devotion.

The Times of Israel published a commentary titled “Charlie Kirk and Israel: The Record His Critics Can’t Rewrite,” which emphasized that his affection for Israel was both consistent and deeply personal.

The article noted that his visits, public speeches, and online messages were filled with admiration for Israel’s resilience and centrality to his faith.

Another Times of Israel report revealed that Kirk had once written a personal letter to Netanyahu, saying: “The Holy Land is so important to my life, it pains me to see support for Israel slip away.”

That line, widely quoted in Israel after his death, was cited as proof of Kirk’s genuine concern for the U.S.-Israel relationship and the cultural ties underpinning it.

Kirk’s alliance with Israel was both political and personal.

For him, defending Israel was not merely about geopolitics but about safeguarding a civilization rooted in shared values, faith, and history.

His outspoken support earned him respect among Israeli leaders and admiration from many in the American pro-Israel community.

At a time when support for Israel in the United States is increasingly polarized, Kirk represented a vocal current of conservative and evangelical advocacy that sees the bond as nonnegotiable.

His words, travels, and tributes form part of a larger narrative in which Israel and America stand as partners — culturally, biblically, and strategically.

© 2025 Newsmax. All rights

The summer season is still in high gear, and it’s a special time to get together with friends, family and neighbors. In most cases, that’s a good thing. But there can sometimes be awkward moments when neighbors drop in uninvited. Or when their children can’t keep their hands off of your property. Or perhaps friends who call and expect you to be available to talk — with no concern for what you might be doing at the moment – and they don’t take no for an answer. Here at the beach we’re all expected to be in “vacation mode”, but often these intrusions can feel like a violation of our personal space.

It’s natural that your first reaction might be to blame your neighbor, the child, or your chatty friend. But, lo and behold, the problem most often begins with … you guessed it … you! And it all comes down to a lack of boundaries. It’s up to you, as a courtesy to them and to yourself, to politely, yet firmly, set those boundaries. Think of a boundary as a fence around your life: Crossing it is a privilege, NOT a right.

Most of us have been taught from childhood to be “neighborly” and “tolerant.” But, when neighborly and tolerant turn into annoyance, boundaries must be set. Chances are that your neighbor’s dropping in, your friend’s frequent calls or the child’s unrestrained curiosities are not intended to annoy. So what kind of friend would you be to continue letting them impose on you? Boundaries make for genuine relationships without make believe.

So how can you set limits on others without hurting their feelings? The secret is to put the boundaries into play before people get into the habit of crossing them. For example, you might tell your neighbor, “I take a nap in the afternoon, so give me a call before you drop by so I can enjoy our time together.” Or, when your friend calls, you say that you’re busy, and suggest another day or time to call, so “I can really enjoy our conversation.” Suggest to the uncontrolled child’s parent that you worry about his safety because many of your decorations are breakable and could hurt him.

If these people truly value you as a friend or neighbor, they’ll get the hint. If they continue to impose, then it might be time to re-evaluate the role you play in their lives. True friends want to respect your boundaries and maintain your friendship.

If the friend acts resentful after you set the boundary, she’s telling you she doesn’t really care what you want. The phrase “It’s all about you” applies to anyone who has no boundaries. Do you really want to be in the good graces of somebody who feels that your time and property just don’t matter all that much?

I know this sounds like strong language, but nobody is entitled to steal your time. People steal your time by holding you on the phone in spite of numerous hints to the contrary, or by being habitually late. Do they really mean to steal? Not likely — but that doesn’t change the fact that this is what they’re doing. When someone shows up late (not just once, but all the time), then they’re stealing your time – time you’ll never get back.

I’m not encouraging you to get angry, but try thinking this way: “I’m letting her keep me on the phone.” Or, “I’m permitting him to annoy me by dropping by.” Or, “I’m allowing myself to be put into an awkward position as her child scampers through my house unattended.” Recognize your part in the problem, and it will start to go away.

When setting boundaries, be calm, polite, and direct. “It’s been great talking to you, Emil.” Or, “Tondra, our house isn’t child-proofed. I’m worried about little Shandra hurting herself.” Or, “I know you’re busy, Catiana, but it really throws me off when you’re late. Do you mind calling when you’re running behind?”

Yes, much of this runs counter to what many of us were taught; to never, ever risk hurting anyone’s feelings. But when I look around the world, I see a lot of hurt feelings, because “sucking it up” just leads to resentment and anger. Doesn’t it make sense to be honest from the start?

Your time is your own. Celebrate your beach life, but treat your time the same as you would your money. Because when it’s gone, it’s gone.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

The partially taxpayer-funded Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert is set to shut down in 2026 due to inefficiency in generating solar energy, according to the New York Post.

The $2.2 billion plant, which features three 459-foot towers, was greenlit in 2010 and completed in 2014. According to the New York Post the closure stems from the site being “outpaced by solar photovoltaic technology” and proving both inefficient and costly. The shutter of the site comes more than a decade ahead of its original 2039 end date, according to the Associated Press.

Speculation about Ivanpah’s early closure began in January, when Pacific Gas & Electric announced an agreement with the plant’s owners to terminate its contracts.

“Ivanpah Solar was built when developers were investing in many different types of clean energy. The goal was to find efficient and affordable technologies to reduce the need for greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels,” PG&E wrote in a January press statement.

“The technology had worked on a smaller scale in Europe. Spain had several concentrating solar projects of up to 20 megawatts. In the 2000s and 2010s, various private companies invested in large-scale concentrating solar power in the United States. But over time, solar photovoltaic technology raced ahead of its rival in affordability,” the press statement continued.

Hailey Gomez, Daily Caller

The American Federation of Teachers president discusses her new book, the attacks on public education, and what we can do about it.

by Eleanor J. Bader September 15, 2025 2:11 PM

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was an act of desperation for the far left, the equivalent of a cornered and dangerous wild animal lashing out.  And make no mistake: The leftists cheering on and celebrating this act of political terrorism were there in essence with the murderer.  Those who silently cheered instead of condemning tacitly agreed without being overt in their ghoulish glee.

Charlie Kirk was killed because we have better ideas.  That isn’t a boast; it is a statement of fact.  Political entities don’t attack when they are winning; they lash out only when they are losing.  This makes them even more dangerous.  

We’ve recently begun discussing the severe flaws in the far left, if for no other reason than as a warning. This is not to gloat over their decline, but to look at why they are headed down a dead-end road.  Two of their biggest inherent flaws are habitual dependencies on force and falsehoods.  Their incessant lies are effectively a form of mental coercion.

Leftists are their own worst enemies.  They keep on demonstrating in no uncertain terms that they cannot win in the free marketplace of ideas, so they have to use force and then lie about it without any remorse, as they have in recent days.

Their core philosophy of collectivism is completely unworkable.  The horrific history of the left has always been trying to get their collectivist flavor of the decade to work, and they are perfectly willing to murder millions of innocent people in their ever-failing efforts.  They are ideologically bankrupt, which makes them doubly dangerous, because there is nothing worse than someone trying to force a failed solution on the people with a ghastly combination of bullets and Bolshoi.  

A couple of recent, little noticed news stories concerned two disturbing polls showing a tendency of younger voters toward collectivism.  But events have changed all of that, almost overnight.  This explains why the left targeted Charlie Kirk, and it explains its subsequent reactions.  The collectivist left cannot abide a rearguard action in its indoctrination centers.  It cannot deal with someone telling the basic and brutal truths about the ancient concepts of collectivism: You’re never going to reach that perfect “Communist Utopia,” where it’s going to be “distribution according to need.”  And if you dare complain, the CHEKA, Stasi, or Gestapo will haul you away.  Those are the facts and history that the left cannot reveal, and one of the other reasons it’s running straight for a brick wall.

Even worse for leftism, the left is supposed to favor “change,” whereas the right is supposed to favor the status quo.  Remember the Obama mantra of “Hope and Change”?  “Reactionary” is a synonym for the right.  The left is supposed to be for “new” ideas.  “Conservative” was meant to be a pejorative, for people who resist these wondrous new ideas, like communism.

This sort of made a little bit of sense in the societies of a few hundred years ago, but what are the “new” ideas now?

The alphabet soup scheme and the events of this past week are a prime example of how they are quickly going to run out of things to change.  First, it was “gay marriage” and all the ancillary issues around the first two letters of “LGBTQ.”  Lefties had a “cause,” and it upset society, but eventually everyone essentially accepted this, so the activists had to find something else.  Along came the trans issue with similar results.  True to form, the left isn’t satisfied with just trans, and now it’s pushing “furries” or something.

Leftists are rapidly reaching a point where their change mantra is indistinguishable from insanity, running out of degeneracies that will engender a reaction from the right.  

The big problem for the left these days is that it has flaws on all fronts.  People are horrified by leftists’ political violence and repulsed by their celebrations and lies.  There are cracks appearing in the left’s collectivist façade — people who openly oppose Mamdani the commie or refuse to endorse the candidate.  

Eleanor J. Bader

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this article are not  necessarily shared by the editor.  A/D

I saw Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow speak at his memorial on Sunday.  She was magnificent.  She promised to keep Charlie’s mission going.  I pray that she is able to.  But those are some big shoes to fill…

One never knows for sure beforehand, but I think Charlie Kirk’s assassination may be something of a tipping point in American politics and culture, or, at a minimum, an inflection point. Why? Because Charlie wasn’t a radical, he wasn’t a firebrand, he wasn’t a bomb thrower… No, Charlie was—in a relative sense—a lamb. And now, that lamb has been slaughtered.

While Charlie was a brilliant speaker, his true genius was his willingness to engage almost anyone and do so on their terms, using their own words. We’ve all seen videos of Charlie sitting at a table or standing on a podium at some random college, engaging with students or activists. Typically, Charlie would allow the students to ask questions or make an argument and then respond accordingly. Usually quite brilliantly, always politely.

In all honesty, I sometimes felt bad for his interlocutors, who were often young and brainwashed and had to stand and have their arguments dismantled in front of their peers. While it may have done them some good in the long run, for that moment, it almost certainly didn’t feel like it.

Charlie was easily one of the bravest men on America’s political and cultural battlefield. Why? Because he made it his stock in trade regularly to go into the lion’s den, armed only with a microphone and a brilliant mind for defense. And when I say lion’s den, I mean academia, where the left has been minting young communists for half a century.

When I was in college in the ’80s and ’90s, when a sliver of normalcy still remained and the cancer of politics had not infected every element of life, there was no one doing what Charlie was doing. Thirty years later, when the left had transformed every aspect of American life, from sports to media to scouting to Halloween—and, especially, education—into a political minefield, Charlie went in and engaged with students and professors on their home turf. He usually came away the victor. He did so utilizing a combination of facts and the Socratic method that left the person with whom he was engaging wondering what had just happened, and often humbled.

Charlie was extraordinarily effective, both in engaging with the public and also, and perhaps more importantly, motivating young people on campuses across the country to follow his lead, to stand up and engage in debate from a conservative, patriotic, Christian perspective, something that had largely been erased from most universities by the early part of the 21st century.

The vehicle for Charlie’s evangelism of conservative principles was Turning Point USA, an organization he co-founded in 2012 at the age of eighteen. A little over a decade later, TPUSA is one of the most important organizations in the American political landscape, having over 800 college and university chapters across the country and running programs and summit events every year.

Over that time, Charlie and TPUSA have been responsible for inspiring millions of young people to throw off the radical leftist straitjackets that academia sought to keep them in. Indeed, looking at the shift of young people, particularly young men, to the right, it’s clear that he was one of the movement’s most important catalysts in propelling Donald Trump back to the White House in 2024.

Charlie Kirk was attractive, engaging, effective, and brave. And the left killed him for it because violence is all that the left has to offer. As Charlie demonstrated every time he took to a podium to speak or a table to debate, words, eloquently delivered, with passion and supported by facts, can be a powerful weapon in the battle of ideas and policy. The left had no good answer to Charlie. Sure, they have passion, and they sometimes have eloquence, but they rarely have facts or reality on their side, and even less often, common sense.

For the left, because Charlie was such a successful shepherd of young men and women, he had to be eliminated.

Whether it’s rioting and burning down cities across the country, using mob tactics to intimidate speakers and politicians, or literally killing their opponents, the left in America has lost its battle for the mind of the American man…and woman. In the world of ideas, the left has lost the debate and has nothing left to offer but violence, and the killing of Charlie Kirk is the ultimate example of exactly that.

Which is why the left might have finally gone too far. It’s not like they took out some fire-breathing conservative pugilist who used invective and intimidation as his tools of the trade. No, they took out a man who was polite, respectful, and fundamentally decent. And despite the left’s attempts to paint him as a radical purveyor of hate, it is clear to any objective observer that he was anything but.

They say that the margins drive politics, and that the hardcore of both sides are largely unmovable in the short term, leaving the 10%-15% in the middle as the targets of intense political messaging. Most of those people are persuadable, although what persuades them is sometimes unknown. But what is known is that the assassination of a decent family man, who welcomed polite discussions with everyone, gets people’s attention, particularly when it’s in full color video, in gruesome detail. Given that it comes on the heels of another vicious, bloody murder of an innocent at the hands of a man who was a product of a leftist-controlled criminal justice system, it will likely make many of those perennial fence sitters recognize that one side is about violence and the other about ideas.

Most Americans don’t want violence to be the driving force in their politics any more than they want it in their lives. President Trump will never convince people who want to allow murderers to walk among innocents to support stronger penalties for violent offenders—but then he doesn’t have to. Charlie’s murder will likely have a sufficient impact that a significant majority of Americans will recognize that violence cannot be allowed to become the coin of the realm.

When leftist violence is allowed to percolate, everyone loses, everywhere, all the time. That was true in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and is true today in Venezuela. Few Americans, other than those associated with Antifa, BLM, and Bluesky, want to see blood in the streets, political or otherwise. The shock of Charlie Kirk’s murder just might be the catalyst that lets America regain her footing on the righteous path that’s been blockaded by the violent thugs on the left.

That would be a fitting legacy for a man who spent most of his life trying to get Americans to recognize, appreciate, and protect the gifts that our Founding Fathers left us.

Flopping Aces

President Trump blasted the United Nations yesterday — while speaking at the United Nations.

An absolutely beautiful moment. U.N. elites are out of their minds about this, as is the elite American media. However: We should be out of the U.N. The U.N. morally sanctions terrorism and totalitarianism. They do it with American money. PULL THE PLUG on the U.N., President Trump.

I love how President Trump represents America when around other world leaders. He acts and speaks as if America is better than other countries. And he’s RIGHT. America was the only country that ever stood for individual rights, private property and freedom of speech, on principle. America was the first country to put the rights of man above the rights of government; the first country to put the rule of law above the rule of men.

I cringe when I see President Trump around world leaders for only one reason: That we cannot have him forever.

We are the first and the best because we were the first to be right. Our founding principles drove out slavery, socialism and fascism–and for the first time ever, through capitalism, lifted the standard of living for everyone to unprecedented heights. This is not racism or nationalism. It’s the truth.

By the way: If President Trump is really a dictator, why is Jimmy Kimmel back on the air?

And if leftists are NOT barbarians and domestic terrorists, why do they so approve of Jimmy Kimmel?

Just over half of America’s leftist voters and 40% of registered Democrats believe that the assassination of Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk was “understandable,” according to a new poll released Tuesday from Rasmussen Reports.

The survey revealed 54% of leftist voters believe that the conservative leader trafficked in “hateful” rhetoric and therefore viewed his murder as “understandable.” (Source: Newsmax 9-23-25)

Wow. Just wow. And you don’t think the 21st century American equivalent of concentration camps isn’t possible? That it can’t happen here? I believe this poll, because nearly all the leftists and Democrats I have known hate dissenting opinion. They call it “hate speech.” It’s projection. THEY hate, and will not tolerate, anyone who doesn’t think and vote like they do.

And millions of them are fine with someone killing you for it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Meanwhile, a new poll shows a majority of voters believe it’s appropriate to fire employees who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s murder online.

A week’s vacation from his “comedy” show didn’t make Jimmy Kimmel any funnier, less bitter, or more likeable. In fact, the late-night host returned to Jimmy Kimmel Live! Tuesday — on fewer ABC local affiliate stations — sounding more partisan and petulant than ever. 

Kimmel offered no apology for the lies he told about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, comments that earned him an “indefinite,” short-lived suspension from his corporate bosses. The poster-child for Trump Derangement Syndrome thumbed his nose at the president and shook his fist at Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for hinting that Kimmel’s comments violated long-standing broadcast laws. 

Kimmel, whose self-delusion is almost as powerful as his self-importance, spent much of his time back on the air performing the role of free-speech warrior, bent but not broken. It was bad acting, bad theater and bad taste, particularly for those who just paid their last respects to a real freedom fighter who was murdered for his commitment to free speech and his faith. 

In short, Kimmel again is the punchline to a bad joke. 

“This show is not important: What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this,” he puffed. His main sponsor for the evening should have been Pepto-Bismol. Kimmel’s schtick was not for the weak of stomach. 

He bragged about the uptick in viewers he expected in his triumphant return, mocking Trump for saying Kimmel had no ratings. 

“Well, I do tonight,” Kimmel said to raucous applause from his band of liberal audience members, who come for the Trump hate and stay for the leftist echo chamber. 

While Kimmel’s defenders — including California Gov. Gavin Newsom — saw Kimmel’s temporary layoff as an attack on the First Amendment, a lot of noncelebrity Americans did not. 

Off With Their Jobs

A new poll by RMG Research and the Napolitan News Service found a majority of respondents (51%) believe it’s appropriate for private businesses to fire people who jump online and revel in the assassination of Kirk. While Kimmel insisted Tuesday that he wasn’t celebrating the 31-year-old conservative icon’s murder, he falsely claimed Kirk’s accused killer was part of the “MAGA gang.” 

The poll of 1,000 registered voters found just 35 percent of respondents say it is not appropriate for private employers to sack death revelers. Perhaps not surprising, just 27 percent of Democrats agree that employers have a right to fire workers who engage in such loathsome acts, while 80 percent of Republicans say the firings are appropriate. 

Leftists from a variety of industries have posted some truly vile things following Kirk’s assassination two weeks ago at a college event in Utah. Many have been shown the door. The terminated include Matthew Dowd. MSNBC’s resident justifier of leftist political assassins suggested Kirk may have invited the bullet through his “divisive” rhetoric. Dowd later complained that MSNBC’s hosts cared more about Kimmel’s suspension than his firing. 

The poll found 59 percent of registered voters surveyed think reporters and public officials should be fired for celebrating an assassination. 

A poll earlier this month conducted by RMG Research and the Napolitan News Service found a shocking 15 percent of registered voters believe America is better off after Kirk’s murder. A similar poll last year showed 17 percent of respondents said it would have been better if President Donald Trump had been killed by his attempted assassin. 

Trump had some thoughts on Kimmel’s return. 

“I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his ‘talent’ was never there,” Trump posted on X. “Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who’s not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE.”

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.