On Monday, Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to accuse MAGA of “trying to cover up the fact that the person who killed Charlie Kirk was one of them.” This was after Utah Attorney General Derek Brown had disclosed evidence that the shooter had admitted that he hated Kirk for his anti-trans views, had a trans lover, and had been planning the assassination for a week.

Andrew Alford, President of Broadcasting for Nexstar, an affilate of ABC, called Kimmel’s comments “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located.”

Sinclair, another ABC affiliate vice chairman Jason Smith said “Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country. We believe broadcasters have a responsibility to educate and elevate respectful, constructive dialogue in our communities.” Both affiliates refused to broadcast Kimmel’s show. ABC then announced it was suspending the show.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va) called the suspension “a betrayal of what Charlie Kirk stood for. I never met Charlie Kirk and I didn’t know him, but everybody says he was a free speech guy — including speech that you may not like. So this is what we’re going to do? I’m very pissed off.”

Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt) called the suspension “the biggest attack on First Amendment rights that we’ve seen since the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. This is censorship.” When Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla) reminded Welch that “President Biden sent the FBI out to intimidate social media companies into suppressing dissent over his covid policies and the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Welch insisted “folks have no right to say things that could endanger public health or national security.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blamed Trump, saying “I am just outraged by it! This is just despicable and disgusting, and against Democratic values. This is what dictators do. It proves that Trump is the Nazi we said he was. I hope voters realize this before they ever cast a ballot for a Republican again.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr observed that “there are only a limited number of over-the-air broadcasting licenses that can be accommodated without the signals interfering with each other. The expectation is that the holders of these licenses will serve the broader community and offer a more balanced coverage of controversial topics. Yet, it seems that the coverage is extraordinarily lopsided in favor of the extreme left wing of politics.”

Stephen Colbert, host of “The Late Show,” pointed out that “both Jimmy and I have faithfully represented the perspective of this tiny minority of the political spectrum. Yet, now it looks the 1% to 2% of the viewing audience we attracted are going to be denied their fair share of the airwaves. This is how our democracy is being destroyed.”

In related news, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) just released documents entailing a probe of 92 Republican groups ordered by President Biden in 2022. Grassley said, “this probe improperly used taxpayer funds to turn FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors into weapons that were used to achieve partisan objectives.”

Sen. Schumer dismissed Grassley’s complaint, saying, “as President Obama so wisely reminded us, ‘elections have consequences.’ Biden won the 2020 election and consequently was entitled to rule the nation as he saw fit.”

John Semmens

In 2012, I read an article on Breitbart.com that called out liberal bias in the teaching of economics. The author pointed to “distortions” in a high school textbook co-authored by Paul Krugman that dismissed the thinking of supply-side economists. It denied that the tax reduction they helped bring about during the Reagan administration had any effect on economic growth—despite government data showing exactly the opposite: a dramatic surge in job creation and a marked decline in unemployment.

The author declared, “If a student were to submit an essay with such disregard for basic evidence, it would ensure a failing grade.” He concluded, “Students are being pushed towards an education that demonizes free enterprise while advocating top-down government, deficit spending and class warfare.”

The piece featured references to iconic supply siders Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer, among other respected sources. Its authoritative critique was worthy of a seasoned policy analyst. Yet the author was an unknown named Charlie Kirk, then just a senior in high school.

I reached out to congratulate Charlie and sent him How Capitalism Will Save Us, the book I had recently co-authored with Steve Forbes that was aimed at a wide audience including younger readers. The correspondence eventually led to meetings in New York with Charlie and Bill Montgomery, the retired publisher and restauranteur who was Charlie’s early mentor and backer. At one point, I introduced them to Steve Forbes, who provided encouragement over a steakhouse lunch.

It was clear immediately that Charlie was no ordinary 18-year-old. The writer of the Breitbart article had a maturity beyond his years. He was passionate, eloquent and, at 6 foot 5, a compelling physical presence.

Charlie had co-founded a group—then called SOS Liberty—to counter the anti-capitalism student protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I thought the story of his band of young activists had media potential. So I asked if he had a press release to send to places like Fox News. His somewhat sheepish reply caught me by surprise. “What’s a press release?” It took a second to remember he was just 18 years old.

SOS Liberty was eventually renamed Turning Point USA. After a brief stint on its board of advisors, we eventually lost touch. Since then, I have watched awestruck as Charlie evolved from a young spokesman for free market principles into a magnetic evangelist for traditional values to—tragically last week—a history-making leader cut down in his prime.

Media accounts describing Charlie Kirk as an “influencer” are overly simplistic. He realized that a society based on economic freedom cannot function unless its citizens value hard work, personal discipline, family and civil debate. He knew that bringing about this cultural change required not only a message but a movement.

Charlie was an organizational genius on a par with some of America’s most successful entrepreneurs. The college dropout built Turning Point USA into a multimedia content and event producer that reportedly generates $100 million in annual revenue.

Like the president he supported, he also understood that, to attract attention to your message in a cluttered media universe, you had to stage a performance. As he did in his campus

debates, books and podcasts, you had to challenge people to think. Yes, he was provocative and occasionally overstepped. But there is no challenging his success at bringing viewpoint diversity to college campuses suffocated by years of indoctrination and partisanship.

Over the years I have often recalled something that Bill Montgomery—who sadly passed away from COVID in 2020—said to me that day at lunch. “He’s got it.” This wunderkind was going to go places. The forecast was more prescient than either of us knew.

Elizabeth Ames is an author and producer.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was already positively impacting the world with his indefatigable, peaceful, joyful, godly work to change hearts and minds, but in mere days, his assassination by a cowardly sniper’s bullet has already launched a tsunami of change he likely could not have imagined. The world is entering a different epoch now, and as with all shifts into a new age, there will be birthing pains.

I can’t recall whose insight this was, but someone online observed that Charlie’s murder was an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” – referring to the assassination that triggered World War I. I think that captures the sobering magnitude of Charlie’s martyrdom (yes, literal martyrdom; as others have pointed out, Charlie was killed not for his politics but for his Christian faith, which shaped his political positions). But his brutal murder drives home the point that we are already in a hot civil war in this country – not just a culture war, not a figurative civil war, but a hot civil war.

But so far only one side has been waging that war. From the assassination of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson at the hands of a terrorist-turned-Left-wing-folk-hero, to the slaughter of Catholic schoolchildren at the hands of a demonic trans terrorist, to Charlie Kirk at the hands (allegedly) of a Left-radicalized young man (with a trans partner) who declared that “some hate can’t be negotiated out,” the Left has already declared war on the political opponents they deem to be fascist threats to democracy who must be exterminated like vermin (hence their dehumanizing rhetoric over the years since the reign of Barack Obama, intensified under Joe Biden).

I am old enough to remember another time when the Left normalized political violence in America. As Bryan Burroughs notes in his book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, “radical violence was so deeply woven into the fabric of 1970s America that many citizens, especially in New York and other hard-hit cities, accepted it as part of daily life.” Burroughs quotes a retired FBI agent who noted, “People have completely forgotten but in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States. It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.”

My record at predictions is mixed at best, so I hope I’m wrong about this one, but I believe we are about to enter a new Days of Rage. Political violence is about to become even more “commonplace.” The Left’s repugnant response to Charlie’s murder has already demonstrated that they are not going to be shocked into policing themselves and de-escalating the violence, much less their demonizing, vicious rhetoric. Some Democrat leaders, like Barack Obama, have issued obligatory, tepid statements denouncing political violence, but do not expect that any “moderate” elements on the Left will prevail. The Democrat Party is controlled by the radical Left, and has been since well before the calculated, meteoric rise of Barack Obama.

And the Right is going to have to be prepared to confront that and take the necessary steps to shut it down. I interacted personally with Charlie only a couple of times and didn’t know him that well, but I do know he would not be calling for violent retribution over his killing. And I’m not calling for it either. Nevertheless, those of us on the Right are going to have to come together and get on the same page regarding a just and appropriate response to a political movement that gleefully embraces assassination as a tactic.

We didn’t want this civil war, and we didn’t start it, but we need to be determined to end it. We can and should have many open conversations about what that might entail, but ending it has to be our end game. Our nation cannot sustain itself as things currently stand politically and culturally.

What about finding common ground and calling for unity, you ask? In an address after Kirk’s murder, Vice President JD Vance forcefully delivered a dose of hard reality about the possibility of reconciliation between Left and Right:

“There is no unity with people who scream at children over their parents’ politics. There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder. There is no unity with someone who harasses an innocent family the day after the father of that family lost a dear friend. There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination. There is no unity for the people that fund these articles who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers who argue that Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father, deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagreed.”

Vance went on to note that unity is only possible “with people who acknowledge that political violence is unacceptable.” True, but this is essentially saying that unity is impossible, because the Left by and large believes not only that such violence is acceptable, but that it is a necessary tactic to dismantle what they see as the fascistic, systemically white supremacist, Trump regime. Indeed, they believe violence, when they wage it, is a form of speech, while speech, when the Right exercises it, as Charlie Kirk did, is violence – against their designated, “oppressed” victim categories.

I have written and spoken about this often in recent years: bridging the gaping political chasm in America is not possible because there are two distinct Americas today, each side passionately supporting starkly opposed and irreconcilable worldviews.

One side acknowledges that America is imperfect but still takes pride in our exceptionalism; the other side believes America is the villain of history and must be fundamentally remade from the foundations up.

And the Right is going to have to be prepared to confront that and take the necessary steps to shut it down. I interacted personally with Charlie only a couple of times and didn’t know him that well, but I do know he would not be calling for violent retribution over his killing. And I’m not calling for it either. Nevertheless, those of us on the Right are going to have to come together and get on the same page regarding a just and appropriate response to a political movement that gleefully embraces assassination as a tactic.

We didn’t want this civil war, and we didn’t start it, but we need to be determined to end it. We can and should have many open conversations about what that might entail, but ending it has to be our end game. Our nation cannot sustain itself as things currently stand politically and culturally.

One side wants secure borders, legal immigration, and America First; the other wants open borders, amnesty for millions of illegals, and submission to globalist institutions.

One side holds to the principles of the Constitution and our God-given rights such as freedom of speech; the other believes the Constitution is outdated and unwoke, that God is dead anyway, and that free speech only empowers fascists.

One side believes in the sanctity of unborn lives; the other considers the unborn a mere clump of cells that can be discarded when inconvenient.

One side believes fairness means equality of opportunity; the other believes the remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination.

One side believes nothing justifies rioting and looting; the other defends rioting and looting as reparations for slavery, and considers the terms “rioting” and “looting” themselves to be racist dog-whistles.

One side believes the news media should strive for objectivity; the other believes objectivity is a racist Western concept and that journalists should openly embrace social justice activism.

One side believes, like Charlie Kirk did, in reasoned debate; the other believes that words are violence, that there are no universal truths, and that reason itself is an oppressive tool of white privilege.

One side believes political violence is a sign of Third-World lawlessness; the other believes pre-emptive violence against political opponents is self-defense and anti-fascist.

I could go on, but the obvious point is that on literally every issue facing America today, there is a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between Left and Right perspectives. There is no way to bring these two Americas together, not even in a contentious coexistence. Matter cannot exist in the same space as anti-matter. To borrow from the tagline of the 1986 movie Highlander, “there can be only one.” For the country to survive, one of these worldviews must resoundingly defeat the other in the marketplace of ideas, in the halls of power, and if necessary, in the streets.

We are way past the point where the Left will heed pleas for unity and civility; their lust for total power has vaulted them beyond law and order, beyond morality itself when it comes to crushing political opposition.

For the two Americas to find any common ground to work toward unity, they must share at least a few essential points of agreement like a love for country, a respect for law and order, and a shared sense of American identity, among others. But as long as the country is stretched to the breaking point between such ideological, existential, and moral opposites, the two repelling poles cannot come together. There can be only one.

Mark Tapson

Unlike Amazon, which is dominated by Chinese third party seller spam, Etsy’s sellers are usually authentic American leftists and their products a genuine expression of partisan hatred.

Etsy knowingly allowed this climate of hate to proliferate on its platform in violation of its terms of service which ban “violent language” even while it was cracking down on anything that was in the slightest politically incorrect.

It’s not just Amazon and Etsy. “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is commonplace on other giant online retail platforms like eBay, and across smaller merchandising sites.

While some of the “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise claims to come from America, the vast majority is being produced in Communist China.

The People’s Republic of China does not actually turn a blind eye toward what it mass produces. Merchandise critical of Xi or the PRC being produced in China is unthinkable and writers trying to get books critical of Communism printed in China have run into problems.

China’s mass production of merchandise calling for President Trump’s death or murder is a decision that would have been made at some point within the Communist Party bureaucracy which maintains extensive censorship over any kind of speech in the giant dictatorship.

And Chinese companies not only produce products celebrating Trump’s death for third parties, but Chinese companies are deeply immersed in the business of marketing these products on their largest retail platforms.

Temu, a Chinese Communist company, has a large selection of “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise specifically targeting Trump. Critics have pointed out that Temu “maintains documented connections to the Chinese Communist Party” meaning that the slogan is being promoted to Americans by a company linked to an enemy regime.

So this is not simply a decision by one Chinese retail platform to stock Trump death gear.

Shein, the second largest Chinese retail ‘fast fashion’ platform used by Americans, also lists “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts explicitly referencing Trump. Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers, has “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts listed on its AliExpress direct sales platform. “Is He Dead Yet” is not a Chinese information op, but China’s Communist system is happy to promote it.

As are Amazon, Etsy, eBay and other major retail giants that censor conservatives, but empower leftists to celebrate and call for the deaths of Trump and other conservatives.

Charlie Kirk’s murder was marinated in internet memes. These memes are promoted and enabled by a Big Tech system that practices two-tier content policing. The “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is an example of the kinds of popular leftist memes that make the murder of conservatives into a knowingly hip joke that eventually leads to an assassin’s bullet.

The Left has traded debate and democracy for fantasizing about the deaths of its enemies.

And some leftists do more than fantasize. That is how a bullet clipped President Trump’s ear. It’s why Charlie Kirk is dead. Woke corporations pretend that they had nothing to do with it, but the moment you search their platforms, you find that they were actually profiting from the death cult.

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, two Muslim men in Utah were arrested for planting an incendiary device under a FOX affiliate’s news van. The most striking thing about their house, as Front Page Magazine had reported, was that it appeared to be covered in anti-Trump signage.

Including a black flag reading, “Is He Dead Yet?”

“Is He Dead Yet” merchandise also made a recent appearance when a New York City public school teacher posted a photo of himself wearing that t-shirt and celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

In a famously sensitive era, where do you go to buy a “Is he dead yet?” t-shirt or flag? Anywhere as it turns out. Especially from those retailers that have relentlessly censored conservatives.

Amazon had censored everything from books against transgenderism and BLM to banning the sale of the Confederate flag (and even at one point pulling episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard) but you can get a “Is He Dead Yet” flag which the Amazon description openly bills as “an anti-Trump flag” making it clear that it’s not a reference to any other memes with that line.

(The actual Amazon seller is in Eastern Europe, so Amazon is helping a foreign national sell materials to Americans calling for the death of the President of the United States. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post which spent a lot of time warning about foreign interference and foreign disinformation, but its owner actually profits nicely from it.)

Amazon also stocks mugs, t-shirts, stickers and bumper stickers with that phrase that specifically refer to Trump. One ‘Is He Dead Yet’ mug features various possible tombstones for President Trump including “Psycho”, “8647”, “Epstein’s Bestie” and “Rapist”. The same seller also sells Newsom memes including ‘Newsom Was Right About Everything’ merchandise.

Another seller features an orange toupee over the “He”. Others are mock MAGA hats. Some of the Chinese sellers pushing merchandise calling for Trump’s death also responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder by pushing merchandise commemorating his killing to conservatives. Nothing else could or should be expected from China, but it’s Amazon that bears the responsibility here.

So much so that Amazon appears to have paid for Google ads for “Is He Dead Yet”.

Amazon allowed all of this to proliferate on its platform even after two assassination attempts against President Trump and has taken no action to remove it and enforce its terms of service.

Etsy, which had relentlessly censored not only conservatives, but anything un-woke including Dr. Seuss merchandise (after he was deemed racist) and the slogan “I Love JK Rowling”, and recently once again rewrote its TOS to prohibit “degrading language” towards illegal aliens, is awash in every possible variety of Trump death merchandise including mock wine labels and a mug reading “Is He Dead Yet” with Trump’s signature as an EKG line from the ‘resistance’.

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, two Muslim men in Utah were arrested for planting an incendiary device under a FOX affiliate’s news van. The most striking thing about their house, as Front Page Magazine had reported, was that it appeared to be covered in anti-Trump signage.

Including a black flag reading, “Is He Dead Yet?”

“Is He Dead Yet” merchandise also made a recent appearance when a New York City public school teacher posted a photo of himself wearing that t-shirt and celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

In a famously sensitive era, where do you go to buy a “Is he dead yet?” t-shirt or flag? Anywhere as it turns out. Especially from those retailers that have relentlessly censored conservatives.

Amazon had censored everything from books against transgenderism and BLM to banning the sale of the Confederate flag (and even at one point pulling episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard) but you can get a “Is He Dead Yet” flag which the Amazon description openly bills as “an anti-Trump flag” making it clear that it’s not a reference to any other memes with that line.

(The actual Amazon seller is in Eastern Europe, so Amazon is helping a foreign national sell materials to Americans calling for the death of the President of the United States. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post which spent a lot of time warning about foreign interference and foreign disinformation, but its owner actually profits nicely from it.)

Amazon also stocks mugs, t-shirts, stickers and bumper stickers with that phrase that specifically refer to Trump. One ‘Is He Dead Yet’ mug features various possible tombstones for President Trump including “Psycho”, “8647”, “Epstein’s Bestie” and “Rapist”. The same seller also sells Newsom memes including ‘Newsom Was Right About Everything’ merchandise.

Another seller features an orange toupee over the “He”. Others are mock MAGA hats. Some of the Chinese sellers pushing merchandise calling for Trump’s death also responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder by pushing merchandise commemorating his killing to conservatives. Nothing else could or should be expected from China, but it’s Amazon that bears the responsibility here.

So much so that Amazon appears to have paid for Google ads for “Is He Dead Yet”.

Amazon allowed all of this to proliferate on its platform even after two assassination attempts against President Trump and has taken no action to remove it and enforce its terms of service.

Etsy, which had relentlessly censored not only conservatives, but anything un-woke including Dr. Seuss merchandise (after he was deemed racist) and the slogan “I Love JK Rowling”, and recently once again rewrote its TOS to prohibit “degrading language” towards illegal aliens, is awash in every possible variety of Trump death merchandise including mock wine labels and a mug reading “Is He Dead Yet” with Trump’s signature as an EKG line from the ‘resistance’.

RIP Trump postcards” feature a dead Trump with X’s over his eyes in clown makeup. “It won’t solve everything when he exits this mortal stage, but it will feel f*cking great,” the description reads. An ‘Anti-Trump’ wine label features a skull and the motto “open drink, dance on grave.” There are stickers with an orange toupee on a skull, a “we’ll be grateful when he’s dead” sticker of dancing skeletons, and a scented soy wax candle titled “Smells like his funeral”.

Unlike Amazon, which is dominated by Chinese third party seller spam, Etsy’s sellers are usually authentic American leftists and their products a genuine expression of partisan hatred.

Etsy knowingly allowed this climate of hate to proliferate on its platform in violation of its terms of service which ban “violent language” even while it was cracking down on anything that was in the slightest politically incorrect.

It’s not just Amazon and Etsy. “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is commonplace on other giant online retail platforms like eBay, and across smaller merchandising sites.

While some of the “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise claims to come from America, the vast majority is being produced in Communist China.

So this is not simply a decision by one Chinese retail platform to stock Trump death gear.

Shein, the second largest Chinese retail ‘fast fashion’ platform used by Americans, also lists “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts explicitly referencing Trump. Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers, has “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts listed on its AliExpress direct sales platform. “Is He Dead Yet” is not a Chinese information op, but China’s Communist system is happy to promote it.

As are Amazon, Etsy, eBay and other major retail giants that censor conservatives, but empower leftists to celebrate and call for the deaths of Trump and other conservatives.

Charlie Kirk’s murder was marinated in internet memes. These memes are promoted and enabled by a Big Tech system that practices two-tier content policing. The “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is an example of the kinds of popular leftist memes that make the murder of conservatives into a knowingly hip joke that eventually leads to an assassin’s bullet.

The Left has traded debate and democracy for fantasizing about the deaths of its enemies.

And some leftists do more than fantasize. That is how a bullet clipped President Trump’s ear. It’s why Charlie Kirk is dead. Woke corporations pretend that they had nothing to do with it, but the moment you search their platforms, you find that they were actually profiting from the death cult.

Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine

Transitioning Social Security: Lessons from the GI Bill

The GI Bill provides a valuable example of how a large government benefit program can be restructured over time without breaking commitments to those already enrolled. When the GI Bill was updated, existing veterans retained their full benefits, while new recruits gradually began contributing toward their education benefits. This phased approach balanced fairness with fiscal responsibility.

Why Change Social Security?

Social Security, as it currently stands, faces significant financial challenges. With an aging population, longer life expectancies, and a shrinking ratio of workers to beneficiaries, the system’s trust fund is projected to be depleted within the next couple of decades. Without reform, benefits may need to be cut, taxes raised, or both — posing a serious risk to the retirement security of millions.

A Proposed Transition Model

• Grandfather Current Beneficiaries: To honor commitments, those already receiving Social Security benefits, or near retirement, would remain on the current system.
• Phased Implementation for Younger Workers: New entrants to the workforce would have their Social Security taxes redirected into private, individually managed retirement accounts (similar to 401(k)s), giving them greater control over their savings and investments.
• Government Role: The government would transition to a regulatory and safety net role—overseeing these private accounts, limiting investment risks, and potentially providing minimum guarantees to reduce individual risk.

Pros of this Approach:

• Individual Control: Workers manage their own retirement savings, tailoring investments to their risk tolerance.
• Potential for Higher Returns: Historically, diversified investment accounts have yielded better returns than the current Social Security system.
• Fiscal Sustainability: Reduces the long-term financial burden on the government by shifting responsibility toward individuals.
• Preserves Promises: Grandfathering current beneficiaries respects existing commitments.

Cons and Challenges:

• Transition Costs: Funding current retirees while accumulating private accounts for younger workers requires significant government outlays.
• Market Risk: Individuals bear investment risks, which could jeopardize retirement security if markets underperform.
• Administrative Complexity: While managing millions of individual accounts can be complex, much of the administration would be outsourced to private financial institutions—similar to how 401(k) plans operate today. This could reduce government overhead but would require strong regulatory oversight to ensure transparency, security, and fairness.
• Equity Concerns: Not all workers may have equal ability to save or invest wisely, raising concerns about disparities.

Conclusion

Just as the GI Bill’s phased transition balanced fairness with fiscal realities, a similar approach could help modernize Social Security. It offers a pathway to sustainability while empowering individuals—though it must be carefully designed to manage risks and maintain equity.

Anonymous

I’ve been watching the left’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination for over a full week. The irony is that this singular event has fully exposed the left – including political leadership – of qualifying violence against disagreeable debate (“fascist” / “racist” / “hitler” etc.) which has obviously made them directly culpable for his murder through incitement of hate among the most vulnerable, mentally unstable of the populace.

The news has been peppered with the consequences of what some on the left have called ‘free speech’ as they celebrate political murder, the killing of a deeply religious but respectful man for debating mere ideas and engaging conversations about sometimes emotional topics. These consequences have resulted in many losing their jobs, the most disturbing of whom are the people responsible for educating our children (and that includes at least one local example @ Thurston HS).

But the veracity of the left’s defense of Jimmy Kimmel’s FCC-violating blatant “MAGA” lie about Charlie Kirk’s assassin wasn’t the worst of it: The democrats’ standing ovation for ilhan omar’s comments about Charlie Kirk being a “hateful man” was the proverbial straw.

Thus, I must opine about some facts I’ve not read or heard discussed ANYWHERE:

The same people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder, defending such and all of the inciting rhetoric which preceded, including threatening those on the right who would choose to follow Charlie’s footsteps and engage in open debate…

…are the same people who are ironically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID: 6-feet, masking, lockdowns, and mandates…all of which they compelled via the STATE with special emphasis on “the science” which has been thoroughly and completely debunked, with real threats of state prosecution, fines and jail time, including censorship of debate of what were once labeled as ‘conspiracy theories’…

…all in the name of “if it saves just one life.” All lies, all with terrible consequences to both life & liberty.

Family relationships were damaged, careers destroyed, a generation of children adversely affected in ways they’ll be studying for decades, senior victims of COVID victimized and killed plus a whole segment of our population exposed to an anti-virus chemical compound that they told us was “safe & effective” under “emergency use authorization” which is now proving to be quite the opposite: Damaging to health, reproduction and downright deadly.

Yet I heard radio commercials here promoting said chemicals JUST THIS AFTERNOON.

So, I have a message:

To those who were hysterically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID – from bottom all the way up to those making & enforcing policy – and now stubbornly defiant in justification of your rhetoric and your supporters’ threats of violence against us on the right – the latest as of this writing against WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – as you continue to dramatically expose your deep hatred of those with whom you disagree:

We…are…watching…you.

I’m not on social media. I’m angry. This is one of my only outlets. I wrote this after these thoughts occurred to me after reading breaking news yesterday afternoon:

I’ve been watching the left’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination for over a full week. The irony is that this singular event has fully exposed the left – including political leadership – of qualifying violence against disagreeable debate (“fascist” / “racist” / “hitler” etc.) which has obviously made them directly culpable for his murder through incitement of hate among the most vulnerable, mentally unstable of the populace.

The news has been peppered with the consequences of what some on the left have called ‘free speech’ as they celebrate political murder, the killing of a deeply religious but respectful man for debating mere ideas and engaging conversations about sometimes emotional topics. These consequences have resulted in many losing their jobs, the most disturbing of whom are the people responsible for educating our children (and that includes at least one local example @ Thurston HS).

But the veracity of the left’s defense of Jimmy Kimmel’s FCC-violating blatant “MAGA” lie about Charlie Kirk’s assassin wasn’t the worst of it: The democrats’ standing ovation for ilhan omar’s comments about Charlie Kirk being a “hateful man” was the proverbial straw.

Thus, I must opine about some facts I’ve not read or heard discussed ANYWHERE:

The same people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder, defending such and all of the inciting rhetoric which preceded, including threatening those on the right who would choose to follow Charlie’s footsteps and engage in open debate…

…are the same people who are ironically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID: 6-feet, masking, lockdowns, and mandates…all of which they compelled via the STATE with special emphasis on “the science” which has been thoroughly and completely debunked, with real threats of state prosecution, fines and jail time, including censorship of debate of what were once labeled as ‘conspiracy theories’…

…all in the name of “if it saves just one life.” All lies, all with terrible consequences to both life & liberty.

Family relationships were damaged, careers destroyed, a generation of children adversely affected in ways they’ll be studying for decades, senior victims of COVID victimized and killed plus a whole segment of our population exposed to an anti-virus chemical compound that they told us was “safe & effective” under “emergency use authorization” which is now proving to be quite the opposite: Damaging to health, reproduction and downright deadly.

Yet I heard radio commercials here promoting said chemicals JUST THIS AFTERNOON.

So, I have a message:

To those who were hysterically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID – from bottom all the way up to those making & enforcing policy – and now stubbornly defiant in justification of your rhetoric and your supporters’ threats of violence against us on the right – the latest as of this writing against WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – as you continue to dramatically expose your deep hatred of those with whom you disagree:

We…are…watching…you.

Anonymous

With the holidays just a few months away, I’ve been thinking about something that we all seem to crave: Unconditional love. Readers, listeners and clients tell me all the time how unconditional love, especially for a child or a parent, is the highest ideal we could live up to. Really? Let’s look a little closer.

People yearn for unconditional love because it’s natural to want to be loved just for who you are. But the phrase “for who you are” clearly implies a stipulation that someone loves you for the qualities you possess. Let’s say you’re intelligent and courageous. Wouldn’t you prefer to be loved by someone who values intelligence and courage, rather than someone who couldn’t care less?

My point is this: Conditions are inescapable. As an adult, you can’t love, or be loved, unconditionally. Of course young children in their early years need to feel just plain loved, but older children will not benefit from literal unconditional love that sends the message that the parents blindly accept everything the child does – all in the interest of his or her supposed “self-esteem.” So, if the child lies or steals, a parent should not show anger or hurt at the risk of implying that their love is in jeopardy. Forget about telling the child that lying or stealing is wrong. If their love is truly unconditional, then there’s no need for right and wrong. That’s no way to raise a kid. The result? Just look at what’s happening today in the streets of many big cities.

This isn’t to say that young children don’t require a highly tolerant form of love. After all, their intellectual and psychological development is not yet complete. But even then, this love must include limits and conditions. If your child accidentally breaks a vase, you’ll feel temporary irritation. But you say, “Yes, I was aggravated when you dropped the vase, but I never stopped loving you.”

On the other hand, if your child does something deliberately malicious, such as stealing or initiating violence (outside of self-defense), then in that particular context you should wholeheartedly withdraw your approval. You should tell him why you disapprove of his actions, and why you’re disappointed in his choice to act that way. You can make it clear that you will forgive him only if he shows resolve not to repeat the behavior. My experience over the years has shown that the last thing a child needs to hear is that he or she will (and should) always be loved regardless of actions and behavior. A child needs to learn the distinction between innocent errors (like how easily vases can break) and willful actions such as lying, theft and violence. Of course, children need patience and time to acquire adult knowledge and that’s precisely why parents must apply consistent conditions and clearly stated consequences.

Such lessons can be difficult, and may require a temporary withdrawal of affection between the parent and the child. But that approach is kinder because it helps the child learn to think beyond the immediate whims of the moment. Without such training, he or she is likely to remain – from a psychological point-of-view – a child forever.

Conditions, however implicit, are part of life. It’s dishonest to claim that you love someone “unconditionally.” After all, don’t you love someone because they’re special and because they stand out in some way? Admiration and respect are a part of love. Parents love their children precisely because they are their own.

Be careful what you ask for! Unconditional love can include loving somebody out of pity, the need for control or for equally dishonest motives (which are, in fact, still conditions). This just doesn’t seem like the ideal relationship. There are always reasons why people are loved, whether they want to admit it or not. And the same goes for kids. By denying them conditions and consequences, they will never grow past the artificial “safe haven” of childhood and into independent, secure adults.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

Maybe you spent time last week perusing X postings related to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Aside from the many accolades, conservative influencers did fine jobs identifying left-wingers who not only celebrated Kirk’s assassination, but offered attaboys to Tyler Robinson, the triggerman. Some even called for more violence. If you didn’t have time earlier, scroll through the Libs of TikTok’s and the Vigilant Fox’s threads, for starters. You’ll get an eyeful. “Somebody had to do it” wasn’t an uncommon refrain. Who, this side of hell, delights in an act of murder?

What was striking was that many of the posts featured females. Was that the result of sampling biases? Not likely. It was self-promotion. Call it malignant feminist self-empowerment. Not that there aren’t Charlie Kirk haters among “progressive” males — his killer is an XY, after all, who lived with a trans — but left-of-center females dominated the posted videos. Why so?

There’s no point rehashing Kirk’s qualities or listing his achievements. Others who knew him have provided rich, poignant testimony to his stellar character and unshakable dedication to his faith and freedom. His very public record is testament enough.

If you sift through the haters’ postings, you’ll think they inhabit an alternative universe. Abundant public record be damned. For them, Kirk was an ogre, some mythical beast. He checked off every box that inflames the leftist mind. Homophobe, transphobe, this-phobe, that-phobe. They fictionalized Kirk. Damn reality, too!

Are the celebratory outpourings over an innocent man’s murder indicative of a sickness in our society? Yes, they are.

That sickness starts with an obsession — the obsession with self. “If it feels good, do it” was a 1960s mantra that has sparked a decades-long deep dive into hedonism, regardless of the blarney about “self-actualization.” The Me Generation ethos metastasized, spreading throughout the society.

What does preoccupation with self do to a person’s mind and emotions? How does it affect relating to others? How does it warp perceptions? What happens when academics have, for decades, peddled the notion that there’s no external or objective truth? Should we be stunned that people — mostly females — popped up on TikTok and Blue Sky giggling, praising, toasting, and jigging in reaction to a cold-blooded murder? Shades of the Manson girls, huh? Perhaps females have been more greatly damaged by over half a century of being battered with me, me, me? Or are they just inclined to be more visible.

The counterculture, which arose in the 1960s, has been a pox ever since. Its indulgers have trashed norms, shredded traditions, denigrated faith, and demeaned family. The destruction was justified, we’re told. Had to tear down to build. Had to stamp out injustice and inequality to achieve both. But the building never started. That would put too many academics, activists, talking heads, and politicians out of business. You really don’t want what the left would build, anyway.

The counterculture’s early champions declared that they wanted a society guided by love, peace, and harmony. Instead, we saw the counterculture devolve into violence — campus riots, the Chicago Democrat convention riots in 1968 (remember the Chicago 7?), the Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, spiraling drug abuse and addictions, climbing rates of STDS, broken relationships, fatherless children. Anger, resentment, and score settling for real — or more often, imagined — wrongs replaced the hype about love and peace.

How far removed are today’s “social justice warriors” from that standard? You know, those who inhabit social media, who call for violence, or as the women of TikTok and Blue Sky have done, take fiendish pleasure in snuffing out a man who strove to build bridges and right America in accord with its traditions.

Perhaps, radical feminism’s — is there any other sort nowadays? — quest to erase differences between males and females has taken a toll on female psyches? The mission is to make women more like men. Radical feminism is about unmooring women from their natures. Okay, granted, there are more beta or feminized males today. But the primary goal is to make females on par with men in all regards. It’s gone to absurd lengths.

Biological and physical differences between males and females are mere social constructs, we’re informed. Males and females have distinct temperaments? Nonsense. Those can be remade. Men can have babies and breastfeed. Why not? Want to transition to the other sex? Do it. Nothing that surgery, hormone infusions, and playing dress-up can’t solve. Don’t let DNA and unambiguous physiological differences and performance interfere. Women can be lean, mean fighting machines. Open up frontline combat roles to females. Not really suited, huh? Well, just lower the bar and let’s all pretend.

Feminism is long past opening doors to opportunities — education and professions. We can all agree that’s good. It’s turned fiercely militant against nature. It’s veered deeper and deeper into derangement.

Manhood is routinely battered. A man being a man is “toxically masculine.” Yet, women might be pummeled more. Females are primary nurturers and civilizers. Today’s feminism is about depreciating marriage and childbearing — brazenly cheerleading abortion, now up to birth. It’s been about ridiculing stay-at-home moms. Virulent feminism is very much part of the Me Generation ethos. Sleeping around and forgoing marriage and kids in favor of career achievement — all wins. Self-sacrifice and giving? Dirty words. Those only lead to subservience.

Of course, none of the women who cheer Charlie Kirk’s assassination consider themselves fiends. They don’t because of their acculturation. Herein lies an irony. Progressives inhabit an insular world. For all the excess emphasis on individuality, independence of judgment is penalized. Groupthink is imposed. Progressives surround themselves with mirror images of themselves. They receive affirmation for expressions of right-think.

Charlie Kirk was a monster, the collective concluded. Say he was, because if you deviate — if you say he was a decent guy who didn’t deserve his fate — the collective will drum you out. Ask any progressive who has dared to dissent about being shunned by family, friends, and colleagues. That’s the stuff of a cult.

We’re now three generations from the counterculture explosion. That movement has done a fine job unmooring millions of people from foundational principles and values, which provide social stability and grounding. One by one, the guideposts have been ripped out. Truths have been replaced by fantasies. Nature and reality have been turned on their heads.

The affluent and better educated, who should serve as bulwarks against societal degradation, are, instead, the principal purveyors of heresies. Elite universities — attended by the rich and their children and underwritten by them — advance all sorts of bizarre ideas that lead to social deformities. It seems that academics are in races to produce ever fringier, ever weirder takes on humans and the human condition.

Do understand the power of ideas, however poisoned. Do appreciate that it’s easier to destroy than build. Do understand that an entire social movement dedicated to upending traditional society has caused significant harm and is still claiming victims. Has womanhood been more egregiously assaulted? If no more than the assaults on manhood, then the wounds may be more profound. It’s no small wonder that the ghoulish women of social media — fangs and claws barely concealed — are who they are.

J. Robert Smith can be found at X. His handle is @JRobertSmith1. At Gab, @JRobertSmith. He blogs occasionally at Flyover.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination by a radical young “all-American” leftist demonstrates that the ideological crisis that’s raging in education, politics, and pop culture has irreversibly escalated.  His death marks the beginning of a new chapter for America.  We’ve crossed a cultural Rubicon; the nation is irreparably divided by competing moral visions, national unity is forever lost, and conflict is unavoidable.

Kirk’s death was as tragic as it was predictable.  Many lay the blame on evil, but evil came in a virulent form of social Marxism, equity, that’s cloaked in the woke cultural rizz of transgender rights, social justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, Critical Race Theory, DIE, anti-racism, white supremacy, systemic inequality, and patriarchy, to name a few.  It’s a toxic philosophical cocktail, an expansion of classical Marxism transformed by Critical Theory and post-modern philosophy, that’s become the best of the worst of what the world’s deadliest ideology, the gospel according to Karl Marx, has to offer.

Equity is taking America by storm — it’s the price America pays for bailing on Christianity and religion in record numbers.  It captured the Democrat party.  (The Biden administration was committed to building equity into the “everyday business of government” — see Executive Order 14091.)  Countless Americans like Kirk’s assassin were drawn to its promise of an infinitely tolerant, progressive, permissive post-Christian society, where everyone is equally free to choose his gender, lifestyle, and sexual preferences without the moral judgment of the “Thou Shalt Nots” of the Christianity they despised.

But as it turns out, there’s a serious downside to decadence.

The despisers of religion can’t live as atheists.  A world without God leaves humanity suspended in moral ambiguity, lacking an ultimate authority.  It’s an intolerable existence that sends people searching for a new moral constitution that could liberate them from the constraints of a biblically influenced worldview.  Atheists need religion.  As John Grey notes in Seven Types of Atheism, “the God of monotheism did not die, it only left the scene to reappear as humanity — the human species dressed up as a collective agent pursuing its self-realization in history” (p. 1,157).

Post-Christian Americans looking for moral guidance turned to equity as a new secular religion, and equity was happy to oblige.

This set America up for the showdown that has plagued humanity for over a century, Christianity versus Marxism, and it put Charlie Kirk in the crosshairs.

Kirk was defending the nation’s Jewish and Christian moral vision, which placed well defined boundaries on the transgender community’s demand for equality and the universal acceptance of gender preferences.  His message upheld definitions of gender that had been universally accepted until the early 20th century.  As Marxism, Critical Theory, and postmodern philosophy made their long march through America’s institutions and culture, they successfully eroded confidence in freedom, free markets, and the moral guidance of the Jewish and Christian worldviews.  It took generations, but they deconstructed America’s foundations, offering a utopian vision for radicals who dared to transform the nation.

Their messages were nuanced but congruent.  America is genocidally corrupt, having creating countless inequalities through oppression and exploitation in the form of racism, homophobia, patriarchy, wealth, income inequality, transphobia, incarceration, policing, slavery, and white supremacy.  Western capitalist Jewish and Christian values were responsible for the total of human suffering, including war, starvation, crime, violence, drug addiction, poverty, slavery, and persecution of the LGB and transgender community.  It was ultimately destroying humanity, and there was only one solution to eliminate the disparities: equity.  Everyone must experience comprehensive equality, equal outcomes for all, across every level of society.  Marx’s demand for equality, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” was reinterpreted in every context, including gender.

Equity for the trans community means unqualified acceptance of gender lifestyle preferences and complete access to protected spaces and sports.  Christianity’s morality was the quintessential roadblock.  It denied their validation and equality, which marginalized and stigmatized them, leading to transgender suicide rates approaching unparalleled numbers.  This was defined as an act of trans-genocide that must be ended by any means necessary to protect the community.  Anyone who refused to capitulate to the demands for gender equity was declared a fascist because he systemically oppressed the community by denying the unqualified equality and acceptance they needed to survive and thrive.

This narrative radicalized the heart and mind of a seemingly all-American Gen Z kid who despised Christianity and lived with a “transitioning” transgender partner.  Kirk was a hate-mongering fascist defending genocide; his death was a justified act of liberation that would help bring an end to American fascism’s victimization of the transgender community.

The death of an outspoken conservative American was only a matter of time.  The coming conflict remains unavoidable.

This is incomprehensible to conservative Americans.  We think America is indomitable; no American in his right mind would ever deny freedom to embrace Marxism in any form.  But we’re fatally naïve, because we don’t understand how ideas build nations and tear them apart.  America is caught in a war of competing ideologies, and we don’t know how these wars work.  We were too busy enjoying endless prosperity to learn that America, like any other nation, rises and falls based on the ideas that define its vision for equality and justice.

Every nation is built on a set of generally accepted ideas, beliefs, and assumptions that define concepts of justice, peace, freedom, property, equality, and acceptable sexuality and conduct that become the foundation for society.  That nation remains relatively stable until the ideological foundation changes, as radical ideas and theories cast a new vision of equality and justice that criminalizes the past and demands liberation for the future.  This ideological crisis results in bloodshed as irreconcilable visions of equality and justice compete for supremacy until one ultimately defeats the other.  This is the story of the battle between the Jewish and Christian West and Marxism throughout the 20th century.  The battle has come to America.  It’s as vulnerable to Marxism as any nation.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn warned us: “Alas, all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.”

If you’re incredulous, ask those who suffered under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot what happens when equity captures the hearts and minds of young radicals who were willing to liquidate over 100 million to achieve the utopian promise.  Kirk’s death reveals that equity has no intention of leaving America unscathed.

The right is incapable of accepting the reality that equity is entrenched in America and refuses to accept that they can’t vote their way out of this ideological war.  The left has no idea that equity opens a Pandora’s box that pours out an incomprehensible bowl of wrath upon America.  As long as these two facts remain unchanged, the nation’s future is as predictable as Charlie Kirk’s tragic death.

Chuck Mason (M.Div., Fuller Seminary) is a conservative Christian author and social commentator.  You can read his perspectives at www.chuckmason.net.

The lover of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin ‘hated’ his family and had been kicked out of his parents’ home for addiction and substance abuse, according to new claims.

A relative of Lance Twiggs said that he was living with murder suspect Tyler Robinson after his relationship with family deteriorated and he became ‘detached [and] radicalized’.

The relative, speaking anonymously, said Twiggs had been struggling with gender identity, substance abuse problems, and was addicted to video games.

‘[His father] thought he wasn’t being respectful and was problematic, so they kicked him out,’ Twiggs’ relative revealed in an interview with Fox News.

‘He then lived with [his grandparents] until he was 18 and graduated from high school’.

‘But the real reason he was acting out was because he was using drugs and alcohol, and was addicted to gaming,’ she added.

Twiggs hasn’t been charged with any crimes, and authorities said he was cooperating with the investigation.

Robinson now faces aggravated murder charges for fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10 at an event held by Turning Point USA at Utah Valley University.

The relative said that Twiggs moved into a townhouse with other college students before Robinson lived in the home.

The other roommates eventually moved out, leaving Twiggs and Robinson in the townhome together. The relative added that the two were in a romantic relationship.

In a separate interview, an anonymous relative told Fox News that Twiggs developed a ‘hatred’ for Christians and conservatives. 

‘He hated us. He was not raised that way, but he, over the years, has become really detached [and] been radicalized,’ the relative said. 

The relative added that Twiggs was ‘always angry’ and his behavior got worse over the last few years. 

They also speculated that Twiggs may’ve influenced Robinson’s politics during their time living together. 

‘I think Tyler got a whole lot worse in the year they have been dating. They are big gamers, and obviously they have that group that influences them as well as others. But my gut tells me [Twiggs] did more of the influencing,’ they said. 

Twiggs was dragged into the investigation when Robinson texted him: ‘Drop what you are doing, look under the keyboard’.

Twiggs allegedly found a note that read: ‘I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it’, prosecutors said.

‘What?????????????? You’re joking, right????’ Twiggs responded.

Robinson was arrested after he turned himself in for the shooting with his parents and a family friend at the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. 

Robinson said back: ‘I am still ok my love, but am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve

Their texts also mentioned a rifle allegedly used in the shooting. Robinson ended their text exchange by telling Twiggs not to talk to the media or answer any questions from the police. 

Robinson appeared in court virtually for the first time on Tuesday. The prosecution announced during the hearing that they filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. 

His surrender came after authorities searched for 33 hours. Two people were arrested and released during the manhunt. 

Sophie Gable, Daily Mail UK