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.’’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am deeply saddened by what is happening to our country. America is reaching a boiling point, and it appears that we have entered a new era of civil unrest in which political violence will become the norm. At this moment in our history, we should all be denouncing political violence as loudly as we can. Unfortunately, there are many voices that are loudly calling for more political violence. I have been warning that this time would come for so many years, and now it is here. The “left” deeply hates the “right”, and the “right” deeply hates the “left”. But how is a bitterly divided nation supposed to thrive? How is it even supposed to survive? Those that founded this country shared a common set of core values, but today there are no core values that still unite us, because the core values that our founders believed in so strongly have been abandoned. In fact, in so many ways America is now the complete opposite of what our founders intended.
Decades ago, we would laugh at the pathetic nations that were constantly plagued by political violence.
A ponytailed New Hampshire man has been arrested after allegedly plotting to assassinate the state’s Republican governor with a ‘weapon of mass destruction.’
Tristan Anderson, 22, is accused of threatening to kill Governor Kelly Ayotte with homemade pipe bombs.
According to investigators, Anderson made the chilling threats to his roommate on Snapchat, bragging about his plans and showing off the materials he intended to use.
Hopefully authorities will lock up that nut for a long time, but the truth is that there are millions of others just like him.
A radical leftist student at Oberlin College casually called for political assassinations to continue in the wake of the targeted killing of political activist Charlie Kirk last week, according to an online post she made.
“We need to bring back political assassinations,” said Julia Xu in a social media post, where her handle is @bringbacktheguillotine.
“I don’t feel bad and I don’t think that everyone deserves the right to free speech. Some people should be afraid to express their opinion in public.
That is sick.
If you have not seen the footage of her making these comments yet, you can find it on YouTube.
So where did she get such horrifying ideas?
Well, it turns out that her thinking has been greatly influenced by Chairman Mao…
Xu is on the advisory board of campus group the Gender, Sexuality and Attraction Initiatives, an office that supports queer, trans and women’s programming at the school. Xu, who uses they/them pronouns, is also a member of Students for a Free Palestine.
Xu said she made the comments about Kirk, who was assassinated during a student debate at Utah Valley University in Orem last week, after being given five minutes for “hot takes” during her “Revolution, Socialism and Reform in China” class.
She said her statement was influenced by her learnings about Chairman Mao, then went on to misguidedly (and perhaps inadvertently) praise the Chinese leader’s authoritarianism.
There are many on the left that would be thrilled if the United States was transformed into another version of communist China.
And a lot of them are openly admitting that blood must be spilled to accomplish that goal. In fact, a tax collector in Pennsylvania has openly admitted that she is “so tired of being told” that violence isn’t the answer…
Ambler, PA tax collector and local Democratic Party leader calls for MORE ass*ssinations and violence
“I’m so tired of being told that violence isn’t into the answer. History is filled with blood. Let’s make some more myrtys.”
SHE NEEDS TO RESIGN.
All over social media, there are people that are talking about a violent uprising.
That should chill you to the core.
In response, the Trump administration plans to crack down on left-wing organizations.
In fact, President Trump just announced that Antifa will be officially designated as a terrorist organization…
President Trump announced Wednesday that he will designate antifa as a terrorist organization, and is recommending investigations into people who allegedly fund it.
It’s unclear when the designation will take place, or what legal implications it will have. Antifa — short for anti-fascist — is a loose affiliation of mostly left-leaning activists, and generally is not considered to be a highly organized group.
I don’t think that people understand what this means.
During previous administrations, terrorists have been shipped off to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured and hunted down by predator drones.
In his post announcing this change on Truth Social, President Trump explained that Antifa will now be deemed to be “A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION”…
I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Of course Antifa does not hand out membership cards.
So how will it be determined whether leftist protesters are part of Antifa or not?
There are so many unanswered questions.
But what we do know is that the temperature is rising in this country, and it got even hotter when Jimmy Kimmel was suddenly pulled off the air…
After ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” over the comedian’s comments on Charlie Kirk, reactions have been swift, and many question remain.
The Walt Disney-owned network confirmed on Wednesday, Sept. 17, that it has indefinitely pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show following comments he made on a Sept. 15 episode regarding the fatal shooting of the conservative commentator.
don’t understand why he was still on the air.
He was supposed to be a comedian, but he simply was not funny.
Maybe that is why so few people were still watching him.
ABC decided to make this move because Kimmel suggested that Charlie Kirk’s shooter was part of “the MAGA gang”…
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” he said.
Jimmy Kimmel should have known better than to say something like that, because everyone knows that it isn’t true.
So his employer held him accountable.
But all over BlueSky, liberals are freaking out as if some major turning point in our history has just happened. Here is one example…
First, Stephen Colbert. Now Jimmy Kimmel. Is it sinking in now? Do you all get it now? We now live in an authoritarian dictatorship. The United States of America as we know it is OVER for everyone.
There are a lot of things that are going on in this country that are worth getting tremendously upset about.
The cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel is not one of them.
But Rosie O’Donnell believes that this nation “is no more” now that Jimmy Kimmel is off the air…
O’Donnell lamented on Instagram: “this is unacceptable – f— this fascist administration and corrupt corporate executives – bowing to the orange monster – america is no more .”
She is not rational.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where vast segments of the U.S. population are not rational.
And when people are not thinking rationally, violence can erupt.
‘Well, it’s troubling to say the least,’ the A-list star said. ‘And we all have to really take a moment and figure how we feel about this type of thing.
‘Especially, people doing what you do.
‘I’m sure there’s going to be some sort of collective move to respond to this, but I’m not smart enough or powerful enough to be the one to do it but I imagine there’s plenty of conversations going on to do something, because you just can’t stand by and let stuff like that go on.’
Exactly what did he mean when he said that “you just can’t stand by and let stuff like that go on”?
If he suggesting what it sounds like he is suggesting?
Everyone needs to take a step back and cool down for a while.
But of course that isn’t going to happen, is it?
2025 is the moment when our national boiling point is being reached, and things are only going to get crazier from here.
To argue that schools of education have gone bonkers is akin to penning an op-ed that the Titanic sank. The fact is given. Does anyone dispute it?
The most-assigned books and essays for prospective teachers are a heady mixture of race essentialism, gender theory, and outright Marxist kookery. Trainees learn much of critical-consciousness raising, Marxist praxis, and gender as a performative act but little of classroom management, curricular sequencing, or instructional practice. Unsurprisingly, research into the impact of these programs finds that teachers who attend them are no more effective than alternatively trained or even untrained career transitioners.
Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers.Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers. Many leaders of the terroristic Weather Underground found refuge in them, for example. And, since then, along with a handful of law schools, education schools have introduced into public consciousness many of conservatives’ bugaboos, from critical race theory to microaggressions and white fragility.
The scholarship that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic.The scholarship—a gracious thing to call it—that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic. Skim any education-school publication list, and you’ll find a mess of auto-ethnographies, case studies, and glorified op-eds championing the latest progressive classroom intervention. Notably absent are randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or meta-analyses proving the theories actually work.
Education schools are indeed, as a former Harvard president once called them, a “kitten that ought to be drowned.” Such disdain is typically how conservatives discuss them: Schools of education delenda est. Or they follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation to abolish licensure policies and let the market sort it out.
A former classical-school administrator turned education columnist, I come to you, dear reader of the Martin Center, with a different request. The K-12 education system in America has a personnel problem. Were education schools reformed instead of razed, they could very well help. As the mill that produces America’s corps of teachers, the university could—dare I say must—assist in the reformation of elementary and secondary schools.
Imagine for a moment that we had an auto-pass button for legislation and made school choice universal across the nation tomorrow. Who would staff these classrooms? Who would fill administrative roles? Who would write the curricula, run the professional organizations, and make the local policy? The exact same left-leaning corps of school personnel who presently run the system.
Moreover, ask any classical-school administrator or even standard district principal who wants a returned focus to academics, and he’ll tell you that staffing is one of his greatest difficulties. All prospective teachers have gone through university teacher prep, and it’s difficult to deprogram them. Well-intentioned administrators must choose between untrained, unvetted career transitioners (a gamble) or teachers who are credentialed but education-schooled (also a gamble).
What if, instead of dismantling schools of education or undoing any licensure requirements—both politically unlikely and with their own tradeoffs—we instead reform them? We can (and should) use the rightful power of state governments over public university systems to form education schools into a better mold.
There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.
The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”
The first avenue is to force existing education schools into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold.A report from the Claremont Institute found that those radical theories are precisely what the University of Florida was teaching future educators. Critical race theorists and other radical authors litter the syllabi. Practical manuals of instruction are few.
Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?
Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?
There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.
A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.
Menu
Element5 Digital, Unsplash
How to Reform Schools of Education
What progressives have seized, conservatives can seize back.
To argue that schools of education have gone bonkers is akin to penning an op-ed that the Titanic sank. The fact is given. Does anyone dispute it?
The most-assigned books and essays for prospective teachers are a heady mixture of race essentialism, gender theory, and outright Marxist kookery. Trainees learn much of critical-consciousness raising, Marxist praxis, and gender as a performative act but little of classroom management, curricular sequencing, or instructional practice. Unsurprisingly, research into the impact of these programs finds that teachers who attend them are no more effective than alternatively trained or even untrained career transitioners.
Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers.Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers. Many leaders of the terroristic Weather Underground found refuge in them, for example. And, since then, along with a handful of law schools, education schools have introduced into public consciousness many of conservatives’ bugaboos, from critical race theory to microaggressions and white fragility.
The scholarship that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic.The scholarship—a gracious thing to call it—that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic. Skim any education-school publication list, and you’ll find a mess of auto-ethnographies, case studies, and glorified op-eds championing the latest progressive classroom intervention. Notably absent are randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or meta-analyses proving the theories actually work.
Education schools are indeed, as a former Harvard president once called them, a “kitten that ought to be drowned.” Such disdain is typically how conservatives discuss them: Schools of education delenda est. Or they follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation to abolish licensure policies and let the market sort it out.
A former classical-school administrator turned education columnist, I come to you, dear reader of the Martin Center, with a different request. The K-12 education system in America has a personnel problem. Were education schools reformed instead of razed, they could very well help. As the mill that produces America’s corps of teachers, the university could—dare I say must—assist in the reformation of elementary and secondary schools.
Imagine for a moment that we had an auto-pass button for legislation and made school choice universal across the nation tomorrow. Who would staff these classrooms? Who would fill administrative roles? Who would write the curricula, run the professional organizations, and make the local policy? The exact same left-leaning corps of school personnel who presently run the system.
Moreover, ask any classical-school administrator or even standard district principal who wants a returned focus to academics, and he’ll tell you that staffing is one of his greatest difficulties. All prospective teachers have gone through university teacher prep, and it’s difficult to deprogram them. Well-intentioned administrators must choose between untrained, unvetted career transitioners (a gamble) or teachers who are credentialed but education-schooled (also a gamble).
What if, instead of dismantling schools of education or undoing any licensure requirements—both politically unlikely and with their own tradeoffs—we instead reform them? We can (and should) use the rightful power of state governments over public university systems to form education schools into a better mold.
There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.
The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”
The first avenue is to force existing education schools into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold.A report from the Claremont Institute found that those radical theories are precisely what the University of Florida was teaching future educators. Critical race theorists and other radical authors litter the syllabi. Practical manuals of instruction are few.
Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?
Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?
There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.
A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.
There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.
The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”
Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?
Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?
There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.
A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.
More recently, the Goldwater Institute created a civics fellowship for teachers at Arizona State University to attend and learn more about America’s founding, fundamental ideals, and mechanics of government. A quickly replicable program, it’s a useful model but still limited in scope.
Among the most promising institutions are those such as the storied James Madison program at Princeton University and the upstart Hamilton Center at the University of Florida. A handful of these programs at larger institutions with a greater cultural footprint would quickly have a noticeable impact.
If each red state were to create similar institutions—especially if they included an education track focusing on training classical or liberal-arts teachers—a robust network would quickly form. Existing schools would have a larger pool from which to pull employees. More would move into administrative roles in large public-school systems or found their own schools, bolstering the supply side of school choice. Each could produce scholarship, host conferences, and establish publications to offset the noxious ideologies leaking out of schools of education.
A network of such institutions would essentially foster a Gramscian counter-march through the institutions, creating a critical mass of classically trained, or at least practically minded, leaders at all levels of American education.
Along both paths of reform, it’s worth briefly addressing what alternative teacher prep ought to include. Research shows that only content knowledge and experience correlate with teacher efficacy. You can talk pedagogy and “best practices” all day, but they have little impact if teachers lack both subject knowledge and real classroom experience.
A revamped education program would spend far more time filling the minds of future teachers with math, science, literature, and history.A revamped education program would spend far more time filling the minds of future teachers with math, science, literature, and history—the best that has been thought and said—and less time discussing classroom practice in the abstract. When future teachers do learn pedagogical practices, the work must be unapologetically practical. How do you write a good quiz? What do you do if a student throws a book at another student? How do you command respect in a room of 25 thirteen-year-olds?
The personnel problem may be the single greatest source of American educational woes. The natural corollary to that assertion is that reforming education schools may be the most consequential solution. Simultaneously a source of opportunity and pessimism, the state of teacher prep in America is already so abysmal that even modest changes could cause significant improvements for students. Schools of education have already hit the iceberg. The question now is whether lawmakers, regents, and university administrators send for lifeboats.
Daniel Buck is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the director of the Conservative Education Reform Network, and a former teacher and school administrator.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 