One year after his brutal death, Fox News presents a handful of pieces on Charlie Kirk, including the
10 most powerful moments from college campuses to the Republican National Convention (Turning Point USA founder debated Hasan Piker, Bill Maher and Oxford students before his 2025 assassination) — well worth reading and watching — along with a personal testimony from , the executive producer of "The Charlie Kirk Show" and a spokesman for Turning Point USA: I spent eight years beside Charlie Kirk. Here’s what the world never understood (What Charlie’s critics never understood about him was how hard he was willing to work to accomplish what many believed was an impossible goal).
He was also very deliberate. You could tell that Charlie hated wasting time. Without being rude, he wanted to get right into the meat of the discussion, and as we talked, it was impossible not to notice his oversized suit, the dress shoes that seemed more appropriate for a 70-year-old man, or his overall Midwestern disdain for trends.
… And, of course, there were the constant attacks. When I started working with Charlie, conservative media was awash in cheap hit pieces and op-eds attacking him and the organization. He was too abrasive, they said, too confrontational, too aggressive. They called him a charlatan, a grifter, and said TPUSA was all smoke and mirrors.
… What Charlie’s critics never understood about Charlie was how hard he was willing to work to accomplish what many believed was an impossible goal. They never saw the machine he was building brick by brick to turn back a generational tide that was decades in the making. Charlie knew the next crisis, the next challenge and the next hit piece was just around the corner. But he never gave in to despair or "black-pilled" thinking. He was a happy warrior until the end, always willing to work harder than everyone else, to do his part and to honor his word. He did it all with boundless energy, decency, unflinching faith and a belief in the greatness of America.
Meanwhile, focused on how, In the year since we lost Charlie Kirk, the media has done its best to act its worst:
It has already been a year since conservative icon Charlie Kirk was assassinated and the attack has brought out the worst in some of the worst people in our media and celebrity culture. False claims that the alleged assassin was conservative, false quotes and hateful comments have filled TV, radio and, of course, the internet.
… The left and media moved on quickly from the assassination to the character assassination of the victim. Charlie Kirk was bashed as "hateful," "bigoted," a "hatemonger" and a "prominent Christian nationalist" who "has been known to make racist statements." Even major news outlets fired or suspended some of those who bashed Kirk. But broadcast outlets did their best to hide the obvious connection between the alleged shooter and the left’s obsession that everyone on the right is "fascist."
… Former "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah couldn’t get past how pro-Second Amendment Kirk "was shot while defending guns." He called it, "an incongruous funny thing that happens." "You are there. You're onstage, like, ‘Let me tell you why people should have guns.’ Wa-pow!" That’s the neutral individual who hosted the White House Correspondents' Dinner a couple years ago.
As Philippe Karsenty pointed out within a week of of the assassination of Charlie Kirk regarding the Left's rants, "It has strictly nothing to do with free speech; it is the glorification of terrorism!"
• RIP Charlie Kirk — This Is What Is Bound to Happen When You Constantly Refer to Your Adversaries as "Fascists" and as "Threats to Democracy"
That attack on Charlie's personality that it is allegedly ironic (and therefore fitting) that he "was shot while defending guns" — which might seem offhand to present a modicum of validity — is something that this blog answered in depth last December.
Three irrefutable points were presented in the following post: "Reaping What You Sow"?! Did Charlie Kirk Really Deserve His Fate Due to His "Insensitive" Declarations in Favor of the "Repulsive" 2nd Amendment? (Includes the Full "Controversial" Text & Video).
1) Two Basic Attitudes of Liberals That They Are Totally Oblivious About
2) Mass Shootings That the MSM Never Covers
3) Wouldn't Gun Control, European-Style, End Shootings in the First Place?
Do check all three points out.
As I wrote in the introduction to my in-depth (and dispassionate) study on the issue of gun control,
In the 18th century — the century at the end of which the Second Amendment was being passed in the newly-born United States — the biggest problem for the majority of the world's population was not the right to keep and bear arms.
It was the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
In the 19th century, likewise, the greatest problem for most people on this planet was not the absence of gun control.
It was the presence of gun control.
In the 20th century, most people did not suffer from the right to keep and bear arms.
They suffered from the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
As can be attested by the victims (assuming they could talk) of the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Milosevic, along with the Hutus… As an aside, one of the first measures taken by each of the aforementioned (ahem) leaders after coming to power — for the good of the people, needless to say — was to impose or to tighten arms control.
And it is no different today.
Look at Saddam's Iraq, at Khadaffi's Libya, at the Assads' Syria…
(Would not the average Iraqi citizen, the average Libyan citizen, the average Syrian citizen over the past 30 to 40 years have been better off with the right to keep and bear arms?)
