They caught the shooter. He confessed to his father, who then contacted a minister who put them in contact with a US Marshal. I commend that father for doing what was right. I also wonder who will get the $100,000 in reward money, and if it goes to the father, will that money be used for the suspect’s defense?
No, the left has to own this one. They won’t, though.
Instead they will bleat on about J6 or Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer after he stiffed a male prostitute more than once in a single night.
I am not as big as someone like Charlie Kirk, but I have been the recipient of deplatforming attempts. I have gotten death threats. Not just on this blog or its associated email address. A couple of nutjobs have actually found my real email address and sent threats there. I can only take that as a threat that they know who I am.
So yeah, the left are the ones fomenting violence.
For the record, I am not suicidal, homicidal, or contemplating committing a violent act in any manner inconsistent with self defense.
Now, if you will excuse me, I am off to write a paper for my class. I have to get off of here and do something productive…
“Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
This comes from the Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). The Court held that certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment—including fighting words.
Just being offensive isn’t enough. The speech has to be:
Directed at a specific individual.
Likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
You be the judge: Is showing up to a candlelight vigil for Charlie Kirk, then standing in the middle of the crowd yelling “Fuck Charlie Kirk” fit the category of “fighting words?” If so, it isn’t proteected speech. They guy that did exactly that did so because he wanted to incite a reaction from the crowd. He got what he wanted.
Fight at the Charlie Vigil last night provided by @The_BTM_Pod (Be sure to follow them)
This guy was screaming "Fuck Charlie Kirk" in the middle of about 1500 people who gathered for the vigil to pray and sing.
One of the most frequent criticisms that I have heard from the right about Charlie Kirk is that he was too moderate, he was Milquetoast, all he wanted to do is talk, etc. I have a news bulletin for people who say that-
The struggle between the US and the Commies of the left isn’t going to be won by guns.
The left’s strength is young voters. For decades, the left has gotten young people on board with the message that the older folks are out of touch. The reason that young people are poor, the left tells them, is that those old farts over there are cheating the system and keeping you down.
It just isn’t about violence. It’s going to be won by convincing the people of this nation that the left is nuts. That their ideas are unworkable. You don’t change people’s minds by shooting at others. You can’t shoot enough people to change the minds of an entire nation. On paper, Kamala Harris won more than 75 million votes. Even if half of those votes were fake, there are 37 million people in the left’s camp. It isn’t practical to shoot and kill 10% of the nation.
Those of you who think that a Civil War is just going to be you running around engaging in some fantasy where you shoot people in your spare time and simply go back to work on Monday while leaving Saturday evenings free to take the wife to dinner and play with the kids is a fantasy.
What Mr. Kirk did was connect with college students in a way that none of the people who read this blog can: He spawned a movement that got young adults involved in the conservative movement, because he was one of them. He started Turning Point USA when he was 18 years old. He was, in large part, the reason why Trump won the last election. Let me illustrate:
Read that chart- There was a 16 point shift to the right in young men, and a 5 point shift in young women. What Mr Kirk was doing was beating the left where it hurt them the most- their most powerful demographic: young, college educated whites.
He did it without violence, but with reason, debate, and discussion. His mantra was “Let’s talk, let’s compare ideas,” and he was damned effective. He won over hundreds of thousands of people through merely showing them that the right weren’t fascists that wanted to kill brown people. Instead, showed these young adults that those on the right were not ignorant moron racists- he won them over with reason and debate.
The left murdered him for it.
If you think that you will be more effective than Mr. Kirk was, tell me how you and your rifle are going to change 100,000 people’s opinion. Tell me what the nation will look like if you “win.” Do you think that the US will be better after this civil war than before it? Do you think that those who are left of the 70 million or more Democrats are going to just love you and your ideas because you shot a lot of people? Or do you really think that you are going to walk off into the sunset without knowing loss at the end of what will assuredly be a long a bloody affair?
We need the Charlie Kirks of the world. They are the ones who are the path to winning over in the land of ideas. The biggest problem isn’t that he isn’t violent- it’s that the left is.
Once dialog breaks down, violence is guaranteed. With the killing of Charlie Kirk, the left has signaled that they can’t be reasoned with. That’s the reason why this blog may have to go if a bunch of people on my watch list are killed- it signals that talking and dialog are a thing of the past.
That’s a scary, dangerous thing.
I am sure that there are readers who are reading this and thinking that I am being a pussy. There are a couple I can think of right now. To those people, if you REALLY believe that, why aren’t you out there stacking bodies instead of trying to demand that others do it for you? Are you a Fed that is trying to goad people into being the FBI’s next patsy? Or are you a fool that thinks you are going to go all John Rambo and kill everyone who displeases you?
EDITED TO ADD
If we have entered a phase where people who talk are being silenced through assassination, the time for talk is over. The blog has to go, and it will be time for other tactics. If people aren’t having discussions, they are fighting. That was the message that Charlie Kirk was spreading.
The left, as I have pointed out more than a few times on this blog, sees speech with which they disagree as being violent and has also said that whatever it is that they disagree with is “hate speech” that deserves no Constitutional protection. At first, it was petitions, then canceling, then it was “follow people and outshout them with megaphones,” then it was riots, now it is just blatant assassination. The left has been escalating the violence for over a decade.
Once we get to the point where those who speak are murdered, then there is no longer any point to speaking.
Until the killing of Charlie Kirk, I had a post laid out for this spot. I am not going to talk about the assassination, the killer, or anything to do with the actual events from Utah yesterday. Instead, I want to remark on the cosmic shift that this killing has signaled.
I was at work when the news broke. One of the nurses there began grinning and said “I will just keep my thoughts to myself on this one.” Then laughed. Leftists are just evil.
I have been saying since 2020 that one of the signs that a revolution is nearing its completion is the disappearance of people who can make trouble for the revolution. It’s a sign that the revolution is beginning to eliminate those who can make trouble for them. As I have been saying:
You bet your ass that I am closely watching the lists of Republican donors and prominent political figures. If the disappearances begin, you will know that its time to disappear before you hear the knock at your own door.
I have a list of prominent conservative figures- political, journalism, and donors. When they begin disappearing, it means that we are in real trouble. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one of them. He was one of the prominent figures on my list.
I will be closely monitoring the rest of that list. If this becomes a pattern, it may very well mean that this blog will have to be shut down.
Unless there are further developments, this will be the only post today…
Judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes.
