When he was in a hospital bed for the 282 days and innumerable surgeries that followed his attempted murder, and the successful mass murder of 12 of his colleagues and others on Jan. 7, 2015, the Charlie Hebdo writer Philippe Lançon felt ambivalent about the Je Suis Charlie movement. There was something too easy about it–facile is the French word, which applies just as well in American. He did not consider himself Charlie Hebdo. If anything, he wrote, “je suis Chloe,” “I am Chloe,” his surgeon, in whose hands his life and his face, which had been disfigured, depended.
He also felt he had no choice in the matter. His life was no longer his to own. He recognized “how the attack created a chain of abrupt suffering, shared or individual, in which each friend of the victim seems to have been suddenly branded, like livestock, with a red-hot iron: rape is collective. That’s why, starting on January 7, my life no longer belonged to me. I became responsible for all those who, in one way or another, loved me. My wounds were also theirs. My ordeal was joint property.”
The country has reacted to Charlie Kirk’s assassination the same way, turning his memory into joint property–for good and ill, as was very much the case in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Too many liberals in France and elsewhere said Charlie Hebdo’s unbound humor had asked for it, though for the most part the attack was seen for what it was: the attempted silencing of free–and hellishly fun–expression.
The comparison with the Kirk killing can only go so far, and in most regards, it fails. Condemning the Kirk assassination without qualifications is essential, as is condemning any assassination. But it is possible to condemn the assassination and still condemn the ideas he stood for, to decry the flags at half-mast for so-called values hardly distinguishable from those of Proud Boys or those of the predator-felon in the White House.
The more so over the threats, firings and deportations the Kirk-industrial complex is now promising against deviants from the purist line. The right is using the assassination the way George W. Bush used the 9/11 attacks–as pretext for war and vengeance, in this case against the American left and, yet again, against migrants and whoever else falls afoul of the hard right’s prevailing ideology of my way or the highway. The highway is no longer a metaphor.
A glean of the successful agenda Kirk pushed shows to what extent nationalist Christian extremism has been re-normalized, with Kirk playing an essential role in that latest of Great Awakenings.
He’s a sexual chauvinist who thinks civilization was made by men and depends on men, without whom all would collapse.[1] He thinks the collapse is happening now.[2] Initially a secularist who denounced evangelical sanctimony, he transfigured into a Christian nationalist who wanted nothing short of Sharia’s equivalent on Christian terms for the United States, church state walls be gone.
He’s a First Amendment hypocrite who created a “Professor Watchlist,” encouraging people to snitch on teachers who don’t toe his ideological line, doxing the resulting “featured professors” on the site like a modern “index” of deviants. You expected that in pre-1989 East Germany. You don’t expect it in 2025 America. This latter-day inquisitor is the man now revered as an apostle of free expression.
He’s an outright racist and Islamophobe. He compared New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to the 9/11 terrorists.[3] He claimed, falsely of course, that Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh was not only part of a Muslim takeover of the United States, but that the country was committing suicide through that sort of legal immigration.[4] He claimed that the only thing Netflix got wrong in “Adolescence,” the Emmy-winning series about the toxic masculinity that leads a 13-year-old boy to murder a girl who’d rejected him, was the boy’s race, saying he should have been an Arab radicalized by Islam.[5] He denied Palestinians their own identity, or the right to exist as Israelis do[6] (in fairness, that’s standard American orthodoxy). He dismissed the massacre of 18,000 children in Gaza as Hamas’s fault, rationalizing genocide in victim-blaming logic.
This is all vile stuff, not much different than lines in the Michel Hoeullebecq novel like “Islam could only be born in a stupid desert, among filthy Bedouins who had nothing else to do– forgive me–but fuck their camels,” or “each time I learned that a Palestinian terrorist, or a Palestinian child or a pregnant Palestinian woman, had been shot dead in the Gaza Strip, I felt a thrill of enthusiasm at the thought that there was one less Muslim.”[7]
Houellebecq is even more famous and revered in France than Kirk was in the United States. He’s had his share of death threats and would have probably sensed a few affinities with Kirk, had he known of him. However shocking his writings and opinions are (he’s mellowed in his alcoholic decrepitude), no one should want him harmed any more than harm should have been wished on Kirk.
Criticizing Houellebecq or Kirk for what they are is a different story.[8] Keeping that criticism bound to some form of decency they themselves rejected is absurd. Kirk famously believed that “you should be able to say outrageous things.” I heartily agree. The government doesn’t get to litmus-test the permissible. Oliver Wendell Holmes had put it elegantly in a 1929 dissent when he wrote that “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”[9] Samuel Alito, the most sycophantic Trump backer on the Supreme Court, quoted the words approvingly early in Trump’s first term.
Kirk enjoyed the right to outrage, defile, denigrate, the same kind of right the Supreme Court granted the KKK, draft-card burners, flag-burners, cross-burners, Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” monsters at military funerals. But a late-night comedian is fired for making a lame observation about the shooter, the Florida Department of Education threatens to investigate school employees for their personal views posted on social media, the attorney general threatens prosecutions of Kirk-related “hate speech,” the State Department threatens deportations for same, and the president threatens to pull broadcasters’ licenses for coverage he doesn’t like.
All this in Kirk’s memory, in Kirk’s honor. What honor? We can applaud him for supposedly talking to the other side and engaging a younger generation. But his methods were as dubious as his message, which now echoes in the Reischstag-fire moment his more zealous champions are fueling. His “prove me wrong” mantra was not an open-minded exploration of ideas. It was a performative dare, a set-up using opponents as props to be shredded and an ideology to be sanctified in the service of the simple-minded dogmatism of his children’s crusade.
He had all of what Flannery O’Connor described as “that particular repulsive fanaticism peculiar to smart children, all brain and no emotion,” and none of what Judge Learned Hand described as the “spirit of liberty,” “the spirit which it is not too sure that it is right.” We can applaud Sheriff Staly’s unifying words at the Kirk vigil and his call that “God heals America, heals our wounds and grief, and the deep divide in our country.” Lord knows we need that healing.
But Charlie Kirk was not that healing voice, let alone a transcending voice of the America we claim to be.
Footnotes:
[1] I am using the present tense regarding Kirk: saints never die.
[2] From a talk at the Oxford Union Society in June 2025: “we see it across Europe and across the UK, of this hyper fixation on feminism and female empowerment, while also not acknowledging that strong men built the West and won the wars and built the building that we’re in right now. And without strong men, then you all of a sudden see civilization unfold upon itself, and we’re seeing that happen in real time.”
[3] Kirk wrote on X in June: “24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City” (screenshot preserved here).
[4] From the Minnesota Star-Tribune of June 15, 2025: “Muslims are commanded to take over the government in the land they live. The attempted Islamic takeover of America is made possible thanks to mass migration,” he was quoted as saying. “Mass migration from the third world must be stopped. We are committing suicide.”
[5] From the Oxford Union Society talk: “If they would have talked about how it was like a Third World Arab young kid radicalized by Islam and then started [to] decide to go stab somebody, then they would have gotten more correct in that Netflix special.”
[6] “it’s called Judea and Samaria, it’s not called Palestine,” he said in a college talk, a rather standard Zionist line espoused by Menahem Begin and Isaak Shamir in their terrorist days of Mandate Palestine and by Ben Gurion and Golda Meir soon after, and by the Likud Party from Begin to Sharon to Netanyahu. Kirk espoused that faction’s identical rhetoric, denying Palestinian identity, history and land. He was much more measured about it in his Oxford appearance, condescendingly calling “well-meaning Arabs” in the West Bank (he did not call them Palestinians) “righteous,” and saying: “I come from the premise that I think a Jewish state should exist if you want a Palestinian state. Tell me where, tell me who, tell me how. And I will be open minded to hear that contention.” I like the first part of his statement, but as always with Kirk, it’s a set-up intended to show its impossibility. Contrary to the second part of the statement, the where, who and how have been answered ad nauseam since 1967, suggesting that the open mind he presumes to bring to the question was closed before he answered the Oxford student’s question. It’s a mirror of Kirk’s tactic of proclaiming himself an apostle of free speech while calling for the government silencing of academics and others who transgress the purist line. Based on that blatantly suppressing approach, he would have cheered the firing of NBC’s Matthew Dowd for comparing Kirk’s positions to hate speech, just as he would have the pending firing of Jimmy Kimmel, the late night host, for saying something as innocuous as this in an opening monologue: “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.” We don’t yet know the motive behind Tyler Robinson’s murder of Kirk, and as the Guardian reported, “It was not clear if Kimmel was suggesting Robinson was a literal supporter of Maga, or that his alleged political violence was part of a broader shift towards bloodshed and force in US politics, particularly among the far right.” We do know that the president who praised the firings and suspension–and whose deputy chief of staff called the Kimmel coup an example of “consequence culture”–compulsively lies and libels with immense consequences to others and none to himself. This is not “consequence culture.” It is fascism.
[7] Michel Houellebecq, Plateforme (Gallimard, 2001), pages 279 and 386, my translation.
[8] It was Houellebecq, not Muhammad, who was on the cover of Charlie Hebdo the morning of the Charlie Hebdo massacre: the magazine has always been an equal-opportunity satirist, not unlike Houellebecq’s later works, though he’s maintained certain sacred cows, among them his beloved Catholicism, the Virgin Mary and, paradoxically (or perhaps not, in his view), the pre-sober Charlie Sheen-like right to fuck anything that moves any time he pleases at whatever cost, all of which his enormous popularity and riches afford him.
[9] The hateful thought, in this case, was pacifism, expressed by Rosika Schwimmer, a 49-year-old Hungarian woman who had applied to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, but would not pledge to take up arms in its defense. She was denied.
Pierre Tristam is the editor of FlaglerLive. A version of this piece aired on WNZF.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
I am Charlie Kirk!
He was his own person. Comparing him to others is just muddying the waters to back a narrative.
Charlie brought thousands and now millions closer to God.
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Thank you Pierre, thank you.
Steve says
Excellent commetary. Bravo
Atwp says
He was just a man, a caucasion but just a man. I’ve heard about people losing their jobs because the media and backward Republicans didn’t like what the people said. They didn’t have a right to speak their true feelings, soon all of us will answer to Trump and his nonthinking Republican staff, he is crazzzzzzzzzzzzzy.
jason barton says
The “Christian” right has been chomping at the bit for decades to find themselves a suitable martyr like Martin Luthor King, preferably one who was white and hated all these same people they do. As usual, you can’t create a martyr, he has to emerge through trials, struggles and oppression. MLK was beaten by police multiple times, arrested and thrown in jail multiple times, including once in this very state. In spite all this he continued to preach non-violence, fairness, and Christian love. Was he perfect? No, he was subject to all the frailties and temptations that we humans must contend with. So what trials, struggles, and oppressions did Charles Kirk go through … some kids on collage campuses yelled mean things at him. Man, they just don’t make martyrs like they used to. This does not mean I ever wanted to see someone shoot him, that was an abhorrent act of violence and I hope the person who did it gets whatever the judicial process gives them. Frankly, I always thought the best way to deal with hateful podcasters like Charles Kirk was to ignore him. Still, I guess they got their martyr. But you have to admit, “Prove me wrong” just doesn’t have the same ring as “I have a dream”.
JimboXYZ says
This is where it is, Kirk, dead or alive is no role model/hero to me, neither is his assassin. We all get a vote for what any of these people were for or against. I can watch from a safe distance what their agenda is, determine whether it’s congruent with my beliefs or not. These are 2 extremes I don’t identify with. Kirk for his career direction, the LGBTQI/Trans couple. I feel for the trans that got the text from the assassin to some extent. Imagine just trying to live a trans life for as difficult or not as that is in some relative anonymity ? And then having this event & affiliation texted to their smartphone ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOCgrEpGxQ
Figuring out the human race, I give up, the mental retardation is real. I accept it as it is & that it’s not getting any better at 8+ billion & growing, regardless of which end of the spectrum the extremists are.
joe says
IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO WORSHIP CHARLIE KIRK IN THE WAY WE TELL YOU TO, LOWER YOUR FLAG TO HALF STAFF TO HONOR HIM, AND REPORT ANY OF YOUR CO WORKERS WHO DON’T DO THE SAME. YOU MUST REPORT ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO YOU HEAR SAY ANYTHING THAT IS NOT REVERENTIAL AND WORSHIPFUL ENOUGH ABOUT CHARLIE! HE MUST BE HONORED BY EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHAT!
REPORT ANYONE WHO POSTS QUOTES FROM HIM ONLINE, TOO!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Deborah Coffey says
Bravo, Pierre! Everything you’ve written here needed to be said. TRUTH and LOVE…the most important things a human needs to value. Charlie didn’t value them here, but he may now know both in all their fullness and what it means to be truly Christian.
Notthatsherry says
Charlie Kirk was a Christian, he did not believe in violence, he believed in debate. To connect him with the Proud Boys is a ridiculous statement. He believed that we should talk to each other about our differences. He believed that our young people should be taught how to think not what to think. He help conservative young feel brave enough to voice their opinions.
Jake from state farm says
Ho hum, Pierre…
This tired routine from the left never changes. For years now, liberals have played the same destructive game—slapping labels on anyone who dares to disagree with them. Conservatives are “racists,” “fascists,” “Nazis,” and of course, every Democrat’s favorite slogan—“Trump is Hitler.” It’s lazy, dishonest, and toxic to our political climate. And yet, here you are, recycling that same hatred and passing it off as if it’s fresh commentary.
I’ll give you this: you’re free to write whatever editorials you want and people including Kimmel can say what they want. I respect that right, because unlike the left, conservatives actually believe in free speech (we do have dopes like Pam B that are clueless in in over here head). But let’s be honest—speech has consequences. Jimmy’s boss can fire him, Staples can fire emplyees, and schools can fire teachers for what they say. And the consequence of the left’s constant lying, censoring, and fear-mongering is that your own party is collapsing under the weight of its hypocrisy. Every insult, every double standard, every attempt to silence opposition—it’s all coming back on you. The left’s words are now its undoing.
I’ve heard the speeches myself. When VP Harris has openly floated the idea of “controlling conservative speech,” as if silencing millions of Americans is something to brag about. I remember the cheers from the left when Trump was banned from Twitter, when Tucker Carlson was forced off the air, and when other conservative voices were systematically erased from platforms. Don’t pretend that was about “protecting democracy.” That was about one thing and one thing only, control. That isn’t freedom—it’s censorship dressed up as virtue.
So here’s the reality, Pierre, the Democratic Party doesn’t need more excuses, more name-calling, or more media spin. It needs to be fixed. And fixing it starts with admitting the obvious—that your party has completely lost its way. You’ve allowed it to be hijacked by identity politics, radical activists, cancel culture warriors, and leaders more obsessed with clinging to power than serving the people. Until you confront that truth, you will keep losing credibility, elections, and the trust of ordinary Americans. I replied to your editorials years ago with the following but the left has just sunken lower. We need to strong parties to keep each other honest but yours is gone.
Conservatives didn’t destroy the Democratic Party—it destroyed itself. The arrogance, the censorship, the contempt for faith, freedom, and the average citizen—that’s what’s driving people away in droves. And unless you change course, Pierre, the “party of the people” will be nothing more than a hollow slogan, remembered only as a warning of what happens when politics becomes about control instead of liberty.
I can hardly wait for your witty response and predictable denial. The sad truth is, I could probably write your reply for you, because I already know what it will lack—any acceptance of fault, any recognition that your party is in deep trouble. That kind of self-reflection just isn’t in the playbook.
But since you were able to call the electoral votes “to the T” in the last presidential election I think you can see the truth even if you won’t admit it. Maybe you can give us your crystal-ball prediction for the midterms. If the left continues barreling down the same path of division, censorship, and failed leadership, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
Sherry says
@ i am charlie kirk. . . Just what kind of God preaches the fear and hatred charlie kirk did? Certainly NOT mine! If you worship such a deity, your life must truly be a living hell. For that you have my sympathy. Rest In Peace charlie kirk.
We should all speak out against “ALL” murders! Violence and killing is should never be acceptable to any human being! We should all mourn the people killed in the US, Gaza, Ukraine. . . worldwide. . . each and everyday.
Sherry says
The latest polling looks bad for trump:
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republicans’ outlook on the direction of the country has soured dramatically, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted shortly after last week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The share of Republicans who see the country headed in the right direction has fallen sharply in recent months, according to the September survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Today, only about half in the GOP see the nation on the right course, down from 70% in June. The shift is even more glaring among Republican women and the party’s under-45 crowd.
Overall, about one-quarter of Americans say things in the country are headed in the right direction, down from about 4 in 10 in June. Democrats and independents didn’t shift meaningfully.
Joe D says
Well …free speech might not be quite “dead” yet….but it’s certainly on LIFE SUPPORT this morning….ABC has a big subsidiary merger coming up which the Trump FCC has to
approve….so ABC is censoring THEMSELVES before Trump’s RETRIBUTION can take hold like with CBS! If you hear what Kimmel actually SAID, it’s not that far off reality…the Conservatives in the Media IMMEDIATELY made the suspect a “left wing terrorist” and blamed the Democrats…turns out the suspect is a conservative INDEPENDENT who has never actually voted…OPPS! What Kimmel said is actually the unfortunate TRUTH! But even if it isn’t the FULL TRUTH (remember the CONCEPT of what the “truth” is?), Kimmel has every right to throw out the question….except not in TRUMPLAND….absolutely FRIGHTENING!
We are getting closer to the script from 1984 and “Big Brother” each and every day! Straight out of Hitler’s playbook!
Johnny says
Charlie brought common sense to a world full of chaos. He didn’t always say what people wanted to hear, but he delivered it with a truth that made certain people uncomfortable, and for that I’m eternally grateful.
joe says
And it gets even more Orwellian:
“New bill filed in Oklahoma that says every public university in the state must have a “Charlie Kirk Memorial Plaza” with a statue of Kirk and his family.”
JimboXYZ says
Atwp says, enough have felt that way about the Biden, even Obama, RFK Jr. the internet search engines are full of the news stories where someone’s life hasn’t quite turned out the way they would’ve preferred. I guess it comes with the territory of being the elected one ?
https://apnews.com/article/utah-biden-fbi-assassination-threat-ba3cc1d3b2f6cca8bd429febdcf04219
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/im-cutting-your-f-head-off-man-threatened-biden-with-violence-warned-president-not-to-return-to-his-childhood-hometown-feds-say/
https://time.com/7000018/florida-man-jason-alday-biden-death-threats-arrest-sex-offender/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Barack_Obama
Pogo says
@Thanks for the backlash
… please, may we have some more. Tell us again how Joe was just as bad — and worse.
All pigs are equal — some more than others…
Any place for this on this site?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu-sn&channel=fs&q=bill+maher#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8f9566c9,vid:F8LejmOztU8,st:0
Carl Hungus says
That’s enough brain cancer for me this morning. That was difficult to read. Oof.
Ed P says
Is it possible to condemn….
Of course, but maybe after the funeral?
Is Funeral etiquette and speaking ill of the dead also gone?
Mortified might not be strong enough.
We all need to learn, our comments don’t always age well and timing is important.
Laurel says
CBS cancelled Steven Colbert for joking about Trump. Trump said “Jimmy Kimmel is next.” Jimmy Kimmel was indefinitely suspended for commenting about Kirk. Trump is calling for the dismissal of Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers on NBC. “Just do it” ranted Trump on *Truth* Social. Trump defunded PBS. The hard core right wants only a state approved, one way street. They think, that somehow, this is “Christian.” I think they missed something there.
ABC and CBS capitulated to Trump’s demands as they both have mergers coming up, and they are willing to kill free speech in order to get what they want, sending all of us (US) down the river.
Yep, money rules over the Constitution, over our freedoms, over our sanctity, over wildlife and over our very planet. So, what I don’t understand is, what’s left to enjoy when all aforementioned is destroyed?
Charlie Kirk was not teaching people to think, he was teaching people to think his way in negative terms. I have played Devil’s Advocate, off and on, all my life, yet I never meant to box people in, or categorize them the way Kirk did. This view that he was teaching people to think is just another excuse to cover bigotry. I do not see his “Christian” side when he verbally condems those who are other than white, Christian (supposed), males.
Dennis C Rathsam says
Thanks Jake, from state farm, hit the nail on the head. Can U imagine President AOC, a bartender? Between democrats embrassing socialism / communism & have no plan is amazing. TRUMP Derangement Syndrome is alive & kicken in the Jackass Party!
RentCareless says
It is telling that Kirk supported a felon, rapist, alleged child sex predator, misogynist, racist, corrupt, greedy narcissist for president but not people whose only crime was coming here illegally.
Pogo says
@ v2.0 (or, don’t hurriedly comment at 3:25 am — for whatever reason you weren’t asleep)
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+maher
Laurel says
CBS has sold Paramount Plus to Skydance, a Trump friendly company, for $8 billion. Skydance promises to change the way 60 Minutes provides news, though 60 Minutes has been the favorite news program of all time, on TV. Trump sued 60 Minutes for editing his interview (though they played the edited part on a later show) in a way that is far less egregious than Fox Entertainment has done with his interviews there. Also, the editing part is common practice, and has been since the beginning of broadcasts. So, two things are obvious here: Money and revenge. The baby cannot take criticism. Don’t forget power, at your expense.
I will ditch the CBS app, and Paramount Plus subscription. I don’t need their propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zdtFFOpW7s
I will decide on ABC network next. I prefer free speech over government controlled speech.
Trump is not your retribution, you are his.
Laurel says
Dictatorship in the Philippines. This is worth your time; the Daily Show guest Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa:
jason barton says
Mr. Kirk was never an advocate for free speech, he was an advocate for the kind of speech his benefactors paid him to say, and many of the things he said early in his podcasting career changed as the money flowed in. Just because you say abhorrent things in a calm and well-spoken voice doesn’t make them any less abhorrent.
Mr. Kirk wasn’t a debater, he was a performer, and time didn’t make his act any more true, or less hateful, it only made his delivery more slick and polished.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
Charlie Kirk was incredibly clear on what his positions were and how he felt about women, black people, and anyone else that wasn’t a white christian nationalist. He was quick to jump on a grift if he could make a buck off of it and knew that the way to a big bank account was to align his positions with the people at the top. He was charismatic and reached young white incels almost as effectively as jordan peterson or nick fuentes did. What’s interesting to me is that the vast majority of the dingbats chanting “we are charlie” see a charismatic white man gunned down for speaking “the truth” and not what he truly was. I say interesting but not surprising since these same people were wearing adult diapers or ear bandages in solidarity with trump not even a year ago.
As Reverend Howard John-Wesley so correctly pointed out, how you die does not redeem how you lived. The true victims in his are his kids.
Laurel says
Dennis C Rathsom said “Thanks Jake, from state farm, hit the nail on the head. Can U imagine President AOC, a bartender? Between democrats embrassing socialism / communism & have no plan is amazing. TRUMP Derangement Syndrome is alive & kicken in the Jackass Party!”
Dennis: I bar tended my way through college. During that time, I paid for my own schooling, health insurance, car insurance, rent, food, gas, car repair, you name it. I got a dime from no one. I had to go to classes whenever they were available, that didn’t clash with my job schedule. Sometimes at night, sometimes during the day. Once, I had to deal with two jobs and school, at the same time. Yet, I managed to graduate with a 4.0 average, and still have the transcripts to prove it (sort of a trophy). You know how I did it? I took my test questions to work with me, and had the customers at the bar ask me the test questions while I mixed drinks for a very busy restaurant! That, and determination.
So, maybe you should think about what you are going to write before you do so, and not criticize someone for their employment. You should think about how you would sound, with a tone that is seemingly superior to the responsible worker, and maybe, you should knock off the “jackass party” stuff while you’re at it. You are impressing no one with that comment. Oh, and you have the advantage of spell check, that I didn’t have in school, and you may want to consider using it.
I’m not a Democrat, but I can tell you that you have a ways to go to catch up with the cleverness of AOC.
Can U imagine a felon & rapist President?
BillC says
@ Barton “Prove me wrong” just doesn’t have the same ring as “I have a dream”. Brilliant!
To add to that sentiment, “prove me wrong” is an invitation to argument and division. “I have a dream” is an invitation for unity and inclusion.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Just for the record Trump was never convicted of rape. Another lie from the left. I hear more hate from the left than I have ever heard from the right. Democrats continue to try and force people to accept Trans surgery and hormones to children in the name of inclusion and acceptance. It’s ironic how little the left actually accepts very little of those that do not believe in their beliefs. In fact, that is why they call people on the right bigot’s, racists and homophobic, because the right believes in Strong borders and not giving surgeries to children and hormones among other things.
justbob says
I must say as usual Pierre’s word smithing was extraordinary. And I’m also very impressed with the majority of the comments. It alleviated the worry that I was alone as an adament “Not Charlie” in Palm Coast.
JW says
This an emotional time for America. We just demonstrated again that we have become an extremely divided country and no longer the greatest nation on the planet. The sad part is that we can not even meet our (the president’s) promise to solve the problems in Ukraine and Israel. The world is watching: a superpower destroying itself.
Robjr says
The Kirk followers, the right wing so called Christians and their Christian nationalists brethren should pay heed to Galatians 6:7. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
MM says
Carlie Kirk was every man on the radical right. He spoke their beliefs and wasn’t afraid to be a racist, homophobic, bigoted, neo Nazi right in front of your eyes. Proud of it actually, that is why he was so scary to listen to. The propaganda he spread amongst the youths of today did irreparable damage . He was pure evil and this is what Trump is too, pure evil. His followers should hide in shame.
The Truth says
If Trump support Kirk so much he should do what he wanted and that is to release all of the Epstein files in his honor.
Laurel says
Ditched Peacock last year, as they just kept creeping up the monthly fee without warning or explanation. Even though it was cheap, it was the principle of the thing. Now, I will decide whether I want to get it back. It was kind of so – so.
Dumped Hulu and Disney Plus yesterday, and Paramount Plus is on the table for dumping as well. I will not sit still for government approved speech. Ted Cruz said that Kimmel was wrong, but has the freedom to say what he said, which was no big deal, and the censorship is dangerous. What Kimmel said was not wrong, Trump, et al, is using Kirk’s death to their perceived advantage. I have nothing to do with Fox Entertainment, and will not purchase a package that promotes their false tirades. They have obviously, repeatedly lied, and I don’t give a damn about their narrow minded, consistently biased comments.
We watched Real Time last night (we always watch it on Saturday instead of Friday) and Bill Maher caught that The View gals were mum on the subject. I did too! I was giving them one more day, to see if they brought the subject of Kimmel up. They did not. They were told to shut up on the subject, and they did. As much as I like Whoopie, I got tired of her turning to the audience and pontificating about how we are all in this together. Some of you may be surprised, but my favorite commenter on the show was Alyssa Farrah Griffin, the Republican. She knew and worked around Trump, and she had direct experience in the government. Well, sorry, Alyssa, but y’all caved. No more “The View for me.”
I will stick with YouTube. Yes, I know it’s owned by Google, but it’s almost impossible to get away from the oligarchs and I can choose who I want to follow, and they still can say whatever they want. So far, it’s not one sided. I will stay with Netflix, and I will continue to support PBS. Looks like Roku’s new add free channel, for $3 a month, will be added to my keeper list. I will also stay with HBO and Starz, two stand alone companies that are on the stock market. Hmmmm….
Bye bye ABC and CBS apps. Bye bye government approved speech. Yes, we have always had media censorship. TV used to make fun of the little guy, with the horn rimmed glasses, who sat around during the filming of shows, and jumped up and condemned certain words. George Carlin gave us that list of “the seven dirty words you cannot say on television.” I do think that shows have gone too far with violence, and too far with sex as if we all want to know, they have for a long time. But this is wholly different. This is kissing Trump’s fragile, snowflake ass. I won’t do it.
By the way, Fubo, ESPN and the NFL, are willing to send us down the river for money too. Think about it. Money determines our fate. Okay, I just voted.
Pierre Tristam says
@Charlie Kirk,
Trump in a counterclaim that echoes yours said Jean Carroll “made these statements knowing each of them were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity”. Judge Kaplan set him straight, as I need not do here better than Kaplan did, when he dismissed the counterclaim, writing unequivocally: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.”
So, Charlie, perhaps you should check the record before writing for it.
Sherry says
While I most certainly condemn the negativity of fear, hate and anger charlie kirk stood for and dangerously peddled, I passionately SUPPORT the constitution and the ‘Freedom of Speech” that allowed him to publically speak his vile words.
We are now experiencing the trump weaponization of the government to strip away the very freedoms that were guaranteed by our constitution at every turn! And, the democrats are shaking in their boots doing absolutely everything they can to thread the needle and hold onto their personal political power/ MONEY without “rocking the boat”.
We should “ALL” be ashamed of our leaders on both sides of the aisle. Where is the “moral” leadership and courage that our founders had when they crafted our constitution? Fascism is being rolled out before our very eyes and very few are stepping up to make ANY effort to stop it!
Thank you Pierre. . . you are quickly becoming quite the rare breed!
We are Charlie says
Pierre desperately attempting to stay relevant in a world swaying away from all these dangerous and ignorant leftist ideas. More drivel and smearing the name of a great man, still taking things out of context or missing – intentionally or out of sheer ignorance – the intended point of his statements. They must push for illegal aliens and a path to citizenship because they are hemorrhaging American citizen voters. You can cite fake polls, or you can look at the actual data with what’s happening on the ground.
Nationwide D to R defections now outnumbering R to D by 3 to 1. New registrations are leaning heavily R. People are waking up to the lies, hate, and delusions of the left which have been on full display as of late. Florida may be red, but that delta has steadily grown since Trump has been in office. Florida Republicans now outnumber Democrats by 1,370,618. In Nov 2022 it was only 356, 212. So, I understand the desperate desire to paint anything on the right as evil, it’s the only trick you have. Can’t beat them with logical ideas? Try to paint them as Hitler and a threat to our existence then. But people are seeing straight through it, it shows in the changes in voter demographics, and we know who the real threat is.
Meanwhile, I’m just ramping up donations to TPUSA as I am blessed enough to have plenty of disposable income – and getting as many people involved as I can. Soon rags like FlaglerLive will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Have a great day while we watch a meaningful memorial with a stadium full to the brim with amazing Christian patriots, for the great Charlie Kirk.
BillC says
@ I am Charlie Kirk Yes you are, another disseminator of misinformation just like him. FYI The reason Trump was not convicted of rape is because in NY, rape is technically defined as the insertion of the penis. What Trump did was forcibly and against Carroll’s will insert his finger into her. So, according to you, Trump did nothing wrong, he is innocent.
Brian says
Hey Sherry, Deborah, and Pierre – please let us know of anybody on the left, if assassinated, or died for any reason, whose funeral would fill a 70,000 seat stadium with another 100,000 outside. Thanks, I’ll wait.
Skibum says
Laurel, I too was anticipating an immediate response to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension by The View gals, and when I heard nothing last week, I was surprised. Well, this morning’s show opened up by Whoopie putting the rumors to rest. The first thing she said was about the Jimmy Kimmel controversy, and she explained why they waited until this morning to discuss it. Whoopie said they wanted to give Kimmel the opportunity to respond first before they gave their opinions, and would have done so on Friday’s show except that one was taped, not live.
This was followed by a lively discussion about drumph’s efforts to sick the FCC on broadcast media, and clips of two GOP senators who are warning the idiot in the WH and other 1st Amendment violators how abhorrent and unconstitutional this crackdown is were shown to viewers.
Let’s be clear… this latest move by drumph should not be a surprise to anyone. He has NEVER been one to like free speech that goes against him or the views and decisions he makes. It was not all that long ago when America watched Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players publicly take a knee on football field sidelines in protest, which was their free speech method of protest. It would have been one thing if NFL owners alone gave the players sanctions or directed what player activities were appropriate while employed as players. But for the government, particularly a president of the U.S. to chime in and say that NFL team owners should fire any player who dares to take a knee in protest is absolutely wrong. It was rightly condemned by many American free speech advocates then.
So anyone should have been able to see what is happening now as inevitable, because bullies like drumph only get worse, they never back down unless they are forcibly smacked down and made to back off. We will see how long it takes our federal courts to smack drumph’s latest blatantly unconstitutional actions down.
I can only hope that more and more of drumph’s own GOP elected officials join in with the ones who have already spoken up in opposition to him. It has been a LONG time coming, but I guess it is better late than never.
Sherry says
Thank you Bill C for posting “credible facts” about trump’s horrific sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll.
Unfortunately, core Maga Cult members could care less about “FACTS”. They have been radicalized and indoctrinated into an “alternate reality” where trump is worshipped and everyone who says anything at all that makes trump look bad is hated vilified. TDS is their excuse for absolutely “everything” that is contrary to the fear and hate filled teachings of their lord and master trump!
Skibum says
Brian, just a quick check on Wikipedia showed that Martin Luther King’s funeral procession in Atlanta, GA “down the three-and-a-half miles from Ebenezer Baptist Church to Morehouse College was observed by over 100,000 people”.
What’s your point??? Maybe you believe that they hand out tickets and depending on how many mourners there are, some type of score is tallied up and the more points, the higher the deceased rates on a “good person” scale?
Are you so callous to think that all of the many thousands of school children who have also been murdered by a wacko person with a gun and only had close family and friends in attendance at their funerals were not so loved as your pseudo-Christian nationalist Charlie Kirk?
Your comment smacks of a very narrow-minded, brainwashed person that should be pitied for making such a shallow remark.
Laurel says
What the Kirk people have missed, besides Kirk’s bullshit, is that a reporter asked Trump how he felt about Kirk’s murder. Trump’s answer was so slight, that it was barely heard, and he quickly turned towards the White House, perked up and started rambling about his new ballroom! One could see he had enough about Charlie, and wanted the attention back on his self.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ Pierre
Yes, a civil jury did find Trump liable for sexual abuse, not RAPE — and that distinction matters. He wasn’t convicted of any crime. And the case was brought decades after the alleged event, under a newly passed law that reopened the window for lawsuits. You can question the timing, the location, and the politics — that doesn’t mean the verdict is invalid, but it’s not above scrutiny either. Let’s keep it honest and grounded in the actual facts. So for someone to call Trump a rapist is incorrect. I would argue that the timing was politically motivated. Even the award amount of 83 million dollars is absurd.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
How many people did MLK’s funeral pull? And that one didn’t even have monster trucks and fireworks.
Laurel says
I am Charlie Kirk!: You argue semantics.
Trump physically penatrated a woman’s body against her will. What do YOU call that? Timing is irrelevant. That you throw timing in as important to sexual assault, shows your lack of empathy, and your dismissal of a serious crime.
You ARE Charlie Kirk!
Ed P says
Time will reveal whether waking up the sleeping giant called Turning Point USA combined with VP Harris’ new book will have any measurable effect on the Midterm Elections.
Skibum says
To I Am Charlie…
There you go again, making excuses for a sexual predator, a convicted felon, a confirmed fraudster. Wow, wouldn’t your children, your grandchildren, be proud of you and your warped sense of morals! Way to go… you have officially lost your sense of morality and decency, wandering around the maga universe without an ethical care in the world.
And YOU have the gall to point to the Bible and your extremist version of “religion” to somehow justify all of the vile and hateful beliefs your heroes espoused? Makes me want to throw up, but you go do you, and keep blasting to the sane among us your maga religiosity that mocks everything Jesus was about.
Your white nationalist, white supremist maga conspirators you take for “heroes” won’t be fooling anyone come judgement day, that’s for damn sure! And all of the sheeple, like yourself who continue to follow and worship them? Hmmm……
Sherry says
@ i am ck. . . While you are obsessively slicing and dicing each and every word, trying in vain to make your “Lord and Master” seem like an innocent, law abiding person. . . I will point out how your carefully minced words are wrong.
Yes! donald trump is a “Criminally Convicted Felon” for over 30 counts of FRAUD! In addition trump was also found GUILTY in TWO trials of “Sexually Abusing and then Defaming” his VICTIM! On top of that, trump is the only president to be IMPEACHED TWICE! Once for “Inciting an Insurrection”!!!
Therefore your really lame attempt to completely whitewash trump is completely absurd and laughable to those of us who still live in “factual reality”.
Gary Delia says
“The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” Kierkegaard
Mark says
@ Brian says
You had one too many zero’s there.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/09/21/charlie-kirk-service-state-farm-stadium-crowds/86228387007/
I am Charlie Kirk says
@ Skibum
Yes, Trump was found liable in a civil case for sexual abuse and defamation. That’s serious. But civil liability is not the same as a criminal conviction — and “rape” has legal definitions that weren’t met here.
On the flip side, the way these cases have been filed, delayed, publicized, and timed raises serious questions. Multiple delays, filings dropped in media-heavy moments, motions to push back trials until after election cycles — these are hallmarks of legal strategy tied to politics.
If we want justice, we also need fairness — especially timing. Charging someone during a campaign, or using highly charged media coverage to shape narratives — that’s not how law should be wielded. It creates the appearance of bias, and makes it harder to separate legal fact from political theater.
So yes: I believe there’s a real chance these prosecutions are meant to derail his political comeback. But that doesn’t automatically make the claims false. It means the process deserves scrutiny — more than just chants and slogans. Facts matter. Process matters. Fairness matters.
I am Charlie Kirk says
@Sherry
You can throw slogans around all day, but none of that changes what I actually said — or the legal facts.
I didn’t “whitewash” Trump. I stated a simple legal truth: he was not convicted of rape, and there’s a clear legal distinction between being found criminally guilty and being held civilly liable. You can mock that distinction all you want, but it matters — especially if we’re pretending to care about facts and due process.
Yes, Trump has been convicted in a criminal case — the New York business records trial. But calling it “over 30 counts of fraud” is incorrect. The charges were falsifying business records, a Class E felony in New York, not “fraud” in the broader legal or financial sense. And the way that case was prosecuted — legally creative, politically timed, and rushed through during campaign season — raises legitimate concerns, whether you support Trump or not.
As for the impeachments: neither resulted in conviction. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.
I’m here to defend facts, and to call out when legal systems are weaponized for political gain.
Critical Eye says
The Democrats are so full of hate! Charlie Kirk was killed for his beliefs. Nothing more nothing less. If we all went around killing each other for our beliefs, we would all be dead. By the looks of what I am reading this is the way Democrats handle their hate. Such a shame. Shame on the Democrats that hate Charlie for his beliefs. Charlie didn’t kill anyone. Charlie would never have never killed anyone for their beliefs.
JC says
I am Charlie Kirk, do you have a life in your old age or just complain nonstop?
Skibum says
To: I Am Charlie… you state that facts matter to you. Facts really do matter in the case of drumph’s civil trial and multi-million dollar judgement against him after he was found liable for sexual assault. You argue that the sexual assault trial came during his presidential campaign, as if that was the strategy of the attorney who brought that case to court.
Does it not matter to you that it was drumph and his attorneys who filed delay, after delay, after delay, after delay… that ultimately and finally scheduled that civil trial during the presidential campaign? Can you not admit the plain truth of the matter that his entire defense strategy completely changed it’s scope after he got into the running for president? Before that, neither he nor his attorneys said anything about the timing of the sexual assault trial. He forced it, by multiple delays over a long period of time, to finally come to trial during the presidential campaign, and THEN had his attorneys try to turn it on his victim, saying the trial was meant to derail his presidential campaign and should be delayed even further!
Every single criminal as well as civil case ever filed against him has resulted in the same strategy on his part. Delay, obstruct, lie about the facts, more delays, more obstruction, more lies. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
The truth of the matter in the E. Jean Carroll case is that if drumph was in fact innocent of the charges, he would have fought to clear his name as soon as possible, like all innocent people do. Only guilty people delay over and over, obstruct, try out various, often contradicting defenses, delay some more, and THEN try to get the case thrown out by saying it has taken too long to go to trail or it should be thrown out as on “obvious effort to thwart a presidential campaign” that was NOT taking place when the case was originally filed.
That is on HIM! Your argument trying to defend drumph and how that civil trial finally ended up going to court is totally without merit. You have every right to defend him if that is your intent, but you don’t have the right to skew the facts while doing so.
Sherry says
OOPS! trump. . . the “Convicted Felon” led and controlled a company that was found Criminally Guilty of 17 counts of FRAUD in 2022. Then in 2024 trump was found “Criminally” GUILTY of 34 Felony Counts of “Falsifying Business Records”. Therefore he is a “Criminally Convicted Felon”!
Criminal Tax Fraud case
Verdict: In December 2022, a New York jury found the Trump Organization guilty of 17 counts of criminal tax FRAUD.
Allegations: The case centered on a scheme by which top executives at the company dodged personal income taxes.
Consequences: As part of this case, former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty and served jail time.
A May 2024, Criminal Conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York.
Other legal challenges
These fraud cases are separate from other legal challenges Trump has faced. These include:
A federal appeals court upholding a civil jury’s finding that Trump “Sexually Abused” and “Defamed” writer E. Jean Carroll.
Regards Presidential IMPEACHMENTS. . . NO President has ever been found guilty by the Senate, but trump is the only President to be impeached more than ONCE:
This category lists the three presidents of the United States (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump) who were formally impeached in the House of Representatives. None of the three presidents were removed from office as they were acquitted by the United States Senate. However, an acquittal does not remove impeachment status.
Notes:
Richard Nixon does not qualify for this category as he resigned from office prior to his potential impeachment and trial in 1974.
Donald Trump was impeached twice in 2019 and 2021. This made him the only president to be impeached more than once.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Looks like we have another shooting in Dallas Texas that killed I believe 2 people were killed by a shooter that had anti ICE inscribed on the casing. The left does seem to be encouraging and inciting violence by the demonizing of ICE and our President. There is a reason Republicans are gaining voters and democrats are hemorrhaging voters.
Charlie Kirk was a good and decent man and Christian.
So far Trump has closed our borders to illegal crossings, and he has blown up 3 boats with drugs. So much more. He is trying to make America safer and so far, doing a pretty good job.
Sherry says
@ ck. . . Where is the absolute “credible proof” that “ALL” those boats were filled with drugs and proof that the people murdered by trump’s order were drug peddlers? Why, because your lord and master “trump” said so? Is trump now police, judge, jury and executor with ZERO due process?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/was-trumps-strike-on-an-alleged-venezuelan-drug-boat-legal/
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ Sherry
Thanks — but you’re mostly reiterating things I’ve already acknowledged, while avoiding the core of what I said.
Yes, Trump is now a convicted felon based on the 2024 New York case — I explicitly said that already. But calling it a “fraud conviction” is inaccurate. It wasn’t fraud in the legal sense; it was falsifying business records — a process crime that, in this case, was elevated to a felony under a very novel legal theory. That’s not spin, that’s case law.
You also confirmed something else I already pointed out: the Trump Organization was convicted in 2022 — not Trump personally. And again, that was about executive perks and tax classifications, not Trump committing tax fraud himself.
Regarding E. Jean Carroll: it was a civil case, not criminal. And the jury did not find him liable for rape — they rejected that specific allegation. They found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Serious, yes — but again, not a criminal conviction. So if we care about legal distinctions, that matters.
Finally, on impeachment: being impeached is not the same as being convicted. Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice. That’s history, not opinion.
If people want to oppose Trump politically, fine — but let’s not distort legal terms or treat civil cases like criminal ones just to score rhetorical points. If we’re going to defend the justice system, we should start by being accurate about what it actually says.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ Sherry- So now Trump is personally executing people at sea? Come on.
Presidents give orders based on intelligence from defense and homeland security. If you’re seriously suggesting Trump ran covert military ops on his own like a movie villain, that’s not an argument — that’s fan fiction.
If you want to criticize military strategy or drug policy, fine — but stick to reality. Because this attempt to frame Trump as judge/jury/executioner without due process just undercuts serious discussion.
Interesting the lack of empathy and outrage for the assassination of Charlie Kirk among many, yet many of the same people are concerned about narco terrorists that were killed trying to bring lethal drugs into our country. Do you really think we are just blowing up boats for target practice? narco terrorists are responsible for millions of deaths around the world. Now we are finally really cracking down on it. Which includes closing the open borders.
What evidence / proof is public
Claims by the Trump administration
Trump has said that U.S. military forces have conducted multiple strikes on vessels “allegedly” carrying drugs and that people aboard those vessels were “narco terrorists.”
The Washington Post
He’s claimed that the cargo was “spattered all over the ocean — big bags of cocaine and fentanyl all over the place.”
There are overhead videos of vessels exploding, shared on platforms like Truth Social.
However, in those videos, the visibility of drugs in the water or identification of passengers as traffickers is unclear.
There are well-documented cases of the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy seizing large quantities of narcotics from boats (“go-fast” vessels etc.) in international waters. For instance:
• In 2025, over 76,000 pounds of illegal narcotics were seized in several operations involving 19 interdictions in international waters in the Caribbean/Eastern Pacific.
• In March 2025, the Coast Guard offloaded more than $517.5 million in narcotics from 14 interdictions in international waters of the Eastern Pacific.
• Another example: The Coast Guard Cutter Valiant offloaded ~$141 million in narcotics after interdictions in international waters of the Caribbean.
Perry says
To I am Charlie:
“Paramedic Facing Rape Charge Claims Penetrating Patient Was ‘Medically Necessary” is the partial headline today in this publication. The defendant in this case faces, if found guilty, many years in a Florida prison.
New York state law was (it was changed in 2024) that the legal definition of rape required the insertion of the assailant’s penis. Other insertions such as broken bottles, fingers, or tongues were called sexual abuse. Apparently, many of the commenters to today’s FlaglerLive headline favor a lengthy prison sentence if the defendant is found guilty of inserting his fingers into the victim’s vagina. You seem to think that DJT’s sticking his fingers in a woman’s vagina wasn’t rape. Had he forcibly stuck his fingers up your rectum, you almost surely would feel like you had been raped. As a former rape victim’s advocate in yet a third state, neither New York nor Florida, I can assure you every single victim that I advocated for, male or female, was severely traumatized and, in this third state, all of these actions were called RAPE. I don’t care what the legal terminology is, TDJ, being the pig that he is, raped Ms. Carroll. Stop making up excuses for TDJ’s perversions over semantics.
Vincent Lyon says
His defenders say that Charlie Kirk was willing to speak to his opposition openly and calmly and to really listen.
If he inspires that in a chunk of America (whether he practiced it or not) then he will have done a good thing.
Laurel says
I am Charlie Kirk!: I wonder how you would interpret the facts if a man inserted a particular digit, state approved or not, into your daughter’s vagina against her will? Is the finger less intrusive than the penis? Should New York law, or a civil suit, determine the importance of the said digit?
“Grab ’em by the pussy”
That’s our President.
“Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”
– Charlie Kirk
Found to be true on Snopes.
How very Christian of him.
You ARE Charlie Kirk! How very sad of you.
BillC says
@ I am CK If someone attacked your wife/mother/daughter and stuck his finger into her vagina (like Trump did) would you still argue it’s not criminal, only a civil matter- serious, but not THAT serious? Nobody believes your BS.
Ray W. says
I agree with I am Charlie Kirk that it is important for one not to distort legal terms.
Section 175.10 of the New York penal code, the statute through which President Trump was convicted, contains as one of the elements of the crime of falsifying business records the intent to defraud.
The New York standard jury instruction that Trump’s jury would have received from the judge reads as follows:
“Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to conceal the commission thereof, …”
The moment you argued that President Trump was not convicted of fraud was the moment you began distorting a legal term. President Trump was convicted of 34 counts, each of which counts included as an element the intent to defraud.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
The E. Jean Carroll case was civil, not criminal. The jury rejected the rape claim and found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. That legal distinction matters — not because anyone is “defending” Trump, but because facts still matter, even in politics.
“Grab ’em by the pussy” is a vile comment. No one’s excusing it. But crude language is not a criminal conviction. The comment was made in private among other men.
The Charlie Kirk quote you’re citing is fake. There’s no Snopes article confirming that claim — and spreading fabricated quotes while shouting about truth and morality is a bit ironic, don’t you think?
You don’t have to like Trump to care about accuracy. I’m not defending his character — I’m defending basic legal truth and pushing back against emotional distortion. If we can’t do that, then we’ve stopped arguing about facts and started policing thought.
Personally I have doubts about the conviction in the first place. The whole reason it was civil was it was too late to file criminal charges. A civil case has less of a burden to prove. There was actually no evidence. No witnesses. It was her word and the word of her friends. No Police report. If he did do it- that obviously is not okay, but it is NOT the same as RAPE.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ Ray W
I appreciate the clarification — and I agree that legal accuracy matters. But let’s be clear about what’s being debated here.
Yes, under New York Penal Code § 175.10, “intent to defraud” is part of the legal elements of falsifying business records in the first degree. But this is not the same as a standalone conviction for “fraud” as it’s commonly understood in law — meaning charges like wire fraud, tax fraud, or securities fraud.
“Intent to defraud” in this context is about the mental state, not the charge itself. Trump was not convicted of fraud as a separate criminal offense — he was convicted of falsifying business records, where the “intent to defraud” supports the enhancement from a misdemeanor to a felony because it was allegedly tied to concealing another crime.
So no, I didn’t distort a legal term. I made a clear distinction between the elements of the offense and the label of the offense itself — and I did that because many people are inaccurately calling these “34 felony fraud convictions,” which is misleading.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Let’s be honest: if someone like Charlie Kirk is assassinated, the focus should be on condemning the violence and defending the right to free speech — even speech you hate. But instead of defending principle, the column tries to walk a line: “Sure, assassination is bad… but here’s 20 paragraphs about why the guy kind of had it coming.” That’s not moral clarity. That’s opportunism.
Now let’s talk about what’s actually in this article:
1. “Christian nationalist,” “racist,” “chauvinist,” etc.
These aren’t arguments. They’re labels meant to shut down discussion. Yes, Charlie Kirk was provocative. Yes, he challenged progressive orthodoxy. That doesn’t make him a theocrat or a bigot. It makes him a political commentator. If you don’t like his views, debate them — don’t smear them.
2. The Professor Watchlist is not “doxing.”
It’s a public list of professors whose publicly stated ideologies or classroom behavior raised concerns for some students. It’s no different than students warning each other about biased teachers on RateMyProfessor or Reddit — except it came from the right, so suddenly it’s “East Germany.” Please.
3. Comparing Kirk to Houellebecq or even to terrorists is disgusting.
Houellebecq wrote fiction with grotesque lines. Kirk gave speeches and ran a nonprofit. You may hate what he said, but equating his words with violence is how free societies lose the ability to have real debate. There’s a difference between being offensive and being dangerous — and this article deliberately blurs that line.
4. “Kirk-industrial complex”?
Let’s be real: this article is mad that Charlie Kirk’s ideas had reach — especially with young people. That’s not a crime. That’s success. You’re allowed to criticize those ideas, but pretending that influence itself is dangerous is just a way to justify censorship and social punishment.
5. The real threat to free speech is not Kirk — it’s the reaction to him.
The article accuses the right of “threats, firings and deportations” for not mourning Charlie Kirk properly — as if conservatives are out here silencing people for dissent. But come on — since when has the right had control over Hollywood, media, universities, HR departments, school boards, or Big Tech?
If anyone is punished in this country for not going along with a political narrative, it’s conservatives — not progressives.
Laurel says
I am Charlie etc:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/
Now, what did you say?
BillC says
As of Jan. 30, 2014, NY Rape Law.
“The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact. Highlighting Carroll’s case at a bill signing ceremony in Albany, the Democratic governor said the new definition will make it easier for rape victims to bring cases forward to prosecute perpetrators. The law will apply to sexual assaults committed on or after Sept. 1.”
In Carroll’s case against Trump, which stemmed from an encounter at a Manhattan luxury department store, the judge later said that the jury’s decision was based on “the narrow, technical meaning” of rape in New York penal law and that, in his analysis, the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”
Laurel says
Charlie Kirk and his Christian speech. Nice guy. Moves me.
Again, sarcasm.
Never once has he come close to Michelle Obama on intelligence or grace.
Not sarcasm.
BillC says
ps should be 2024, not 2014
Skibum says
Poor old fact denier, maga sycophant, apparent white nationalist pseudo-Christian Charlie Kirk certainly DID say, nearly word for word, what Laurel attributed to him above. “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”
And “I Am Charlie” lies once again, wrapping himself up like a pretzel trying to defend the indefensible. Trying to deny the plain fact that the dead man did in fact say this. Maybe he believes that dead men really do tell no tales, but lo and behold, in today’s world where we actually have this marvelous thing called video evidence, here is just one of many such links to Kirk’s recorded talk where he says what “I Am Charlies refuses to believe was said:
https://x.com/alluring_nyc/status/1965931096539017536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1965931096539017536%7Ctwgr%5E6bf773dfe7c0252d4e0191751e922c035b34aa3c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Ffact-check%2Fcharlie-kirk-black-women%2F
Here’s another one for you, reality denier:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/
And yes, that second one was straight out of the Snopes.com website that YOU said above… let me quote you: “The Charlie Kirk quote you’re citing is fake. There’s no Snopes article confirming that claim — and spreading fabricated quotes while shouting about truth and morality is a bit ironic, don’t you think?”
Now, Charlie lover… would you care to, would you DARE to… admit that YOU were wrong, not Laurel??? Go ahead, be an adult and say it… we’ll be waiting.
Pierre Tristam says
What’s revolting in the appropriately named “I Am Charlie Kirk” comment–which makes me think Kirkism is alive and well–is the dishonest restatement, as a premise, of the very premise I rejected for the revolting suggestion that it is–that “the guy had it coming”–to pass over the point of my column: what I found–what I still find–revolting is the deification of Charlie Kirk. We agree that the assassination was atrocious as is the attempt to silence anyone by whatever means. I respect your right to beatify him, to worship him, to name your children after him, maybe to name the Gulf of America after him if you wish. But we do not have to agree, and I certainly do not, that Kirk was much more than a moronic extremist who helped normalized what used to be fringe bigotries, to such a successful extent that the reaction to his death has been the hysterical delirium and serial Orwellian silencing of dissenters who don’t bend over and lick his halo. He did not “challenge progressive orthodoxies.” He spoke like a Templar missing his 12th century. He was an Islamophobe and an outright racist (he didn’t like much Arabs like me and didn’t much like Blacks and most foreigners from shithole countries like mine. I just noticed the Florida legislature has a proposed bill to ban the use of “West Bank” in state documents, and refer to the Israeli occupied land as “Judea and Samaria,” Kirk’s preferred words for the apartheid regime there, as noted in the article.) He did not have much of a problem with violence, whether it was calling for the execution of Joe Biden or his justification of the occasional shooting in worship of the Second Amendment. How can that not be called vile? At least Houellebecq is funny and considers himself a joke half the time. Kirk’s irony-resisting earnestness was worth an NIH grant (though those have been cancelled). Worship Kirk all you like. Just don’t expect some of us to–or punish us for not wanting to, and for calling out his extremism, and calling out his groupies’ madness in his defense. If I were a public school teacher or a professor in a state university, or an employee in most American companies and posted this on Facebook, I’d be fired. We are a country rich in assassinations. When has that kind of repressive reaction ever happened before, at least since the assassination attempt on A. Mitchell Palmer (whose reaction is a close second to the right’s vengefulness since the Kirk assassination). And “I’m Charlie Kirk” still questions whether the right is out there silencing people. Best line of his comment though, which suggests he knows how to appreciate Houellebecq: “Let’s be honest.” I’m still laughing through my tears.
Sherry says
Thank you Pierre, Ray W., Laurel, Skibum, Bill C., Perry and all the others trying to convince people like “i am charlie kirk” that they need to open their minds just a crack and respect the perspectives and “FACTS” posted by those “WOKE” people who still live in factual reality.
Me thinks that “i am. . .” is so “indoctrinated” that he/she/they will never ever concede that they could have it just the tiniest bit incorrect. Consider the possibility that they have, until now, only debated in text sized comment spaces with their peers. It’s likely that they do not realize that Ray W. is an expert in the law.
Regarding this debate, the proverbial “Horse is Dead”. . . For me, I’ll not waste my treasured time further on the likes of charlie kirk OR his supporters.
Ray W. says
Hello, I am Charlie Kirk!
In one of your comments above, you assert that President Trump’s fraud convictions are not fraud convictions in a “legal sense.”
In another portion of one of your comments, you assert that the New York convictions are not fraud as it is “commonly known.”
I see what you are trying to do. You are arguing a general position, when the position is not at all general, it is specific. At common law, fraud was specifically defined; it required specific mental intent to defraud. That common law definition of fraud established what was “commonly known” about fraud at the time of our founding. But that is the point where your argument fails. The common law as it existed at the time of our founding only informs us of what fraud meant at the time; it does not control statutory or “codified common law” definitions of fraud. Thus, there is no longer any one “commonly known” definition of fraud; there exists now only those many differing definitions of fraud that are unique to each state and to the federal legislature.
Each and every one of our 50 states has “codified” the common-law crime of fraud. So, too, has the federal legislature.
Florida codified its own several definitions of fraud. New York’s legislature, too. New York’s definition of fraud is unique to New York. Two of those unique definitions of fraud pertain to business records.
Under Section 175.05 of the New York penal code, falsifying business records in the second degree is defined as:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of the enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Under Section 175.10 of the New York penal code, falsifying business records in the first degree is defined as follows:
A person is guilty of falsifying business record in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
As you can read for yourself, the misdemeanor offense of falsifying business records requires competent and reliable evidence of a person’s intent to defraud. The felony offense requires not only competent and reliable evidence of one’s intent to defraud, but also evidence of one’s intent to commit either a second crime derived from the misdemeanor or an intent to conceal the commission of the misdemeanor crime.
Either way, intent to defraud is an element of both the misdemeanor offense and of the felony offense. Any time that you continue to claim that President Trump was not convicted of a form of intent to defraud means that you are attempting to mislead the FlaglerLive community.
I do agree with you, I am Charlie Kirk!, that Trump’s convictions may not stand. For some 20 years, I argued against Florida’s redefinition of its fraud statutes. I argued a form of my theory in the Flagler County case of State v. Herbert Heron some 15 years ago. While I didn’t persuade the trial judge of every facet of my argument, I won on a number of issues prior to trial and received a special jury instruction that limited the state’s fraud argument during the trial. I drafted the same argument for another assistant public defender in a St. Augustine fraud prosecution that had lingered on for more than a year. Within days of the filing of the pre-trial motion, the prosecutor greatly reduced his plea offer to the client to a level that the client would accept. I helped another assistant public defender in the DeLand office. He took my argument and fit it to one of his cases. The judge granted a motion to dismiss the contract fraud case. The State decided to not appeal the ruling, arguably to prevent the ruling from becoming larger than the individual case.
My argument was simple. After the Model Penal Code was published in 1965, states began rewriting their fraud statutes to follow the recommendations set out in the MPC. I argued that Florida’s 1976 statutory rewrite was unconstitutional, as the new language effectively undermined the concept of specific mental intent, violating a 5th DCA opinion known as Oxx v. State. Stated simply, I argued a state legislature cannot just rewrite the concept of specific mental intent without risking constitutional violation. New York rewrote some of its fraud statutes in 1986. Perhaps the same arguments might apply in Trump’s case, but if the arguments were not preserved during the trial, the arguments might not be available to his legal team now.
In summary, I am Charlie Kirk!, your argument is predicated on something that doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as a “commonly accepted” definition of fraud. Each state has adopted a number of definitions of fraud that are unique to the language of that state’s fraud statutes.
You cannot ever win the argument that President Trump was not convicted of fraud, as he was convicted of fraud, as the legislature of the state of New York uniquely defined it.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
I want to clarify my earlier pushback. At the time, the quote was presented to me as if Charlie Kirk had made a sweeping statement about all Black women, which is clearly racist and something I would never defend. That turned out to be an exaggerated framing — one that’s been repeated to make him sound even worse than what he actually said.
I reread the Snopes article and the video. Yes, he did say those words, but they were directed specifically at Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — as part of his critique of affirmative action. He was arguing that they reached prominence because of DEI policies, not merit — a position many disagree with, and one that certainly comes off as harsh or offensive. But that’s a targeted political critique, not a blanket attack on Black women.
We can debate whether that kind of rhetoric is fair or harmful. But misstating what he said to frame him as saying something even worse doesn’t help the discussion — and frankly, it undermines the credibility of real criticism.
We should challenge inflammatory speech, yes — but let’s do it honestly, not by inflating it for shock value. Other than Michelle Obama, I do believe the others were DEI hires. That they are more qualified people to hold their positions.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Appreciate the engagement, even if it’s laced with more acid than argument. But let’s step back from the literary performance and get to what this really is:
You’re not just criticizing Charlie Kirk — you’re moralizing about the idea that anyone could see anything of value in him. That’s the core issue here. I never claimed Kirk was perfect, nor called for beatification. I responded to the tone and structure of your column, which wrapped its condemnation of his assassination in layers of disdain that blurred the line between mourning and moral judgment.
Your response here confirms it: not just that Kirk was “an extremist,” but that those who defend him are hysterical, Orwellian, or mad. And that anyone who sees merit in his views is engaging in “worship.” That’s not disagreement — that’s delegitimizing dissent.
You say I “restate the premise you rejected” — that “he had it coming.” But frankly, that’s not a straw man; that’s how many readers interpreted the column — because the contempt wasn’t subtle. You may denounce the killing, but you also spent most of the piece ridiculing the person who was killed and the people mourning him. So yes, many of us did walk away reading: “Sure, murder is bad, but let’s not pretend this guy deserved sympathy.”
You invoke everything from Houellebecq to A. Mitchell Palmer to lend your critique intellectual weight, but the irony is this: you’re doing exactly what you accuse Kirk of doing — drawing hard lines between the “enlightened” and the “deplorable,” and declaring anyone outside your circle as unworthy of respect.
You say Kirk’s defenders are punishing dissenters. But let’s be real: the cultural machinery of academia, media, and tech isn’t punishing Kirk-mourners. It punishes conservatives. Just imagine if a college professor posted something supportive of Kirk after his death — do you think they’d be praised for nuance? Or quietly investigated by HR?
In short: you don’t have to like Charlie Kirk. But don’t pretend that disagreeing with your caricature of him is “worship.” Some of us believe in debating ideas without burning the heretics. You used to call that liberalism.
Why is it that many anti Charlie people cannot give him credit for what most people associate him with? Love, getting married, having children, following the 10 commandments, bringing young people closer to God and going to church? He was a hard worker that encouraged hard work and being truthful. Leading a healthy life. Charlie Kirk was a a good man, a good husband , father and employer.
Pierre Tristam says
@Charlie Kirk
I have to say if FlaglerLive had a weekly Booker Prize for commenters I Am Charlie Kirk would win it this week (someone has to break Ray W’s winning streak) for her/his/their valiant persistence and civility, and not minor eloquence, against the grain of our volcanic wokism. Thank you for lending your voice here: that I disagree with you is irrelevant; this is the kind of disagreement that prolongs conversation and fosters understanding without capitulation. It suggests our diseased pluralism may yet survive. I hope you’ll still contribute here long after the Kirk delirium is over, as deliriums seeded in shallows always are.
JC says
“Why is it that many anti Charlie people cannot give him credit for what most people associate him with? Love, getting married, having children, following the 10 commandments, bringing young people closer to God and going to church? He was a hard worker that encouraged hard work and being truthful. Leading a healthy life. Charlie Kirk was a a good man, a good husband , father and employer.”
The issue is most of the situations that Mr. Kirk is associated with is an extreme black/white view with some serious problems.
*Love: That is true, provided if it is done in the conservative religious way.
*Getting Married: Also true, provided if it is done in the conservative religious way.
*Having Children: Also true, provided if it is done in the conservative religious way.
*Following the ten commandments: Also true, provided if it is done in the conservative religious way.
*God and church: Must be done in the conservative religious way, not any of the left-wing churches that practice empathy.
Problem with Mr. Kirk viewpoint is he is preaching a very black/white viewpoint that doesn’t allow any gray areas. Also supporting group control via support of conservative churches, where they will sell you on a dream to god but also support a book (which is the bible) that supports slavery (which it does in multiple verses), make god look like a cunt, and so much X-rated material like family rape that I don’t watch children to know. I talked with younger folks who are the TP USA supporters and they keep repeating the same talking points of Mr. Kirk, and when they get questioned on their viewpoint they start to break down and become borderline militant on their opinions and don’t want any conversations anymore. This is no different than the left-wing groups who do the same strong tactics on their supporters on college campuses.
Mr. Kirk is not dumb, he found a way to make money and sell a dream to students to help create future Republican voters who don’t think too much against what they know. It is no different from the left-wing groups, both sides don’t want to think but instead just repeat what they found online via talking points on Youtube/FaceBook/Tiktok/etc.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Civil debate — even across sharp disagreement — is exactly the kind of discourse Charlie Kirk championed. He believed truth matters, even when it’s uncomfortable, and that we should never be afraid to speak it plainly or challenge dominant narratives. I’ve tried to reflect that here: disagreeing without demeaning, engaging without retreating. That kind of exchange may be rare these days, but it’s more necessary than ever.
I also disagree with the idea that the public reaction to Charlie Kirk’s assassination is some sort of shallow “delirium.” You don’t have to agree with Charlie to recognize that many saw in him a defender of values, a truth-teller, and a strong voice for open debate — especially in a time when dissent is often punished. He inspired strong responses because he stood firmly where others stayed quiet. That’s not a shallow reaction. That’s conviction.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ JC- Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You’re right—Charlie Kirk’s messaging often comes wrapped in black-and-white terms that leave little room for nuance. That’s exactly why his supporters find clarity and purpose in his words, while others see oversimplification and division.
Yes, his worldview is rooted in a specific conservative religious framework, which not everyone shares—and that’s fair. But to dismiss those beliefs outright without recognizing the comfort and community they provide misses an important part of why his message resonated so deeply.
Regarding the criticisms about religious texts, many believers wrestle with the difficult parts and find interpretations that emphasize empathy and justice. Painting religion broadly as oppressive or hateful is a cheap shot that overlooks this complexity.
And yes, the unwillingness to engage thoughtfully and question one’s own side exists on all fronts. Both the left and the right too often demand ideological purity and silence dissent within their ranks. That’s the real problem—not ideology itself, but tribalism and groupthink.
Charlie Kirk built a movement by tapping into people’s desire for clear answers and unapologetic conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, dismissing his followers as brainwashed echoes the exact kind of tribalism that stifles honest debate.
It is not like all of his followers are going to follow everything he said to the tee, much like we might not follow everything our pastor might say. What Charlie Kirk did was let young people know there was another path in life that is OKAY. Like choosing to get married and have a family. The left has pushed and encouraged women to not get married and not have children. Many single women as they get older find an emptiness that a career alone cannot fill and have regrets about not having children. Many feel that they were sold a bill of goods that rang hollow.
BillC says
@CK Who are you kidding? You defended Trump’s horrific rape of E. Jean Carroll, relying on a law that has since been superseded as a result of the travesty of justice of the verdict. You make a mockery of the words “morals” and “truth” that you use as turd polish to parse distinctions without a difference, under the guise of being “a reasonable man”. Yes, you are Charlie Kirk, a reactionary from the 1930’s.
Laurel says
“What Charlie Kirk did was let young people know there was another path in life that is OKAY. Like choosing to get married and have a family. The left has pushed and encouraged women to not get married and not have children. Many single women as they get older find an emptiness that a career alone cannot fill and have regrets about not having children. Many feel that they were sold a bill of goods that rang hollow.”
And there it is.
What the hell do I care if you get married or not? What the hell do I care if you have children or not? You do fantasize, don’t you? Do you think what you pontificate is new? It’s as old as time, and doesn’t need further sorting out.
I am an independent, not the “left.” For you, and Kirk, to decide what is right for me, over my choice, myself, is utter foolishness. I didn’t marry until my mid forties, and that was great because it’s 25 years now since I picked the right guy. I done good! I decided to not have children. I’m not a kid person, never have been, never will be. I’m amazed that people get married simply because it’s expected. I’m amazed that people have children simply because it’s expected. Isn’t that a choice, or do you know what’s better for me than I do? I’m 73 years old, and my life does not “ring hollow.” I have no regrets, as you seem to think I should have. My older life is not “empty.” Who the hell are you, or Kirk, to sum up my life? Nobody. I don’t care how you run your life. Mind your own business.
The crap about four women, who all happen to be black (huh!) having no brain power, is ridiculous, and blatant bigotry. Don’t bother to twist it around. It’s not believable. Your Kirk does not rise to the Christian intentions of Michelle Obama. His legal knowledge does not rise to the level of Supreme Court Justice Jackson. Funny, no white males in your examples. Only white males cannot be DEI, the rest of us can be, right? You “believe” these women are DEI hires. How convenient.
Oh, and by the way, to jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with Kirk’s bigoted rants, thinks Kirk deserves it, it also a lie. The vast majority of people condemned Kirk’s death, and continue to do so. But that does not a martyr make.
This is not honest debate, bigotry has been long established. This is not Christian behavior, either.
I too, am out. I will no longer play in this twisting of lies.
JC says
I am Charlie Kirk!, no offense but I know a good bit of older single women who are happy with the life they chose (career, no children) and have zero regrets about children. You really need to stop with the generalization of people, as much as you are telling others who disagree with Mr. Kirk ideas to stop dismissing his followers as brainwashed.
“Regarding the criticisms about religious texts, many believers wrestle with the difficult parts and find interpretations that emphasize empathy and justice. Painting religion broadly as oppressive or hateful is a cheap shot that overlooks this complexity.”
Excuse me? I read different versions of the bible cover to cover. It is super clear regardless of the translation that slavery was justified, God was a jackass, incest was acceptable, and so much horrible crap that I wouldn’t even teach children to it This is not a cheap shot, this is what is in the holy book regardless of the language and translation you read. And this goes back to my earlier statement that you need to stop with the generalization of people. I think the biggest question to people is do you actually read the text? Too many people worship without really knowing what they are really worshiping, and that is the problem.
“Charlie Kirk built a movement by tapping into people’s desire for clear answers and unapologetic conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, dismissing his followers as brainwashed echoes the exact kind of tribalism that stifles honest debate.”
Are you blind? TP USA slick was making all of these Youtube videos where TP USA side = good and other side (mostly progressives) = idiots. TP USA just took the progressive playbook and went into colleges and introduce a group of people to the right-wing echo chamber with social media to boot. This helps people not to think too much since the content from TP USA makes them feel good. It is super easy to get someone young to get suckered into the beliefs of Mr. Kirk and get them programed into the right-wing echo chamber (which there is also the left-wing echo chamber, which is done the same way but different material). Also I think you are blind, since TP USA profited over tribalism thanks to social media. The more people are divided, the more people donate to TP USA and get more people to join their ranks.
I personally spoke to younger folks who are part of TP USA, AND IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE when you say something to them that they disagree with (and have evidence to back it up), they just shut down and refuse to talk to you period. There is no debate, they walk away since they want to be back in their own echo-chamber and be in their safe space. I was always super nice to them and love a nice debate, but they didn’t want to debate since they prefer to run away. This is no different than the ultra left-wing folks where you point out that their positions are too far coco for coco puffs, they just stop talking to you and go back into their echo-chamber.
I’m a moderate, so I am not left/right. However, from the outside it isn’t hard how the flow was flowing in to TP USA and other right-wing talking heads like Ben Shapiro, Tucker, and etc. All of those guys drive on tribalism and using their ideology to ensure there’s no debate with the other side, since that’s how they make their millions.
Skibum says
I appreciate the fact that “I Am Charlie Kirk” somewhat apologized for making an inaccurate statement, after he attempted to clarify what he apparently wanted to say. But in doing so, he further muddies the water, saying Kirk’s racist comment about black women not having the brain processing power to be taken seriously only was targeted at specific individuals like Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson… but inexplicably was not meant to apply to black women in general. REALLY???
REALLY? If prominent women of power, intelligence and influence like those specifically listed above are supposedly not the ones who have the brain processing power to be taken seriously, I must ask, just who the hell does “I Am Charlie Kirk” think does? Will he give all of us the names of prominent black women he admires for their brain processing power… who he does take seriously… so we all can join him in his pool of common, unbiased, admiration of black women?
Please enlighten us mere mortals with your infinite wisdom so we make bask in it’s radiance.
Foresee says
Is “I am Charlie Kirk” a human? The arguments of “Charlie” sound like arguments generated by an AI chatbot by enemies of the US meant to foment division.
Pierre Tristam says
@ Foresee. Huh. I hadn’t thought of that. Entirely possible.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@ Skibum- Let’s not pretend outrage is the same as understanding. At no point did I “somewhat apologize” for anything — I clarified a mischaracterization that had been repeated and amplified to paint Charlie Kirk’s words as a blanket attack on all Black women. That’s false. It may be offensive, and many found it so — but misquoting it for extra effect only erodes credibility.
Was the comment blunt? Absolutely. Was it targeted? Yes. Kirk was responding — critically, and yes, harshly — to individuals he believed were advancing a political narrative around affirmative action, not making a sweeping judgment on all Black women as a category. If we’re going to insist on intellectual honesty, then context matters — even when we don’t like what was said.
As for your challenge to “name” Black women who meet some arbitrary approval test — that kind of demand is exactly the rhetorical trap Charlie’s critics often set: bait someone into “proving” they aren’t racist by listing examples, then attack the list for being too short, too selective, or not sincere enough. It’s performative, not productive.
We can debate the merits of Kirk’s opinions, tone, or delivery all day long — but inventing broader intent than what was said isn’t truth-seeking. It’s narrative-building. And ironically, that’s exactly the kind of political spin Charlie often exposed and challenged.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@Laurel- Let’s stop pretending Charlie Kirk said “all Black women lack brain power.” That’s not what he said, and everyone repeating it knows it. He called out specific individuals — powerful, high-profile political figures — because he believed they were promoted more for ideology and identity than merit. You can disagree with him (plenty do), but twisting his words into blanket racism is dishonest and lazy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was a DEI hire. Biden promised to name a black woman to the Supreme Court. Based on her votes and comments it certainly confirms it. She could not even define what a women is! Harris was a DEI hire as well. WE see how well that turned out!
And yes, Charlie believed in marriage, family, faith, hard work. So what? That doesn’t mean he was trying to control your life. It means he was offering young people a different message than the one blasted at them 24/7. That’s not “bigotry,” that’s a cultural debate. If you’re confident in your life choices, great. Why does someone saying there’s another way get you so worked up?
I didn’t say ALL women had regrets about not having children or not getting married. But many often do. Young people should have an informed choice in what direction to take their lives. More often than not they are not not to have children, that they do not need a man, in fact they might not even be a woman in the first place! Getting married and having children can be a beautiful thing. Hearing confirmation of that has been very healing for many young women. Also for men it can be good thing as well.
What’s funny is people talk about “honest debate” while shutting it down the second someone says something uncomfortable. Charlie didn’t flinch from those conversations. That’s why people listened to him — and why people still are.
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Wow — so instead of engaging with what I said, we’re jumping straight to “you must be a bot”? That says more about your comfort with opposing viewpoints than it does about me.
Yes, I’m human. No, I don’t parrot talking points from “enemies of the US.” I’m just someone who thinks disagreement isn’t treason and conversation doesn’t equal conspiracy. Are we starting a Russiagate conspiracy on Flaglerlive because I am responding to topics that are very important to me?
I am a Charlie Kirk supporter.
Maybe it’s easier to believe a chatbot wrote what I said than to admit that someone could actually see things differently — and do it respectfully, without shouting or name-calling. But that’s exactly the kind of civil dialogue Charlie Kirk encouraged. Debate ideas. Don’t dehumanize people for having them.
Sherry says
@Foresee. . . Yowza! An AI Chatbot? I’m thinking you just may be on to something. . . the nihilism in the comments speaks volumes! Pierre, is there any way you can confirm that all these posting were not created by AI?
I am Charlie Kirk! says
@JC- Let’s get one thing straight: pointing out that the E. Jean Carroll case was civil, not criminal, and that Trump was not convicted of rape, isn’t “defending rape.” It’s defending accuracy. If that makes me “reactionary,” then maybe what’s actually outdated is this habit of treating legal facts as moral heresy. If someone had a choice to whether to be sexually assault or actually being raped, I think we know what the choice would be. Personally I don’t believe Carroll. It makes no sense. She didn’t scream, made no police report, and this happened in a department store. There was no witnesses. This was politically motivated.
If the allegations are true of course it is a horrible thing to do, it still is not the same thing as being raped as the law defines it.
Skibum says
To: “I Am Charlie Kirk”, I hope you reassess my offer and decide to give your honest opinion as to which well known black women you believe have the brain processing power to be taken seriously, anyone. This is not a “gotcha”… I would really be interested to know if there are those who you would be willing to list, just as an FYI, so I could actually believe that there are some, any at all. Or maybe not, who knows.
Charlie Kirk told about a black pilot who he would have wondered whether or not he was a DEI plant who was not otherwise a qualified, capable pilot, only because of the color of his skin. Kirk would have worried whether it was safe to board that pilot’s plane.
If you think about it, that has to be a horrible way for someone to live their life. Wondering if a black pilot might be a safety risk if you decide to step onto a plane. Wow, what if it were a black WOMAN pilot… a double whammy. ‘Oh hell no!’ he might say. To have that kind of thought process about all sorts of professions, going through life and coming in contact with minorities everywhere in society, and having a thought process, a belief system that makes one first wonder if a person might be a safety risk or might kill them just because of that person’s skin color is so far fetched to my way of thinking that I could not imagine living that way.
I’m reminded of a flight I took with one of my aunts many years ago in CA. We were flying from LAX to Mammoth Lakes in northern CA to visit my grandparents. While waiting at the gate, my aunt saw two pilots walk by and go through the gate, one of them being a tall, middle aged black man. She turned to me and gestured to him, and in a low voice said in my ear “I hope he is not our pilot.” I was kind of shocked but just shrugged it off. Lo and behold, when we boarded our plane, a twin engine turboprop “puddle jumper”, the black pilot was standing in the aisle next to the cockpit, welcoming each passenger aboard.
Since the plane we were on was one of the smaller type aircraft, passengers up front could see the cockpit and watch the air crew fly the plane the entire trip, and my aunt and I were near the front. Near our destination, there were strong winds tossing that plane around, and we were all holding on as the black pilot attempted a landing at the Mammoth Lakes airport. There was a significant crosswind, and the pilot was fighting that wind, and finally at the last moment he lifted back into the air and came around for a second attempt. The second attempt to land was unsuccessful as well, and a look through the cabin showed all of us passengers holding on for dear life. That pilot came on the PA system and calmly told us that the winds were pretty severe, but he was going to attempt one last landing attempt from the opposite direction, and if that failed, he would have to divert to Bishop, CA.
On the final landing, I was watching that pilot struggle against the wind, trying to get that plane lined up properly with the runway, and he did get down low enough to be able to plant those wheels on that pavement despite the howling crosswind, and we all breathed a sigh of relief. As we deplaned, that pilot was again standing in the aisle by the cockpit, and my aunt stopped and thanked him, and told that man she was very glad that HE was the one flying that plane in such windy and turbulent conditions!
I believe too many people have this false assumption that every Caucasian employee was able to get the job or promotion because of their qualifications, but also are deluded into agreeing with falsehoods that pander disinformation about minorities, saying they only got their positions, or promotions, because of hiring quotas, or diversity efforts, etc. and those people are there despite being unqualified.
The truth is that people of all races get hired or promoted for various reasons other than just qualifications alone. We have all heard of the “good ole boy system”, haven’t we? We know for a fact that many more white job applicants are hired, more white employees are promoted over minorities just because of THEIR race, and that is ok, but if it happens to a black person then people yell and scream about “reverse discrimination” and saying without any proof that the black person was not qualified or was simply a “DEI” hire.
Charlie Kirk was supposed to be intelligent, but for him to suggest that an airline would put a totally unqualified person of ANY race in the pilot’s seat and jeopardize the safety of passengers and the reputation of the airline just to make a racial hiring quota is tantamount to insanity. But that shows the mindset of the extremist, white nationalist, pseudo-Christian Kirk, who was said by his followers to be spreading the word of Christ… total and unabashed BS nonsense. But it gained him a lot of converts who believed the same nonsense and wanted validation, and it made Kirk a TON of money in the process.
So again, to “I Am Charlie Kirk”… I would ask you to please reconsider and just offer your opinion on who, if any, black women you believe fit the criteria we are debating about. No judgement, I really want your opinion. I’ll offer a few of my favorite black women of history: Poet Maya Angelou, and Katherine Johnson, the NASA math genius and the other black women working at NASA in the 60s whos’ stories were told in the film “Hidden Figures”.
Foresee says
“Researchers at the University of Notre Dame conducted a study using AI bots based on large language models — a type of AI developed for language understanding and text generation — and asked human and AI bot participants to engage in political discourse on a customized and self-hosted instance of Mastodon, a social networking platform.
The experiment was conducted in three rounds with each round lasting four days. After every round, human participants were asked to identify which accounts they believed were AI bots.
Fifty-eight percent of the time, the participants got it wrong.”
https://news.nd.edu/news/ai-among-us-social-media-users-struggle-to-identify-ai-bots-during-political-discourse/
“These malicious bots amplify disinformation campaigns, create echo chambers, and manipulate trending topics, all aimed at influencing public discourse and potentially swaying election outcomes. The sheer volume of these bots on platforms like X is staggering. In 2017, it was estimated that nearly a quarter of X’s users were bots, responsible for over two-thirds of the platform’s tweets. This massive bot presence allows for the rapid dissemination and amplification of disinformation, making it increasingly difficult for users to discern fact from fiction.”
https://disa.org/combating-election-disinformation-understanding-and-protecting-yourself-from-ai-powered-bots/
JC says
I am Charlie Kirk!: I want to be clear that I didn’t say anything about E. Jean Carroll, and honestly I don’t care.
Laurel says
I said I wouldn’t be back, but I’m glad to come back to read some of the responses here.
Two things to acknowledge: Pierre Tristam, good article, thank you and here is 100! Skibum, you’re still one of my BFFs!
I loved Skibum’s story about his aunt. My dad was a good man, and he loved me beyond recognition. My mom and dad got divorced when I was a toddler. My mom raised me to be open minded, and taught me many very interesting things. One, was to accept people for who they are, and not judge them on superficials, such as skin color.
I remember, one day, my dad took me to Royal Castle in Dania. There, sitting at the counter were young black people, mostly men. The restaurant was full of people loudly commenting about how the young people were somehow ruining, I don’t know, whatever. My dad was one of them. I didn’t understand it! They just wanted to order hamburgers, as far as I was concerned. What was wrong with that? Why was my dad upset? To this day, I remember that very well.
I will probably re-comment the following again:
diversity /dĭ-vûr′sĭ-tē, dī-/
noun
The quality or condition of being diverse.
“a band known for the diversity of its music. ”
The condition of having or including people from different ethnicities and social backgrounds.
“diversity on campus.”
A variety or assortment.
“a diversity of opinions.”
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
equity /ĕk′wĭ-tē/
noun
The state or quality of being just and fair. Something that is just and fair. Justice achieved not simply according to the strict letter of the law but in accordance with principles of substantial justice and the unique facts of the case.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
inclusion /ĭn-kloo͞′zhən/
noun
The act of including or the state of being included. Something included. A solid, liquid, or gaseous foreign body enclosed in a mineral or rock.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Again, I ask, what’s wrong with that?
I am Charlie Kirk! says
Pierre- Congratulations on 100 comments! That is what Charlie would like to see. More dialogue.
JimB says
Written with an abundance of hate by a wanna be journalist.