Glenn Logan, an experienced and excellent blogger now fortunately ensconced at Ethics Alarms, contributed the Comment of the Day in response to “Regarding the Charlie Kirk Assassination”… and here it is:
***
We never know at this point what kind of inflection point this moment is, or where it will lead. I have often thought that events like the Trump shooting would be the match that lit the fire. I have thankfully been wrong about most of this, so I will decline to try to read the tea leaves.
I have seen a lot of online anger, but it has been mostly modulated anger. That in itself is a significant distinguishing characteristic between the rhetoric of the right and left in such cases. If Charlie Kirk had been a high-profile leftist, we’d most likely be hearing calls for violent vengeance. I have seen none of that — not saying it doesn’t exist, it probably does, but it is neither common nor pervasive.
But that does not mean that the anger will not blow up, especially if the shooter is caught and turns out to be what most of us fear.
Also, I have some concern for the reaction of the administration. As usual, President Trump sets his better angels right beside the guy with the pointy horns on his shoulder, and lets them both speak. This is the kind of event that can be used to justify a lot of bad stuff, and Charlie Kirk was well known by almost everyone in the current administration, and by all reports, virtually impossible to dislike.
The combination of the brutal murder on the Charlotte train and this assassination in close proximity has even me, who didn’t pay that much attention to Kirk, with my head spinning and inappropriate thoughts encroaching on my day. It is hard to assimilate this much horror — it almost reminds me of 9/11, even though it is only two people. I think that is largely due to the fact that both events were perpetrated (most likely) by fellow Americans, and caught on camera in dreadfully lurid detail.
Assassinations, particularly of the innocent (and Kirk was an innocent despite his activism) strike home in a way that mass murder does not — it is personal rather than indiscriminate, and directed rather than circumstantial. To me, that makes it even more jarring and galvanizing. We are living that famous Chinese curse about interesting times, and Kirk’s assassination brings home to me why that is a curse.
In closing, I will point out that while the rife shot that took Kirk’s life was not extremely long, the assassin doubtless had significant shooting skills, at least that of a skilled hunter or fairly long-term practice. It is not an easy thing to take a life, much less a human life, and to handle the stress of that and execute a 200-yard shot at a human target is… pretty exceptional. It may not be likely, but there is a significant chance that this was done by a professional killer. If so, he will likely escape justice. In fact, that may be how we know.
Ethics Alarms 
Congratulations, Glenn. The COTD honor is well-deserved.
By the way, there are already at least three books on the Kirk assassination (one a hardback) available on Amazon.
How is THAT possible?!?
Thanks, Joel.
“By the way, there are already at least three books on the Kirk assassination (one a hardback) available on Amazon. How is THAT possible?!?”
My guess would be crappy AI-generated work dumped out by opportunists.
Thanks for the COTD, Jack.
People on the right have been persecuted for years over what they say online. I’m guessing that the anger is not modulated at all, the right just isn’t stupid enough to say what they really want to say.
The left has shown themselves to be evil incarnate and I personally no longer feel any compunctions about treating them as such. The organizations they have setup as violence incubators, such as Antifa, should be designated terrorist organizations and prosecuted out of existence. Licenses should be pulled from so called news organizations that foment violence, such as MSNBC. The non-profits funding the violence should be prosecuted out of existence.
I’m not interested in tip-toeing around the anarcho-terrorists anymore. I don’t care why they think and feel the way they do. I don’t care what they want. I want them crushed. Eradicated. Eliminated. That is the censored version of my opinion. My actual opinion has a lot more profanity and rage.
Add to that a school shooting. Do we care about the people? Charlie Cooks family and young university students witnessed something traumatic. A child walked into his school and shot his peers.
All the media can say about it is political.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-news/evergreen-high-school-police-activity/73-5cd88208-53b6-461c-96d3-f10ae4c7d1fe
Nice work, as always, Glenn. Thanks.
Thank you.
What OB said!
PWS
Excellent essay Glenn.
Thanks, Chris. It was supposed to be just a comment. Must’ve got carried away. 🙂
Do you really think the right has been carefully modulating its anger, compared to how the Democrats responded to the political assassination in Minneapolis? I don’t remember any calls for violence by ANY elected Democrats, at any level, nor do I recall major leftwing pundits doing that. Here’s a tiny selection of such pretty major voices on rightwing twitter, calling for violent vengeance after Kirk. If you can find me someone of equal stature calling for violence after a Democrat was a victim (say the judge whose son was killed in a targeted attack on her home, or Minneapolis, or the attempt to kill Pelosi that nearly killed her husband, or even January 6th. I can find a lot of Dems calling for gun control, calling for prosecution…but not calling for civil war or violence. LibsofTikTok& @libsoftiktok
THISISWAR.
12:57 PM -Sep 10, 2025 •2.8M Views
Gunther EaglemanTM O @GuntherEagleman
They’ve declared war. 2:06PM-Sep10,2025•336KViews
Elon Musk @ x @elonmusk •6 h TheLeftisthepartyofmurder
Joey M a n n a r i n o @JoeyMannarinoUS
The Democrat party is a domestic terrorist organization whose most fanatics will not hesitate to murder their politicalopponents.This was not a one-off event.
The Democrat Party must be classified as a domestic terror organization and their members leaders treated accordingly.
Enough is enough.
1 2 : 2 3 PM – S e p 1 0 , 2 0 2 5 • 1 5 0 . 3 K V i e w s
Christopher F. Rufo X O @realchrisrufo
Follow
0 . . .
words to be said. The only way this ends is the complete annihilation of the democrat party.
Matt Forney:
Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned under RICO
Democrats need to be labeled a terrorist organization. Every libtard commentator must be shut down.
Laura Loomer: It’s time for the Trump administration to shutdown, defund, &prosecute every single Leftist organization.
The Left is a national security threat.
That’s just a very small selection. There are MANY MANY voices calling for violence against Democrats, for prosecution of Democrats, for taking away the free speech of Democrats. Again, try to find a Democratic response like that from people on Twitter when Democrats were killed by right-wingers. Laura Loomer is a major figure in this administration, who has influence with Trump. She’s labeled the entire Left a national security threat…because of a shooting….when we don’t know who did it. No Democrat called for violence against Kirk. If it is a leftist, I can almost guarantee it is a leftist with no formal connection to the party.
So I see a lot of problems with the Comment of the Day.
uh-uh-ahh! You’re cheating..did you really think you could sneak that by? That was not, by any definition, a “politiacl assassination” in Minnesota. It was a mass school shooting.
I was talking about the speaker of the MN House who was killed with her husband by a Trump supporter. And I think it’s worth noting that when a prominent Democrat was assassinated by a right-winger, and another Democratic politician was terribly wounded, the President didn’t call the governor, didn’t lower flags, didn’t issue a statement of mourning….BUT…when Kirk was killed, a number of leading Democrats issued statements grieving the killing of Kirk, expressing sympathy for his wife and children. The statement by Obama was heartfelt…Trump is capable of expressing sympathy, he lowered the flags for the Catholic school shooting in MN, but…not for the MN political assassination. He did it for Kirk…but not for the MN political assassination.
Again–neither party has done enough to control its extreme voices. Some ugly things were said in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump. BUT–not by a SINGLE elected Democrat at any level of politics. Not by a prominent pundit that I’m aware of.
WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO SHOT KIRK. I agree it’s most likely a left-winger, but we’ve been wrong before. It could be a mentally ill person. It could be a Groyper, a murky violent rightwing group that has gotten violent with TPUSA in the past? It could be a false flag by a foreign enemy desiring more upheaval in America. It could be yet something else, or some combination of the above–humans are complicated Yet…so much of the right wing discourse 1) assumes it’s a Democrat/Lefty and 2)responds by advocating violence or a government crackdown on the Democrats. I very much doubt this person is a Democrat, even if they are on the left. The far right disdain for Establishment Republicans? It’s equaled by far left disdain for mainstream Democrats, if not exceeded.
“Again–neither party has done enough to control its extreme voices. “
What part of the 1st amendment don’t you like? Government cannot control what people say. The only ones who believe they should too often fall on the left of center. It is they who define what must be said and what cannot be uttered by certain individuals.
It is completely reasonable for people to make snap comments when they believe they have been assaulted – even indirectly. What I am not seeing is Toni subdivisions in Northern Virgina, Massachusetts and other areas with large number of very liberal voters who are happy about the killing being burned to the ground like what happened to major cities across the US in 1968 when MLK was assassinated and again when Rodney King was beaten and again when George Floyd who died while resisting arrest because of the Fentanyl in his system.
There is a force on the left that gins up people to behave violently. There are certainly extreme elements on the right who need prosecution for actual crimes they commit but not the ideas they espouse. I might think differently if those groups were effective in changing minds to their ideas but it is obvious that that is not the case. The only people pushing moderates further right is the demands and violence from the left.
Good clarification. I was NOT calling for government action against speech. Rather–if you are a Democratic leader or liberal pundit, call out hateful dehumanizing speech on the left. If you are a Republican leader or pundit, call out dehumanizing speech on the right. Let’s remember what William F. Buckley did–he methodically and relentlessly got John Birchers and their conspiracy theories and their anti-Semitism out of conservatism. We need more of that today. On both sides.
Incidentally, sources are reporting that in the aftermath of Kirk’s killing, the WH is thinking of ways to punish those on the left who use violent speech. So the desire to punish speech seems to not be only on the left?
I also don’t think cities were BURNED TO THE GROUND in the aftermath of George Floyd. Some demonstrations got violent, and some buildings were damaged. But it’s as nothing compared to April 1968. More than 100 cities erupted in often violent riots that lasted for days (one of the heroes of that time was James Brown, oddly enough–he kept a major city from burning for a few days, I think it was Boston?) And the scope of the LA riots of 1992 was so much greater than what happened to Minneapolis or any city after Floyd. That’s whether you measure it by lives lost, or dollars of damage, or whatever. Mind you, I’m not saying the Floyd riots were not bad, just that their effect should not be exaggerated.
He was probably referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators not the more recent school shooting. I’d have to scavenge more info on it, but this at least appears to have been politically motivated.
I still don’t think the Esther Salas or Paul Pelosi attack are truly analogous, for a number of reasons. The attacker was known, the links to politics were questionable. There was a lot of reiterated hate for Nancy Pelosi at the time though. I think a large part of the current right wing efforts is response to the hate that had been directed at Kirk.
I seem to recall a lot of kinda-sorta support for the person who killed the insurance CEO. I’m debating how much I really want to go digging on the other cases. I certainly remember a lot of people celebrating the attack on Rand Paul by his neighbor, but I’d have to dig to see if anyone arguably mainstream participated.
very reasonable reply, and I agree that the attacker on Pelosi is a mixed case–he was clearly motivated by politics, but more crazy than say, the MN political assassin, who had a list of elected Democrats, and had some political savvy. And I agree, there was a LOT of sympathy for the killer of that health executive on the left, and it was disgusting. A lot of “why should we mourn this man’s death, when he CAUSED so many innocents to die by health claim denials!” A lot of celebrating the killer, and a weird sexualization of him as well.
jdkazoo123 wrote:
Do you really think the right has been carefully modulating its anger, compared to how the Democrats responded to the political assassination in Minneapolis?
I do. Your comment does nothing to dissuade me from that. What I see are calls for legal and political ramifications, not violence. You probably should try to figure out the difference. Seems those on the left call everything they don’t like “violence.”
I hate to resort to whataboutism, but honestly, have you seen what Democrats have been saying on Bluesky? Not only have they been dancing an enthusiastic jig on Kirk’s grave, but they are straightforwardly speculating on who they might try to assassinate next — familiar names like Trump, Vance, Ben Shapiro, even JK Rowling. They aren’t talking arresting or charging them, but rather straight up murder.
That rarely happens on the right. So I suspect your perspective is rather biased. Mine is too, of course, but the facts happen to be on my side.
Can you provide any names or links or screenshots of people on the left salivating on who to kill next? I spend some time on rightwing Twitter, and on leftwing Bluesky, and haven’t seen that. I provided a number of conservative Twitter accounts that are already calling for mass arrests of the left in response to the Kirk shooting. Is that “non-violent” in your vocabulary? Was the response by the Nazis to the Reichstag fire “non-violent”? In my opinion, going to someone’s door, armed, with an arrest warrant, and forcibly placing them into custody is violent. Doing so when the person is judged to be a suspect in a crime is appropriate. It would not be appropriate now. I agree, BTW, that the left has gone way too far in labeling speech violent. Speech can NEVER be violent. I’ve had that argument many times with lefties.
The prominent Democrats and elected officials are astute enough to realize that this could be a tipping point that finally unmasks the 21st Century American Left for what it has metastasized into: a doctrinaire, Machiavellian, totalitarianism-aspiring, anti-American, violent and dangerous cult that rejects basic Constitutional values and democratic traditions, and will use any means necessary to gain permanent power to remake the nation’s political system and culture. The majority of American have been apathetic or in denial, or complicit in this agenda. The Axis is, obviously, terrified that the jig is up, meaning a slaughter at the polls and the marginalization of their party.
That’s why they have been restrained. And that’s why the Right smells blood in the water, and is going in for the metaphorical kill. It will be better for everyone if it is successful.
If I could add a Turley link from February 8 2025.
“WE ARE AT WAR!”: Democrats Ramp Up Rage Rhetoric as Tensions Mount Across the Country – JONATHAN TURLEY
. . . “Many of those fueling the anger are familiar names. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) declared “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D, Md.) claimed on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” that Musk and Trump were conducting a “rapidly expanding and accelerating coup.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) appeared to be working off the same talking point and declared that a “coup” was being carried out.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) warned that Musk was “taking away everything we have.”
Despite voting to impeach Trump for calling for his supporters to “fight” against his opponents (while adding to do so “peacefully”), many used the same rhetoric to spur the left to action.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.) said “We are here to fight back.” Sen. Cory Booker (D., NJ) called on citizens to “fight” and declared “We will rise up.”
Not to be outdone in the rage fest, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., TX) yelled, “We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.”
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D., N.J.) added: “God d—it shut down the Senate!…WE ARE AT WAR!”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to fight “in the streets.”
In my recent book, I discuss the role of rage rhetoric in our politics extending back to the very beginning of the Republic:
Worse yet, it can inspire unhinged citizens who actually believe that this is a war against a coup. That relieves some of any qualms about taking violent action. It is the type of rhetoric that can prompt anti-Republican Nicholas John Roske to try to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson to try to massacre Republican members playing softball.
I still oppose those calling for investigations into such rage rhetoric despite my strong disagreement with these figures. The solution to bad speech is still better speech. The hypocrisy of these leaders is hardly surprising in an age of rage. However, “the rage is not what defines us. It is free speech that defines us.”
This was less than 3 weeks after Trump’s inauguration. Very prescient.
I want to JDKazoo to provide evidence that Republican lawmakers called on constituents to “rise up” or “fight in the streets”. Any one that has needs to be removed from office come election time.
Follow this link for your answer
OOps. Somehow screwed up
Here you go.
Much appreciated. I had not seen these, obviously. It truly does support your claim, for the most part. I will note that none of these people have a big influence on the left. One has SEVEN followers. The big collection of right-wingers calling for violence has folks with real influence, like Loomer, and Alex Jones. I took my quotes from a graphic, but can’t seem to figure out how to post it. Here’s an article that covers much of them, though: https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-reactions-charlie-kirk-shooting-civil-war/
Funny story–I started with the top left account you gave, and found–no such quote. Next one, no such quote. Third, no such quote–I was thinking some rightwinger had created a false flag document, and you got fooled. But the 4th one posted the blusky message saying “We removed content that advocated violence” So I’m assuming that was the case with the others. It is a tertiary question–if, as we all seem to agree, violent rhetoric is bad for a democracy (not as bad, to be sure, as the violence itself)…should social media sites have policies to remove comments that call for violence? Blusky does that. X no longer does. I definitely don’t want the government to do it, but should social media sites have neutral policies against calling for violence against specific individuals or groups?
Alex Jones and Laura Loomer would be the equivalents of Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson at this point, professor: marginal wackos who warrant no respect at all and have become increasingly repulsive to responsible conservatives. On the other hand, virtually every major Democratic Party leader embraced the “MAGA is Fascism and Trump (and Charlie Kirk) are Racist Nazis trying to end democracy” theme. They are keeping quiet now because they fear that a really big, angry chicken may be coming home to roost.
Loomer, Owens, Jones, and Carlson have HUGE followings, particularly Carlson. Loomer, in addition, has a direct line to Trump. She’s widely seen by neutral observers as motivating several personnel decisions. Maybe that’s all false, but even the perception of power in Washington creates power and influence. Her words seem to matter. Carlson even after he was fired by Fox got sit down interviews with major world figures. Candace Owen can tour America and make money on speaking engagements. These are not nobodies, and not fringe. Even that nutcase Alex Jones still has followers, still has a megaphone.
No matter who they are, there are a lot of them, don’t you think?
To answer your tertiary question, I think it depends on the site as to what their removal policy is. Violent rhetoric is, at it’s core, nothing other than speech. It is not, as some leftists claim, “violence,” and just because some people allow themselves to be incited isn’t an indictment of the site, it is an indictment of the stupid, emo people who allow it to penetrate their consciousness and motivate them to evil.
Obviously, as you say, the government should not be in the business of suppressing even violent rhetoric. My preference would be to allow more speech rather than less. I am capable of acting like an adult and not rushing off to do harm to innocent people because of something someone said. Perhaps it’s just me, though.
I agree 100% Glenn. You are not alone.
Unfortunately neither are some others
55% of Survey Respondents on Left Say Assassinating Trump ‘Partially Justifiable’ | AllSides
55% of Survey Respondents on Left Say Assassinating Trump ‘Partially Justifiable’
Summary from the AllSides News Team
A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers found that “over half of those who self-identified as left of center (55.2%) reported that if someone murdered Donald Trump, they would be at least somewhat justified.”
The Details: Nearly 49% of “left-of-center” respondents felt the same for Elon Musk, and 58% felt that destroying Tesla dealerships is “partially acceptable.” The study also found that “Left-Wing Authoritarianism, usage of BlueSky, and support for Luigi Mangione are strongly associated with justification of different acts of violence against Tesla, Trump, and Musk.”
For Context: The survey polled 1264 U.S. residents, “balanced to reflect Census data on race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education.” Straight Arrow News (Center bias) described the NCRI as “a nonpartisan organization that tracks online extremist hate.” The study didn’t list the exact questions respondents were asked, but rather summarized them and respondents’ feedback.
How The Media Covered It: AllSides did not find coverage from the left. Straight Arrow News, which highlighted that only sources on the right covered the story, was the only Center-rated source AllSides found coverage from. Some outlets from the right described “left-of-center” respondents as “leftist” in headlines.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission.
A sample size of 1264 if it is balanced to reflect various demographics is large enough to extrapolate society wide attitudes. To draw any other conclusions without access to the wording of the questions would be speculation.
Also more here:
And to complete the trifecta:
Glenn,
Those are screenshots, not links. I have a hard time reading these.
Right click, open image in new tab. You’ll be able to read them fine. Or, just right click and open.
Incidentally IN THIS VERY DISCUSSION one of the commenters called the left “Evil incarnate” and that he advocated treating them as such. Well, first of all, neither side possesses a monopoly on morality or truth. And neither side is evil incarnate–I don’t think anything human is. The commenter went on to say that he wants all left wing groups “eradicated” “crushed”…if you can find me something that vile, that rage-filled, that filled with dehumanizing menace, on Bluesky, provide a link.
Also–there’s another possible killer. The Groypers hate TPUSA. They’ve tried to disrupt their events for YEARS. Killing Kirk would serve their rightwing nationalist aims all too well. https://www.salon.com/2021/07/17/right-wing-student-group-turning-point-usa-struggles-to-bar-white-nationalists-from-gathering/
Thanks, but you really sent me a link to Salon? Heh.
That would be like me sending you a link to The Federalist or Redstate or Breitbart.
If we are going to communicate on this point, we have to find middle ground to debate it on. I don’t believe anything Salon writes — not saying it might not be accurate, but they lost my trust years ago.
OK, how about Vox? Or, just google Groyper TPUSA war of 2019. The essential story is that Nick Fuentes and the neoNazis he hangs with have been angry that TPUSA isn’t racist enough, isn’t anti-Third World immigration enough, so they disrupted his campus events. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/11/20948317/alt-right-donald-trump-jr-conservative-tpusa-yaf-racism-antisemitism
With all due respect, I know more about Vox than any of you — I used to work for them. There is no real daylight between their bias and that of Salon. Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos was co-founder.
Look, I take your point, I think — you are trying to suggest it was the extreme right wing who shot Kirk. Given that we don’t know for sure yet exactly what the shooter’s motivation was, I can’t and won’t scoff at that. I consider it unlikely, but I can’t rule it out until we know more.
But let’s be honest — the bullet with “Hey fascist, catch!” written on it is pretty damning.
jdkazoo123
Maybe you want to respond to the following tweet from the late great Charlie Kirk made last May.
My take is that if around 50% of the left is comfortable with political violence including assassinations, there should be intense soul searching with the Democrat party about the culture within their party. Right now the impression is taking hold that the a domestic terrorist organization as the Antifa is the terrorist wing of the Democrats, and the Democrats are the political wing of the Antifa. These impressions may be a bit of the mark, however the demonization of political opponents of the Democrats by Joe Biden and the Kamala Harris campaign has led to a culture accepting of violent protests and riots, destruction of property (burning Tesla’s) and now assassinations.
I only have to look at all the Tiktok’s and tweets with gleeful reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death; I can provide you the links if you do not believe me.
So I would ask you, are you not embarrassed with the conduct and level of discourse of the left?
I think I’ve been pretty consistent saying that both sides need to criticize their own extremes. So yes, I am disgusted with folks on the left who said “I hope the bullet is ok” in regards to Kirk, or called for others to be shot next. That was wrong. But I also am disgusted by calls for Reichstag fire actions against Democrats, leftwing groups or funders, who had as far as anyone knows, NOTHING to do with this. Even if Democrats have said dehumanizing things about the Right (and some have), we who believe that speech cannot be action, cannot be violence itself, don’t want to see government CRUSH those people, do we?
If anything over 25% of a group support something, although still a minority, it’s not really fringe or extreme.
If it’s over 50%, as with killing Trump, then it’s the mainstream view of that group. You may want to consider the possibility that you are a minority on the left despite your low personal exposure. If you don’t consider yourself left wing as such, I may have misunderstood some things. I can certainly understand placing yourself with one group in general while having disagreements with most of that group on some issues. I’m in the same boat with libertarians.
OTOH, polls are worthless. Online Polls, doubly so.
Social media dwellers are not a representative sample.
The Democrats need to review and denounce the messaging of the last decades demonizing Trump, the GOP, the Tea Party, and conservatives, as Nazi, racist, fascist, and whatever other words of abuse they used. That would be a good start for a conversation. That would instill some hope and faith for the future, and a better political climate.
I hope you agree that response of the Democrats and the MSM after Charlie Kirk’s death is not going to cut it. And I do not think anybody from the left should have the gumption to criticize conservatives for their tone while the casket of Charlie Kirk’s body is still above the ground.
Just stating a fact. Your attempts to minimize the complete and total culpability of the left for the political assassination of Charlie Kirk proves my point. The left is evil.
We don’t even know if the shooter is leftist at this point. And even if he is, why is the entire left responsible for the acts of one leftist? Is the entire right responsible for the assassination in Minneapolis? For the attack on Paul Pelosi?
One of the problems on social media right now is the outrage spiral. Someone on the left says something outrageously violent, like, as Glen has shown “Rowling is next!” Then, somebody on the right takes that to represent the entire left, or at least a big portion of it, when it might be a doofus with 7 followers. They post something like “The Left must be Eradicated! CRUSHED.” This is gathered together by lefties and passed around, and they assume this represents the feelings of the right.
The truth is, neither comment reflects the majority of either the right or the left, I think. Both are better than their worst. America’s enemies want us to tear each other apart, want us to hate each other. Let’s not give them what they want. There are good people on both sides, and in the middle. Discourse is still possible.
Charlie Kirk tried talking to the left, and the left killed him for it. The time for discourse is over. It is time for action.
I don’t even read social media. I have no social media accounts. This isn’t some outrage spiral. The left is killing people for not agreeing with them. They started a war. If you want to do something about that war, you need to go to your own side and start calling out the extremism in a meaningful way. You aren’t going to stop it by telling the people you’re killing to calm down and live with the slaughter.
We are having this discussion on a blog that at least mimics the dynamics of social media? Some would define it as social media. So you kind of DO read social media. And having read some stuff here at EA–you would, if you ONLY read EA, think that the Left is evil incarnate. Maybe…or maybe the worst elements of the left, constructed in the least charitable, most malign way, can be depicted, just as leftwing blogs do to conservatives?
Curious–it’s not a time for discourse, it’s a time for action? So what action? (and also–you kind of ARE engaging in discourse by talking to me, so thanks.)
Finally–you would be making a stronger call to action if you acknowledged the violence on the right. The murder in Minneapolis of the House speaker. Clearly committed by a rightwinger for political reasons. There are many others. There is violence on both sides–not seeing that is part of the problem, I think.
I don’t need to be radicalized by reading right wing media. All I have to do is read the things leftists say. Right now you are trying a both-sides dodge over the murders of Melissa Hartman and her husband by claiming the murderer was clearly a right winger. That is a specious claim. Vance Boelter was NOT clearly a right winger. He had been nominated by Tim Waltz to serve as a Business Member on the Governor’s Workforce Development Board. He was arrested with a stack of No Kings flyers in his car. After the links to Walz were discovered, the story vanished from the news. I have no idea what his actual political ideology was, or what was in his manifesto. I do know the first reaction of the left to any and all violence is to immediately start screaming “RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS” at the top of their lungs. I also know that stories vanish from the media the instant that reality diverges from the leftwing narrative.
The left has been calling everyone who disagrees with them Nazis, fascists, existential threats to democracy, racists, homophobes, xenophobia, transphobes, garbage, deplorables, bitter clingers, white supremacists, extremists, and lots more in an effort to gin up violence against the right for the last 20 years. You got what you wanted. Constant violence against the right. Your problem is you started a war, when what you wanted was the right cowering in fear. It didn’t go the way you planned, so now you want to talk. No.
The entire Left isn’t responsible for pulling the trigger. One shooter is. But a LARGE swath of the Left is willing to euphemize actual physical violence, reducing it to a form of speech. They are willing to celebrate the death of an opponent and the man who pulled the trigger, and they are more than willing to come up with a list of “next” targets…and commit them, in writing, to the public internet.
And that doesn’t even begin to include the whole “nazi, racist, hitler, stalin, existential threat” monikers that get applied to the entire other side of the political spectrum.
Your side has some ground to make up in the entire realm of civil discourse.
Again, I agree. blanket statements about Trump supporters being Nazis are utterly inaccurate and also damaging to discourse. They can also inspire the mentally ill and the delusional to be violent. Calling someone a Nazi makes some people think killing them is okay, because Nazis are totalitarians.
But so was calling Kamala a communist (see if you can remember a very prominent conservative doing that.) She’s not. (nor is Mamdani, but at least he’s a socialist) There is very little support for antifa anywhere in the democratic party. I would venture that not ONE elected Democrat has met with an antifa leader, anywhere. BUT–Nick Fuentes is a neo-Nazi. A white nationalist. An advocate for open racism and violence. Trump met with him. Dined with him. So did Republican members of Congress. So both sides need to call out the extremists, right? Language that packs all Republicans or Democrats into extreme groups like Communist or Nazi, racist or antifa, aren’t accurate. Are there some Republicans who are espousing things that can lead to authoritarianism? Sure. Are there some Democrats who are espousing things that can lead to communism? Sure. But these are fringe views for the most part in both parties. Trump is exceptional, because he says things that are wildly extremist sometimes…and that’s terrible for public discourse. But I think most Republicans are embarrassed by those comments. I certainly have read many comments here at EA bemoaning when Trump says dumb shit.
Mamdani literally quotes Marx, and repeatedly. I guess the proper term is “Marxist.” Close enough.
Nicely done, Glenn.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the shell casing was marked pro-trans and antifa statements:
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAiaJmrrjAWx5FwLvzZdAcpLnorPdCoZ1CxjikWjpAYmna55Tsqw_nCpUbEEVZA%3D&gaa_ts=68c32c1b&gaa_sig=QqMIrGOkFnLLvng0cftakoUyx5eqfFrcX2TznxBfVzNb26UiJ4FylS6YLILOVZMxTVxG7azo0fAnR5mh9L-LfA%3D%3D+
(sorry about the paywall link – I don’t have a subscription).
Thanks very much.
Re: “Also, I have some concern for the reaction of the administration. As usual, President Trump sets his better angels right beside the guy with the pointy horns on his shoulder, and lets them both speak.”
I was confused when I first read that, and your later expansion of your point didn’t really clarify what you were trying to say. If you were saying that Trump’s biggest “enemy” or character flaw is his loose tongue and lack of oratory restraint, then I see your point. Trump doesn’t speak like Obama or Clinton. He is direct and combative. I know that style makes lots of people crazy (your humble commenter included).
Trump, though, has a better feel for the national pulse than we really give him credit for. Trump speaks in common vernacular and expresses the frustration many feel. His reaction to Kirk’s murder was raw and personal. He considered Kirk a friend not just a political ally. I would feel the same way were I in his place. Trump’s “this needs to stop” comment is honest, direct, and blunt and, frankly, the nation needs to hear it and take heed. He is not calling for censorship. He is calling for discernment.
However, if you mean that Trump is stoking fires of extremism, then I am not sure I agree. Extremist language has always existed and will always exist. Yet, never in the history of the US has one side of the political divide so completely demonized one-half (if not more) of the country before. I suggest that pre-Civil War rhetoric never approached this level of discourse.
When the MSM, Democrats, and Democrat elected officials to a person from the local, state, and federal levels declare that the President of the US is Hilter and his voters are Nazis, the end result could only lead to more of this. In that respect, Kirk isn’t some 31 year old conservative pundit making college campus stops to engage in debate; on the contrary, he is engaging with like minds to activate the Brown Shirts and Nazi Youth Brigades preparing them for goosestepping straight through the county. By the Democrat rhetoric, then, not only is killing Kirk (and others of his ilk) justified, it is vitally necessary to protect the sacred institution that is our representative republic. It is a moral imperative to eradicate the threat at its core. The horror isn’t that Trump was nearly assassinated: the horror is that Trump survived because both would-be assassins missed.
I get that there are idiots celebrating Kirk’s murder – there will always be idiots and the internet only gives them a vehicle to express their idiotic ravings. However, JD Pritzker placed the blame at Trump’s feet, clearly ignoring what his party pals have been saying for at least 20 years. Some stupid reporter even mused that Kirk was killed by celebratory Second Amendment hysteria, who should have been.
jvb
I concur with John’s sentiment. Trump is not trying to chill free speech in his address. But we should understand that bad speech has consequences, and that we have a moral responsibility for what we say.
The action of the murderer of Charlie Kirk chills speech. I wonder whether in the future campus events will feature conservatives, and whether TPUSA can continue those public in the near future. Security requirements and insurance may make that impossible.
I just saw the photos of the alleged shooter the FBI released. Why do we not see a weapon? Did he stash it in advance? If the 30.06 was found in the woods why did he return to campus. There is no indication that he had any sort of bag to conceal a weapon in those photos.
Have you seen any mention of the location for those photos? I know they put out a call for people to check their door cams etc. and I’m sure they examined the footage from all building and traffic cams so they probably have gotten several images (there was also mention of video), and these were the best ones to put out for possible identification.
Re where the gun is he may well have gone to the roof to position the gun there before the rally at a time when he was less likely to be observed with a suspicious bag.
Since he took the gun with him when he escaped (why? that seems odd to me, why not wipe it down, get off the roof quickly and then do his best to blend into the crowd again without holding a suspicious bag?) I suspect these images are from BEFORE the shooting, not after he dumped the gun in the woods (again, apparently without thoroughly wiping it down–they have a palm print, apparently).
I do see a huge amount of tension in his body (shoulders, clenched hands), which could be consistent with him psyching himself up to go do the deed.
Also (just an impression–not an expert here!!) if this were a professional assassin I wouldn’t expect to see this degree of tension in his body, as he would be doing a familiar job, and have worked out a careful plan in advance. Surely a professional would do a better job of disposing of the weapon and/or carefully wiping all possible prints off it before abandoning it somewhere it would likely be discovered before too long….
If you look closely what appears to be a clenched fist is actually him holding a rectangular object in his right hand. There is no way to observe his left hand. I don’t see how you see tension in his shoulders.
My point is not to draw conclusions but to ask questions. He is a person of interest because he is dressed in all dark clothes which witnesses said the saw the person on the roof wearing.
Ballistics has not concluded anything and the only indication is the pro trans/ antifa writings on the shell casings.
If we simply accept the simple statement that it was a lone crazed gunman with an ax to grind we may fail to evaluate other scenarios or groups involved.
Chris wrote: I don’t see how you see tension in his shoulders.
I’m an athlete and have also been a coach / trainer for a long time. So it is not hard for me to see where someone is holding tension in their body versus more relaxed muscles. Something we work on a lot.
However…it’s not possible to know from a picture whether this is chronic tension (some people walk around with their shoulders hiked up like this all the time) or just how his body is at this moment.
Just saw some new info — a video of him jumping down from the roof and apparently THAT is where they found the palm print (not on the gun) and he has a back pack, so maybe it was a takedown gun.
I agree with being careful about using a picture to infer too much about the person. That’s the same trap activists fell into when they decided that Nick Sandmann, the kid on a field trip in Washington, DC, had a punchable face because the camera lens caught him in a split-second grin.
I am not allowed to take photos of toddlers eating anymore because, every time I do, they cute little faces are captured by my snap at the moment in which they look like intoxicated Bell’s Palsy sufferers.
Here is an example of how NOT to respond to the Charlie Kirk assassination. This Republican Congressman clearly does not understand the First Amendment, and wants to force social media to censor bad tweets. We do not have to ask what could go wrong, because we only have to look at social media censorship during Biden administration, or the Keir Starmer administration in the UK today. Personally I am very happy that these ghouls expose themselves at the social media.
Absolutely right. What an attention-seeking, constitutionally ignorant asshole that guy is!
Unethical, and unfit to be in Congress.
I see at Red State that they have a suspect in custody. If only the President could keep his mouth shut about the death penalty. Right now the President and the DOJ should make sure that the suspect gets a fair trial, and that there is absolutely no chance that a conviction can be challenged on appeal due to statements made by officials that may bias a jury, and otherwise give the appearance of an unfair trial.
https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-assassination-suspect-is-in-custody-trump-reports-hope-he-gets-the-death-penalty-n2193872
Indeed. A president should never advocate for the death penalty in an active case. It is unethcial.
But then, this is Trump. Julie Principle, anyone?
Research needed. Since we are seeing calls for screenshots and videos of bad behavior, I have a request. Some people online are justifying their glee over Kirk’s death because of his opinions. Now, I confined my social media largely to Facebook. I don’t have BlueSky at all.
Some of what I’m seeing accused Charlie Kirk of “advocating stoning gays”. I believe that Stephen King is one of them. Do we have any evidence that Kirk literally advocated stoning gays in a statement or post? Or is this just another one of those derived accusations that stem from “Charlie Kirk believed the Bible. The Bible mentions stoning sinners. Charlie Kirk believes gays are sinners and should be stoned”-type of reasoning?
He didn’t advocate for that, although he mentioned it in the context of a biblical admonition. Kirk advocated for welcoming and understanding gay people.
Anyway, King has apologized, for which I am grateful.
Link here