We are not on our way to Star Trek’s replicator, but the physics is there.

Great American patriots, including the late Charlie Kirk have long championed the freedom of speech so thoughtfully codified in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, as legacy media evade any responsibility for fueling violent extremism, the words of Proverbs 12:18 resonate deeply: “The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing." Kirk spoke prolifically about the power of words, grappling with ideas and the absolute necessity of free speech and discourse to heal America. He firmly believed in the First Amendment right to free speech and that Americans exercise their God given natural rights to prevent violent civil war. Kirk died exercising and defending these rights, and it's worth looking back on what he had to say about them. “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens.  Because you start to think the other side is so evil and that they lose their humanity. Marriages break apart when you stop talking, churches fall apart. … And I think what makes this country on the verge of going to a place we don’t want it to go right now, is we’re afraid to go to places like this and have these conversations.”      “My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected. … I think that in a civil society, the best ideals will win as long as you have that marketplace. And here’s the real issue: As soon as you shut up ‘hate speech,’ those people only get more powerful. And this is the unintended consequence of censorship. You give more credence to the ‘silenced person’ the moment you shut them up.     “Elon Musk liberating Twitter will go down as one of the greatest free speech victories in the history of Western civilization. … One of the reasons why the powerful are getting nervous is because we can finally speak again online.”     "My wish for the left is that you’ll become liberal again and no longer leftist. Free speech is a liberal value. It is not a left-wing value. …as of today, Lucy Connelly is going to jail for two and a half years in this country [Britain] for a social media post that she apologized and deleted about a migrant hotel. That is not a free speech value at all. You should be allowed to say outrageous things. You should be allowed to say contrarian things. Free speech is a birthright that you gave us and you guys decided not to codify it and now it's poof, it's basically gone."   "[Continued from above, in reference to the Reform party possibly coming into power in Britain] When that happens, do you want Nigel Farage, prime minister, to be able to lock you up if you criticize his government? If your answer is no, then you have a moral obligation to make sure that your prime minister and the MPs advocate for a values-neutral free speech policy. So, regardless of who is in power in this country, you guys can challenge and you guys can speak openly. That is the bedrock of a liberal democracy."   "By the way, just to be clear, you guys [Britain] have the wrong incitement threshold. In America, you need to have specific time and specific place in order to reach the incitement threshold. Every day, people say, you know, 'Well, someone should go kill Charlie Kirk.' I don't like it, but that's protected speech. In America, we care about what you do, not about what you say."   This week, I'm in Britain, the place that helped birth free speech throughout the world, but is now becoming a totalitarian country. pic.twitter.com/4EBvP40mhW — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 20, 2025   “Free speech is not just saying what you want to say, but it is having to hear things you don't want to hear.”   Free speech is not just saying what you want to say, but it is having to hear things you don't want to hear. — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 11, 2017 Kirk stood as a bastion for free speech, but he was also no stranger to the censorship that resulted from telling people things Big Tech seemingly didn’t want Americans to hear. MRC Free Speech America has recorded eight times he was censored on his personal social media accounts, including when, in 2022, Twitter locked his account because he refused to call former Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine a man. The platform similarly censored Kirk when he spoke out against potential election fraud in Pennsylvania after the 2020 election and when he noted Democrats' unfounded distrust of hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Free speech is under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

If you look at many social media sites, such as Bluesky, it is not uncommon to see multitudes of unhinged leftists writing off Charley Kirk as a "Nazi" or "Hitler Youth," which could be an excuse for his brutal assassination. And where does this notion of Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump in particular as well as MAGA and conservatives in general as Nazis come from? Unfortunately much of it comes from media sources. One of the culprits is Vanity Fair magazine. On Thursday, just a day after the assassination, Vanity Fair published a story ostensibly about a documentary on the Nazi connections of German propaganda film documentarian Leni Riefenstahl. However, the not-so-subtle ulterior motive of the story turned out to be Trump as a Nazi type leader as written by slimemeister Eve Batey in "Hitler Confidant Leni Riefenstahl Always Said She Was Just a Filmmaker. A New Doc Reveals the Truth." Batey just couldn't help herself. On her Instagram, she argued the Nazi comparison "feels especially crucial today." She inserted two paragraphs into her story supposedly about Riefenstahl that are chock full of links strongly inferring President Trump is a Nazi-type leader. Batey was too cowardly to actually name Trump in her story. Instead she performed her slimy duty by including links to stories, mostly in Vanity Fair, smearing Trump. Here are the two paragraphs in question with the links to Trump as like a Nazi themes. Riefenstahl’s estate has a lot to teach us about the contemporary political climate. The parallels between her era and ours are striking: Even today, we see the world’s richest men prostrating themselves before an aspiring autocrat, creatives and news organizations seemingly seeking to normalize a self-proclaimed king, and various organized displays of military force. As Veiel considered Riefenstahl’s work for Hitler, he was thinking about all that too. “There’s something between the lines which is telling us something not only about the present, but about the future,” he says. “The longing for this strongness and the contempt of weakness, the contempt of the foreigners.” "Even today, we see the world's richest men prostrating themselves" That link leads to this Vanity Fair story: "Trump’s Inauguration Is a Brash Display of Big Tech’s Realignment."  And who is the "aspiring autocrat?" In Riefenstahl's time it was Hitler but her link now takes you to another Vanity Fair hit piece: "Donald Trump’s Autocratic Ambitions." "...and news organizations seemingly seeking to normalize..."  And that links to, you guessed it, more Trump in a Vanity Fair story supposedly about Leni Riefenstahl: "Shari Redstone and Paramount’s Own Mission: Impossible—Survive a Trump Lawsuit and a Billion-Dollar Merger." "...a self-proclaimed king..." In Riefenstahl's time that king (fuhrer) was Hitler and in our time, any guess as to who Vanity Fair labels as that king/fuhrer? " Trump Declares Himself 'King of Israel,' the 'Second Coming of God'." "...and various organized displays of military force... All that was lacking at that link was goose stepping as Vanity Fair went on yet another Hitler/Trump comparison: "Trump’s Military Parade—On His 79th Birthday—Met With Nationwide “No Kings” Protests." In the second paragraph above, both links also go to attacks on Trump. The demonization permission slip that allowed the assassin and others on the left to brand Charlie Kirk as a Nazi had its genesis in places such as Vanity Fair, as this story illustrates.

When it comes to Charlie Kirk’s murder, “The media is dead to us” because they amplified the demonization of Kirk and are now playing the “both sides” game, Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld declared Monday. Facing off with Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov on “The Five,” Gutfeld slammed his fellow co-host for attempting to rationalize Kirk’s assassination by noting that there is violence on “both sides” and asking “What about?” examples of right-wing offenses: "The media is dead to us on this story. They built this thing up. We’re dealing with it; we are going to act. We don't care what the ‘What about?’ is anymore; that sh*t’s dead!"   ? HOLY CRAP! Greg Gutfeld just EVISCERATED Jessica Tarlov for making the "both sides" argument about Charlie Kirk's kiIIing "DON'T PLAY THAT BULLSHlT WITH ME!" "We don't care about your 'both sides' argument. That shlt is DEAD!" "On your side, your beliefs do not match… pic.twitter.com/tXAl6RGIQ4 — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 15, 2025   Kirk’s assassination transcends the typical news paradigm, Gutfeld told Tarlov: “This is a story that is immune to news cycles. “It is immune to rationalizations. “It is immune to bias. “This thing is with us for good. And we all have to deal with that.” “So that means that we can’t live by the same arguments that you might be reading about relativism among the media. We can’t deal with those stories. It doesn’t matter,” Gutfeld said. Tarlov had attempted to equate Kirk’s assassination to the murder of former Democrat Minnesota state Representative Melissa Hortman – but, Gutfeld was having none of it, noting that the liberal legacy media had widely demonized Kirk, but not Hortman. “Did you know her name before she died? None of us did,” Gutfeld responded to Tarlov’s “What about?” ploy: “Don’t play that “bullsh*t with me. You know what I’m saying is that there was no demonization amplification about that woman before she died. It was a specific crime against her by someone who knew her.” Liberals are forced to play the “What about this?” card because their beliefs don’t match reality and, if they faced up to reality, they’d have to admit that they’re “not the good guys,” Gutfeld explained: “I understand the defensiveness. I understand why people are saying, ‘What about this and what about this?’ Because, if you have to face the underlying facts of this, your life is going to fall apart – because you’re going to realize that you’re not the good guys.” “That is a hell of a realization to deal with. So, therefore, you have to grasp at rationalizations,” Gutfeld concluded.

The Atlantic staff writer David Frum joined PBS’s Amanpour and Company guest host Bianna Golodryga on Monday to react to the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and used the opportunity to relight the Doomsday beacons that signify democracy itself is under threat from a president who would seek to mess with the 2026 midterm elections. During his conversation with Golodryga, Frum claimed, “What I am concerned about is the president and his supporters are making it clear they intend to go after not violent extremists, but simply people who are fundraising to defeat them in elections. The great question that has been haunting America before this assassination is, will the president allow the 2026 midterm elections to be free and fair? Will he try to gerrymander? Will he try to use the power of government to stop his opponents from fundraising? Will he try to use his new asserted powers to detain people without due process against people who are campaigning against him?” By “haunting America,” Frum really just meant haunting PBS, CNN (Amanpour originally airs on CNN International), or The Atlantic.     Frum added that, “Those are the issues that you have to worry about. It's not about violent extremism today. Today what we're worried about is, will we have free and fair elections? And as Stephen Miller indicated, as the president said in his nationally televised address, that's the target they’re after.” Here’s a quote from Miller himself, rather than a Frumian interpretation, “The organized doxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses, combining that with messaging that is designed to trigger [or] incite violence and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence.” As it was, Golodryga wondered, “How does Kirk's assassination directly, in your view, play a role in this plan that you're concerned about, that you say is growing increasingly obvious from the rhetoric from the president and his advisers?” Frum responded by trying to split Trump from Kirk and his fans by claiming the former will use the latter for his authoritarian purposes: Look, after a terrible crime in the internet age, you will find any number of people or bots on the internet saying things that are reprehensible, stupid, provocative, unfeeling. And people who experience the world through online life will see those reprehensible statements and will have natural reactions.  Of course, you get—if you liked and admired Charlie Kirk, you will be hurt by someone who makes light of the terrible murder. And your—that feeling of hurt is a powerful resource for a president who is afraid he's going to lose the 2026 elections if they're free and fair, and who has been looking from the beginning for ways to make sure those elections are not free and fair. So, the emotions of Charlie Kirk supporters are a resource that President Trump and Stephen Miller and those around them are hoping to use, not against criminals, but just against people who want to vote a different way. After Kirk’s murder there was a great deal of discussion about turning down the temperature and dialing down the rhetoric. That’s all well and good, but just because PBS speaks with more hushed tones than other networks does not mean the substance of their rhetoric has changed. The 2026 midterms will happen, and they will be fair. The question is will PBS and The Atlantic accept that if they lose? Here is a transcript for the September 15 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 9/15/2025 DAVUD FRUM: What I am concerned about is the president and his supporters are making it clear they intend to go after not violent extremists, but simply people who are fundraising to defeat them in elections. The great question that has been haunting America before this assassination is, will the president allow the 2026 midterm elections to be free and fair? Will he try to gerrymander? Will he try to use the power of government to stop his opponents from fundraising? Will he try to use his new asserted powers to detain people without due process against people who are campaigning against him? Those are the issues that you have to worry about. It's not about violent extremism today. Today what we're worried about is, will we have free and fair elections? And as Stephen Miller indicated, as the president said in his nationally televised address, that's the target they’re after. BIANNA GOLODRYGA: How does Kirk's assassination directly, in your view, play a role in this plan that you're concerned about, that you say is growing increasingly obvious from the rhetoric from the president and his advisers? FRUM: Look, after a terrible crime in the internet age, you will find any number of people or bots on the internet saying things that are reprehensible, stupid, provocative, unfeeling. And people who experience the world through online life will see those reprehensible statements and will have natural reactions. Of course, you get — if you liked and admired Charlie Kirk, you will be hurt by someone who makes light of the terrible murder. And your — that feeling of hurt is a powerful resource for a president who is afraid he's going to lose the 2026 elections if they're free and fair, and who has been looking from the beginning for ways to make sure those elections are not free and fair. So, the emotions of Charlie Kirk supporters are a resource that President Trump and Stephen Miller and those around them are hoping to use, not against criminals, but just against people who want to vote a different way.

America once taught kids to brush off insults with resilience. But calling words “violence” opened the door to real bloodshed in Orem, Utah.“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”If we let this moment harden us into bitterness, we’ve lost. But if we let it challenge us to live with purpose, we’ve won.Every kid in America grew up hearing that line. On the playground, it was more than just a rhyme — it was a shield. It taught us to brush off insults instead of escalating them. It taught us that words, while sometimes harsh, don’t have to define us. But somewhere along the way, our culture flipped the script.We stopped teaching resilience and started preaching fragility. Words became “violence.” Disagreement became “hate.” And once you convince people that words themselves create wounds, it’s only a matter of time before someone decides that the “logical” response is actual violence.That’s how we ended up mourning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.Charlie’s death is not just an atrocity — it is a symptom of a deeper sickness. For years, our media, politicians, and institutions have peddled the idea that political opponents aren’t just wrong; they’re dangerous. That rhetoric doesn’t stay on the page or the teleprompter. It seeps into unstable minds. While most of us shrug it off, a few always take it literally — lone wolves who believe the time for words has ended and the time for blood has begun.Not every politician gets that. But Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) did. In the wake of Charlie’s assassination, Cox’s response stood out. He didn’t rush to score cheap political points. He spoke about tone, about rhetoric, about responsibility. He reminded us that in a moment when it feels easiest to shout, the real work is to listen. That’s rare. And it’s exactly the kind of leadership this country needs right now.Charlie built something that words alone couldn’t destroy. Turning Point USA is the greatest grassroots movement for conservative values in modern history. There have been 32,000 inquiries about starting a chapter. That may be 32,000 schools filled with young people who are hungry for truth, direction, and the courage to stand up for their values in a culture that tries to drown them out.That doesn’t happen by accident. That happens because Charlie gave people permission not just to speak, but to stand. And he did it with a resilience that the “sticks and stones” generation would recognize.He never accepted the idea that free speech is harm. He never believed that disagreement is hate. He spoke the truth boldly, and he trusted the next generation to be strong enough to hear it. That was his gift, and it’s why his death hit us so hard.We often ask, “Would you be willing to die for something?” It’s the ultimate test of conviction. Soldiers die for freedom. Martyrs die for faith. Heroes die for country. Charlie Kirk, like so many before him, paid that price. But maybe it’s time to flip that question. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves, “Are you willing to live for something?”That’s the lesson of Christ himself. Yes, Jesus laid down His life on the cross. But before that, He lived every breath in service of the Father’s will. Every parable, every act of compassion, every miracle was part of a life lived for truth. His death mattered because His life had meaning.Charlie Kirk’s death matters because his life had meaning. But now, it’s our turn.Living for something is harder than dying for it.Living means staying in the fight when you’re exhausted, showing up for your family even when the world says it’s easier to check out, and defending free speech — even speech you don’t like — because you know truth only rises when all voices are heard.Living means lowering your voice when everyone else is screaming, and lifting up your neighbor when everyone else is tearing them down.And living means refusing to paint every political opponent as an enemy. We all have friends across the aisle who would never condone violence. But we also know certain ideologies, media narratives, and political leaders pour gasoline on division. Some are complicit by commission, others by cowardice. Yes, they need to be called out, but we must also refuse to let hatred dictate our response.RELATED: Charlie Kirk sparks viral Christian revival: 'I'm going to go take his seat for him' Photo by David Ryder/Getty ImagesThat’s where Cox’s restraint matters. That’s where Charlie’s grassroots legacy matters. That’s where the “sticks and stones” lesson matters. Because if we let this moment harden us into bitterness, we’ve lost. But if we let it challenge us to live with purpose, we’ve won.Neither the government nor the media will solve this. Only we the people can solve this. The overwhelming majority of Americans — Republican, Democrat, independent — are not violent. They want to raise their kids, go to church, coach Little League, and live in peace. It’s time for that majority to set the tone again, to prove that dialogue beats demagoguery. That sympathy beats rage. That faith beats fear.Charlie Kirk showed us how to fight with courage. Now it’s our job to fight with character, to show the next generation that “sticks and stones” is still wisdom, not weakness, and to remember that while one man’s death can shock a nation, it’s the way millions of us live that will heal it.Charlie’s life was a challenge. His death is a charge. Let’s take it up. We must not only be ready to die for something — we must be ready to live for something.

In light of Charlie Kirk's horrific assassination, congressional Republicans are looking to uproot "militant organizations" that have sown discord in our country.Neville Roy Singham, a wealthy businessman and political activist, has bankrolled left-wing NGOs like Code Pink that some say are responsible for indoctrinating young Americans and heightening political polarization. Notably, Code Pink was founded by Singham's wife, Jodie Evans. 'We will no longer allow billionaires to bankroll anti-American political movements.'"Neville Singham has spent millions funding militant organizations that have orchestrated violent riots and launched targeted hate campaigns against Americans with different beliefs," Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida said in a post on X. Given Singham's role in propping up many of these organizations, Luna and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) are pressuring Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to freeze his assets. RELATED: FBI unveils damning new evidence against accused Charlie Kirk assassin Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images"We will no longer allow billionaires to bankroll anti-American political movements on behalf of foreign governments," Luna said. Singham is most recently being investigated for his ties to CCP-influence operations that fall under the purview of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Because he appears to fund many of these influence operations, Luna and Comer have called on Bessent to enforce penalties, including freezing Singham's assets, to curb any "malign activities" executed by these organizations. "It is imperative that we expeditiously halt the continued flow of funds and material support for malign activities conducted at the behest of the CCP," the letter reads. RELATED: Trump ready again to label Antifa as terrorists: 'I would do that 100%' Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images for V-Day The House Oversight Committee also investigated Singham in June for allegedly funding "various extremist entities," such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, on behalf of the CCP. The committee called on Singham to overturn all relevant financial and communications documents pertaining to these far-left organizations. Unsurprisingly, Singham has not provided these documents to the committee. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the wake of two successful defamation suits brought against the legacy media over the past year, President Trump is seeking justice against a longtime detractor. His current target: the New York Times. "Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party," Trump wrote on Truth Social.'The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!'Trump added. "The 'Times' has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected 'rag' responsible."Specifically, Trump is suing over the "defamatory, malicious, and false" publication of a book and three articles that he claims were intended to "kill three birds with one stone": "damage President Trump’s hard-earned and world-renowned reputation for business success," "sabotage his 2024 candidacy for President of the United States," and "prejudice judges and juries in the unlawful cases brought against President Trump, his family, and his businesses by his political opponents for purposes of election interference."The book, "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success," and the article “The Star-Making Machine That Created ‘Donald Trump’" were written by Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner. Another article mentioned in the suit is “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Peter Baker. The third article, written by Michael S. Schmidt, is entitled "As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator."The authors are named as defendants alongside the New York Times and Penguin Random House LLC.RELATED: NPR sues Trump admin, calls funding cuts unconstitutional Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesA spokesperson for the New York Times responded on Tuesday morning: "This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."The president cited his successful record of litigation "against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely 'smearing' me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts."Trump won a defamation case against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos, who agreed to pay $15 million to Trump's organization in addition to $1 million in Trump's legal fees. The case concerned claims made by Stephanopoulos on the network that Trump was found liable for the rape of E. Jean Carroll. Likewise, Paramount Global and CBS News agreed to pay $16 million for Trump's future presidential library in a settlement of a suit regarding the infamous "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris. "The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!" he added.The lawsuit has been brought in Florida.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

There’s a big difference between firing a teacher for believing children shouldn’t undergo transgender surgery and firing a teacher for publicly dancing on the grave of a beloved family man like Charlie Kirk.And Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck knows why.“Is every speech controversy the same?” Glenn asks, before answering himself.“The answer to that is clearly no. I mean, we’ve seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their jobs now just for saying they don’t believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries,” he says.“Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And we’ve seen teachers and professors go online and celebrate, not criticize, not argue policy, but celebrate that someone was murdered,” he says, noting that some of them have even said it's “not a tragedy, it’s a victory.”And this, Glenn argues, is far different than just debating whether or not children should be given transgender surgeries before they turn 18.“To say Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a good thing, that’s not debate. That’s not even an idea. That’s rejoicing in violence. It’s glorifying death. There’s no place in civil society for that kind of stuff. There’s not. And it’s a difference that actually matters,” Glenn says.“When a teacher says, ‘I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead.’ Is that cancel culture if they’re fired? Or is that just society saying, you know, ‘I don’t think I can trust my kid to that guy or that woman. That’s not an enlightening mind. Somebody who delights in political murder, I don’t want them around my children,’” he continues.“Scripture weighs in here, too,” he says, quoting, “‘Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.’” “Matthew,” he asks, “What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?”Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Rock & Roll Hall of Famer has had quite a career as a session player, band member and solo artist. The post Dave Mason Announces Retirement from Touring, Due to Health Concerns appeared first on Best Classic Bands.