YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #humor #nightsky #loonylibs #moon #charliekirk #supermoon #perigee #illegalaliens #zenith #tpusa #bigfoot #socialists #spooky #supermoon2025
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Day mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
7 w

Heritage President: ‘We Can’t Compromise With the Left’
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Heritage President: ‘We Can’t Compromise With the Left’

Charlie Kirk’s assassination shocked the world last week. Americans are grieving his loss and how to overcome the sorrow and anger from the tragic killing. Heritage President Kevin Roberts, a personal friend of Kirk, spoke with me on the “Heritage Explains” podcast about Kirk’s impact on our nation. We discussed his Christian faith, role in politics, and his lasting legacy. This is a lightly edited transcript of our interview. Mark Guiney: Welcome back to Heritage Explains. Usually we do an introduction at the top of our show. Unfortunately, that will not be necessary for this one because we’re discussing the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk. This event has permeated our culture to such a degree that no introduction is necessary. And so, I’ll turn to Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, and ask you to start us off with a question, Who was Charlie Kirk to you? Dr. Kevin Roberts: Charlie was a friend. I met him several years ago in Austin when I was leading the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He was obviously at Turning Point USA and we met really as his crest was beginning to accelerate. He called me out of the blue. We had a mutual friend, a donor friend. And he had this idea on election integrity that at the time, and this is before 2020, the group I was leading wasn’t working on it, at least extensively. It wasn’t the first time that I heard about this, but it was the first time that I saw someone with such a plan. And what I remember about Charlie was his exuberance, his charisma, his ability to bring together, then at a very young age, a lot of the biggest donors in Texas around this issue. And just his irrepressible optimism. And we ended up not working on that at that time with Turning Point, at least directly, but from that, found another project to work on that I can now say, unfortunately, because of another friend who’s now departed, Foster Friess, supported financially.… That project was about expanding the base, expanding the governing coalition. The thing that I loved most about Charlie was that when you call him a friend, he was a friend. In times that you needed encouragement, there was a phone call, there was a text. In times when Heritage was looking to collaborate, which we have done some with Turning Point, especially between Heritage Action and Turning Point, he was there. And so, while the country will miss him as a tremendous patriot, I will miss him as a friend. The last thing that I would say to describe Charlie is that he was a future president to the United States. And all of us who are leaders, to some extent or another, in conservatism knew that, at some point, Charlie was going to be called by God to run for president. And we also knew that we were all going to be on this team. And after the initial shock of the assassination, the sorrow that we felt for Erika and their kids and their family and friends, the reality of Charlie not being in the American public square hit me over the weekend, and it’s hard to get past that. Guiney: I think so many of us, I’ve had the same conversation over and over again, which is I didn’t know Charlie Kirk, but I did not expect to be so affected personally by this event. Because I had the same experience. I’m riding home on the train, and I’m crying. So many other people had a similar reaction. Why do you think that was? Roberts: Because his work transcended politics at a time when people have replaced religion with politics. Which is an interesting thing to say about Charlie because one of his professional legacies will be his ability to convert youth activism for education reform of college campuses into political activism to voting for Donald Trump, which a lot of them would never think that they would do. Of course, that makes perfect sense to you and me and our audience, but Charlie had become so much more than that, especially once he and Erika were married and Charlie’s faith deepened like all of ours does. And I was reading on Sunday after my family and I got back from church, text messages that Charlie and I had exchanged over the years, sometimes about elections, sometimes about projects that we were working on, sometimes what the conservative movement needed to do. They all had the theme of America is the greatest place on earth, warts and all, and we as Christians have an obligation to play a role in that. Charlie would always say—in fact, the last time I saw him in person, around the Students for Life conference in January—we have to pray for God’s grace to continue the work that we’re doing. When you have someone who’s very active in politics but who has those personal qualities with a very sincere spiritual life that is just evident, literally in his last second alive on earth, that affects us. And it should. His greatest legacy will be that he’s inspiring millions of people, not just of his generation, but of all generations and around the world, to get back to church. Guiney: I want to come back to that. That’s a very important point. Before I do, I think another thing that was very unusual about this event, if we recall back to the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, prior to the election, there was a huge focus on who this person was, who committed this attempted murder. In the case of Charlie Kirk, there was certainly interest in that point, people wanted to know who this person was, but there was also an understanding that to a certain degree, it didn’t matter, because there was a greater sickness that was going on. And we sort of sensed that Charlie Kirk had fallen prey to that sickness, of which he was well aware. On Sept. 11, the day after his murder, YouGov put out a poll asking individuals about whether it was acceptable to ever engage in political violence. For people who describe themselves as very conservative, it was 3%, conservative, 4%, moderate, 7%, liberal, 10%, very liberal, 24%. Those of us who are in the conservative movement knew that and understood that we, as a nation, are facing a great sickness. Can you talk about that?  Roberts: There’s so much to say. That’s the issue. It’s the issue concerning Charlie. It’s the issue facing the United States. And as it relates to Charlie, I’ll mention something particular before addressing the general question you pose. I knew as soon as we got the news that he had passed away, that there was a network of activists who were just brainwashed and intoxicated by this ideology on the Left who were responsible. How did I know that? Just instinctively. Because this is what we see at Heritage all the time and that’s unfortunately proven to be true. The short history of this, Mark, that leads up to this poll, this truly shocking but not surprising statistic is that this all started with the deterioration of the family in the 1960s and government policy that disincentivized marriage and I would argue disincentivized birth and having children, there’s economic policies that went along with that and we’re trying to address those at Heritage. But this isn’t a public policy issue. This is a culture and society issue. And what happened was that we on the Right, over two generations, allowed the Left to march through our institutions, to turn K-12 schools and universities into places of indoctrination, not education. And those of us who decided at the beginning of our careers we were going to fight it, were met with sort of a lukewarm response by probably well-intentioned public policy people, they just didn’t see firsthand what Charlie saw, what I and so many of us at Heritage saw. Wthat has led to is something that 10 years ago, if you predicted this, you and I would have said, you know, this is crazy. There aren’t just people who have mental illness, they think that they’re born in the wrong body. And I say with great charity, everyone’s equal in our love for them, right? Everyone is created with the equal dignity in God’s eyes, which we believe, but it is a mental illness to think that. But worse still, there are thousands of American physicians willing to do gender mutilation surgeries. There are professional associations willing to say this is appropriate. American prison systems at the state level willing to say we’re going to pay for it, the American military saying we’re going to pay for it, and all along the line, no corrective upstream of politics and policy of these truly dangerous ideologies that are anti-human by definition. The fact that Charlie had become the leading advocate to correct all of that, speaking always in charity about the people who were affected by this dangerous ideology, made him the number one target. Therefore, when we see these polls like what you mentioned, it’s not a surprise. And although you know well that I’m an optimist, and not just a supernatural optimist, but an optimist in this life, this is going to get worse before it gets better. We can’t compromise with the Left. That poll shows that. Now, when I say not compromise, everything that we want to do is peaceful, to say the least. Everything we want to do is within the custom of ordered liberty in the United States. But you remember well, last summer, I predicted this. Our plans are totally bloodless. Always. We’re conservatives. We’re Christians. But the Left would make the decision that they wouldn’t be. And when I said that, one of the people on my mind who was threatened was Charlie, because of these networks, because of these polls. We have to recognize the cancer that has metastasized in this country, and peacefully, orderly, legally, with great communication from our political leaders, we need to eradicate those networks to save those people who have been endangered by that ideology and hopefully, over months and years, bring them back into a very stable American life. That has to be our aspiration. Guiney: I want to ask you more about the policy that you have in mind going forward. Before I do, I want to ask you about something that is very much in the conversation right now, which is, a lot of folks were surprised and horrified to see a wave of people on social media, many of them in positions of great trust within our society, folks who are working within health care, folks working within education, who were exuberantly celebrating the death of an innocent man. We’ve seen a counter reaction to that, which is folks who are sharing some of this social media content with employers and ensuing firings happening. I’d like to get your take on both sides of that coin. What do you think about as you’re watching this unfold? Roberts: It’s grotesque, it’s vile, it’s evil, and it obviously should not be said and it’s hurtful to us who were friends of Charlie. I can’t imagine what Charlie’s widow and his parents are thinking when hopefully they’re not seeing this but they’re aware that it’s happening, and we shouldn’t do that to anyone. If the situation were that there were some equally iconic leader on the Left who was assassinated by the Right, and that was happening, I would like to think that we’re intellectually honest enough and charitable enough at Heritage to call that out. In fact, we have over the years, so it shouldn’t exist. And so, the other side of the coin is while it’s grotesque and shouldn’t happen, is it really appropriate for the government, especially the federal government, to disallow it? And ultimately, we have to be really focused on establishing limiting principles here. I don’t mean that as a public policy guy. I don’t mean that as an academic, as an intellectual. I really do mean that in terms of common sense that there is a tendency, and we’ve seen some comments from policymakers this week about this, to overreach. The intention is very good, but what the effect is, is that you start trying to say that something like that can’t happen from federal law and you have unintended consequences. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of that, conservative, Christian professor, which I was for much of my career, will be on the receiving end of that. This is the point. Having said all of that, it really is up to the employer. And I can tell you that if I were president of a state university that had a tenure system and one of my professors said that I would fire them. There would be a lawsuit. The no doubt professor’s union would defend the professor and no doubt the general counsel of the president would defend the president’s decision there and then let the law decide. But the reality is that many of these comments violate the employment contract that these people have, whether it’s at a public school district or a private school or a medical office, and I would encourage CEOs to disallow that kind of thing. But the most important thing that we can do is to identify that this absurdity that we’ve allowed ought to be shamed by the rest of us in public. With good reason, we have eliminated all kinds of hateful icons, many of them having to do with racism over the years. This is on that level. We have to eliminate, just through social shame, that someone would be willing to say those things. Guiney: There is a great sense within our nation that we are at a turning point. And that turning point has two dimensions that have kind of crystallized for us, certainly, here at Heritage and I think also out in the world. The first is what we’re going to do as a nation, politically, legally. And then the other side is who I am as a person, because I think we all feel personally affected by this. And the thing that ties those two together. We just got out of a town hall hosted by yourself and featuring Steve Deace, and he mentioned that we need a revival. I think he used that word pretty intentionally because he described that what we now need to become is an overtly spiritual movement. Now we at Heritage are, of course, nonsectarian. But it seemed like you agreed with that sentiment. Can you talk about that? Roberts: I do agree with that sentiment, enthusiastically. And I can do so leading a nonsectarian organization that also happens to be animated by the collective faith of all of its employees, each of whom has their free will to exercise that however they would like. Heritage in that respect is the quintessentially American institution. In so many respects, including that one, which is to say, we have the greatest experiment in self-governance in the history of the world, in large part because the respective faiths of America’s pluralistic people, nurtured that belief in self-governance. It’s no coincidence that at the same time you see a decline in religiosity across the philosophical spectrum, but especially on the Left, replacing religion with politics. At the same time, you see a decline and a belief in American civil society, the American dream, however you want to phrase it, that you have an increase, historically so, in political violence by the Left. You see an increase in threats, just the language that’s used here at Heritage every Monday and the volume of that by protesters going well beyond their right to free speech, and both the Washington Police Department and the presidential administration ought to do more than they’re doing, to be frank. On behalf of not just our employees at Heritage, but the residents who live around here, it’s grotesque. The reason that all of that happens is because we aren’t serious enough about our spirituality. And so, when Steve Deace, a great radio and media figure based in Iowa, mentioned this to our staff, almost every head was nodding because we realize it. The great thing about America is we all get to go home and practice that however we have chosen to, but the point is we need to practice it. And I think that Charlie’s greatest legacy, to offer something hopeful here—and I believe this with every fiber of my being, Mark, and it’s clear to me in prayer in the last several days—is inspiring that revival. America has been in need of a spiritual revival for 40 or 50 years. Politics and even good policy are not the answer. The answer is a closer relationship with our Creator, a willingness to fall back in love with the American Republic. There are some on our side who’ve fallen out of love with the American Republic. And a willingness to understand that while you can no longer compromise with the Left, that doesn’t mean that we ought to change our comportment, change our conduct in any way that violates our religious convictions. Some of the greatest political and military leaders in history have been those men and women who also have a very deep faith. They need to be our models and however tragic it is, and it certainly is, Charlie is in that pantheon of great leaders, and we really need to turn to him for inspiration. Guiney: So, we’re in need of an American revival, and what separates I think a revival from a revolution, or at least of the sort of the French Revolution went through and some of the other more infamous revolutions in world history, is that a revival does not involve hate. And I think for many people who are sad, who are angry, there is a temptation to hate. What’s the antidote to hate? Roberts: The antidote to hate is grace and forgiveness. I’m convinced that if Charlie in eternal life is given the opportunity to greet his assassin, which is possible in God’s grace, that of course he will embrace it. Pope John Paul II did that of his nearer would-be assassin. And the antidote to hate exactly, precisely, is love. And that’s what we need to do. The point that I’m making is not to undermine that maxim of the Christian life. The point I’m making is that to love includes having the courage to tell our domestic adversaries, the radical Left, the truth, which is what Charlie personified his entire career, his entire life. It is what got him killed. To say that the antidote to hate is love, is actually to encourage more of that bold, courageous behavior, to stand up for what is right, to stand up for what is true, and even when the rhetorical slings and arrows come, and we get more than our fair share at Heritage because of the courage of our colleagues, and the courage of our supporters, that you actually double down. Not just on behalf of the future of America, but on behalf of the eternal principles of self-governance, but also on behalf of he who gives us that clarity, God. That’s the project. Up to this point in American history, the United States has been the last best hope. It’s imperfect. It has had really ugly chapters in its history. But it remains the last best hope, if in fact good men and women are inspired by this tragedy, not just to give a little more money to a campaign, not just to, for a temporary time go sit in a church pew, but to actually jump into the public square and push out the modern-day Jacobins who hate us all. They cannot be compromised with. And we must eliminate, tear out root and branch, every funding stream, every source of their network. Otherwise, the last best hope, America, has a very dim future. Guiney: Before we go, obviously the foundation of Charlie Kirk’s life and the life of you and I and many of us here at Heritage, is our faith. We find ourselves turning to it in difficult times, including this one. Could I ask you to close out our podcast here with a prayer? Roberts: Lord, first and foremost, we’re grateful for the opportunity to wake up and do your will, however imperfectly. We’re grateful, in particular, to wake up in the United States of America. We’re also in constant prayer for the repose of Charlie’s soul, for the comfort and care of his wife and children and family and close friends, for all of his colleagues at Turning Point. But we’re also grateful for him. We’re grateful for him because we need great men and great women to remind us of your love, of the courage we must have, and we ask you every single day to give us a reminder of Charlie’s eternal optimism for every American to experience not just freedom, not just self-governance, but your love. Amen. The post Heritage President: ‘We Can’t Compromise With the Left’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
7 w

When a President Defies the Courts
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

When a President Defies the Courts

Imagine a president refusing to follow a court order. No, I’m not talking about President Donald Trump. Despite his critics’ frequent claims to the contrary, his administration has not disobeyed any of the court orders issued in litigation filed against it—including the many unjustified injunctions issued by ideologues masquerading as federal judges. No, the president who defied a Supreme Court chief justice and questioned the assumption that the court has the final word on the constitutionality of government actions was the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln. Everyone seems to have forgotten the fierce arguments over constitutional power and authority that ensued when Lincoln refused to comply with an order issued by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Lincoln argued that the latter’s interpretation of a very specific constitutional provision was wrong. Interestingly enough, that dispute involved an issue currently seen as a bone of contention in the fight over illegal criminal aliens: habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a legal term that refers to a writ (court order) requiring that an individual under arrest be brought before a judge to determine if the arrest and detention is lawful. The power to grant such a writ is provided to federal judges by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” On April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended this writ and gave military authorities the power to arrest and imprison anyone they considered a threat—without indictment or arraignment in a court of law. This occurred two weeks after Southern forces fired on Ft. Sumter. Notably, Congress neverissued a declaration of war during the entire “Recent Unpleasantness Between the States,” as gentile Southern ladies used to refer to it. The suspension was directed at individuals in Maryland whom Lincoln suspected of being involved in trying to have the state secede. One of those arrested and imprisoned by military authorities at Fort McHenry (home of the “Star Spangled Banner”) was suspected secessionist Johnny Merryman, a planter and state legislator. Merryman filed a habeas petition in federal court that was assigned to Taney, who was the circuit court justice handling matters arising in Maryland. Taney was, of course, the author of the infamous Dred Scott (1857) decision. In Ex parte Merryman, Taney opined that “one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion,” is that only Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. He severely chastised Lincoln, saying that the president’s use of “military power” to “usurp” the Constitution meant that “the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the Army officer, in whose Military District he may happen to be found.” Taney issued a writ ordering that Merryman be brought before him, an order that Lincoln and General George Cadwalader, who commanded Fort McHenry, ignored. In a message sent to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln directly disputed Taney’s claim that only Congress, and not the president, could suspend habeas corpus when “public safety” was threatened by a “dangerous emergency.” Even earlier, though, in his inaugural address in March, Lincoln questioned the idea that the Supreme Court has the final word on all issues, especially in a government of coequal branches: The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. The conflict between Lincoln and Taney’s interpretations was bypassed in 1863 when Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act, which specifically gave Lincoln the power to suspend the writ. In a proclamation issued in Nov. 1863, Lincoln then did so for the duration of the conflict. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended again on several other occasions. In 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant suspended it in South Carolina when he used both U.S. Marshals and the 7th U.S. Cavalry to go after the Ku Klux Klan. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt suspended it in the Philippines after the U.S. took the country from Spain. Habeas corpus was also suspended in Hawaii during World War II. No one is recommending that the president disobey legitimate judicial orders issued by U.S. courts. But the proper balancing of the three branches’ coequal authority to interpret the Constitution remains up for debate. If we hope to protect our democratic republic today, it’s worth considering how our nation addressed the issue in the past. The post When a President Defies the Courts appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
7 w

The Left’s Cancel Culture Frankenstein Turns on It After Charlie Kirk’s Death
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

The Left’s Cancel Culture Frankenstein Turns on It After Charlie Kirk’s Death

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We’ve had a culture of about five years of what I would call cancel culture, deplatforming, doxing, blacklisting, using all sorts of methods to suppress free speech. That was one of the reasons why Elon Musk paid such an exorbitant sum for the old Twitter: to allow free speech. And cancel culture said that if you voice something that was considered illiberal, you were gonna lose your job. We saw that through #MeToo, when a number of Hollywood luminaries and professors were fired because they had said or done something considered sexist or ill-advised. We saw that on matters of race after George Floyd. But what’s happened now is the death of Charlie Kirk has kind of turned the tables. People who are using that death to comment in criticism of him before he is even buried are now facing, not censorship, but certain platforms, media platforms especially, are saying, “We just don’t want you to be here anymore. It’s not that we don’t like you. We’re not trying to censor you. We’re just giving you the Joy Reid treatment.” Joy Reid, remember, was the cable media commentator who, night after night, could not finish a sentence without talking about “white people,” as her ratings went down and down. And she was finally let go. It wasn’t that people said that they were trying to silence her. They just said, “You can go do your own podcast.” In fact, she did her own podcast. I’ve watched one of them. And you can see why she was, indeed, fired. All she can talk about is “white people.” And people don’t want to hear that. Recently, Karen Attiah, a columnist for The Washington Post, is very furious because, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, she talked about him being a racist white man. And they felt, you know—Jeff Bezos is the owner. They just felt, you know, we’ve had enough of that. We saw a lot of that with Don Lemon. We see that with Al Sharpton. People are just tired of “race, race, race, race, race.” Charlie Kirk had said something—he didn’t talk about black women, pejoratives, as a collective. He said that Ketanji Brown Jackson, a justice, and Joy Reid, in particular, a couple of other women—I think Michelle Obama—were not qualified, according to meritocratic standards. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But he said that DEI considerations had been used for their elevation or prominence. In a way, I suppose he would say, why is Melania Trump not on Vogue but Michelle Obama was? I would say, I don’t know if it has anything to do with race or not, but it might have just as much to do with left-wing politics. But nevertheless, they have been canceled and they’re very, very angry. And they feel that the Charles Kirk death/assassination has opened the gates of censorship. No, it hasn’t. It’s making a larger point, that when somebody dies, there’s a period, traditionally, of grace. They’re also very angry because the murder of Iryna Zarutska opened the gates, they feel, of collectivizing, stereotyping black crime in a way that’s unfair. And they kind of say the Right wants a George Floyd moment. But remember one thing, it’s very, very important about this dichotomy, this dialogue back and forth: When George Floyd died under police custody, he was used by the Left to advance a larger agenda, based on a premise. And we were told that George Floyd died violently while in police custody because this was a normal event in the United States, where police systematically killed suspect, unarmed black males. That was not true. That was not true. The Washington Post found that of all the people who come in contact with the police—that’s a very important qualifier—black suspects who are unarmed are killed by police no more than their percentage in the demographic. Roland Fryer pointed that out, at his expense because, of course, he was criticized for doing it. He was the Harvard economist who did a study on it. That’s very different than Iryna Zarutska because conservatives, like the late Charlie Kirk and others, were making a point that that represents a phenomenon that people are not talking about. Is it true or not? In the case of George Floyd, it prompted a conversation that the Left used when they knew the data was wrong. They knew that police were not shooting inordinate black, unarmed suspects, but they said they were. And the rest is history: defund the police, cashless bail, etc. But in this case, it is true that Decarlos Brown and African American males between the ages of 15 to 40 compose a demographic of about 3% of the general population, and yet, they account for about half of all violent crimes and rare interracial crimes, such as we saw on the light rail in North Carolina. They are six to 10 times, depending on the nature of the violent crime, more likely to attack a white victim than a white victimizer is a black victim. That’s just a fact. And that horrific death on the light rail brought attention to that reality in a way that conservatives wanted to point out that this was a national crisis. But on the other hand, when liberals and leftists tried to say that George Floyd needed our attention to a national crisis, there was no empirical information, there was no data, there was no research that supported that position. And that was the difference. And so, I think it’s very important—a final note—that when people want to comment on the death of Charlie Kirk, there’s two issues involved. All of us, traditionally, in Judeo-Christian society, feel that there’s a grace period. That we do not attack people who have recently been dead. “Don’t speak ill of the dead.” It’s a famous Latin phrase. Second, if you are going to speak ill of the dead and violate that canon, then you have to be accurate and not just—you have to point out that this represents something that is supported by evidence. And in the case of George Floyd, there was no evidence for police overrepresentation of black suspects as victims. In the case of the Ukrainian immigrant, there was a lot of evidence that Decarlos Brown was not unusual, that he represented a particular demographic that inordinately was responsible for crime, and in rare cases of interracial crime, was inordinately represented as the victimizer class. When people pointed that out, as Charlie Kirk did, he was not wrong for doing that. And it was wrong, in the wake of his death, to criticize him as a white man. And people lost their jobs, accordingly. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Left’s Cancel Culture Frankenstein Turns on It After Charlie Kirk’s Death appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Hot Air Feed
Hot Air Feed
7 w

Merz Planning 'Autumn of Reforms' to Fix Germany's Woes and Save His Butt
Favicon 
hotair.com

Merz Planning 'Autumn of Reforms' to Fix Germany's Woes and Save His Butt

Merz Planning 'Autumn of Reforms' to Fix Germany's Woes and Save His Butt
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
7 w

Dilanian, O'Leary Reluctant to Attribute Robinson Ideology to Motive
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

Dilanian, O'Leary Reluctant to Attribute Robinson Ideology to Motive

On Tuesday, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray announced the charges being pressed against suspect Tyler Robinson and what drove him to murder. During Katy Turs Reports coverage, MSNBC contributors Ken Dilanian and Chris O’Leary were reluctant to connect Robinson’s left-leaning ideology to his motive for allegedly murdering Charlie Kirk. In the week following the tragedy, the left had admitted to there being a heated political climate and the existence of political violence coming from both sides, and now they could no longer deny that Robinson’s alleged actions may have been politically-charged. But they continues to doubt if his politics were a definitive motive for the killing. Dilanian acknowledged the disconnect between Robinson’s personal beliefs and lifestyle compared to those of his family’s, but frames it as an incomplete story: But—and we also learned, of course, that, we got to read between the lines a little bit here, but he's in this same-sex relationship, and he explains to us, or explains that his father is MAGA. His family is conservative and traditional. But there's a lot more, I think, that the authorities know about that dynamic that they haven't put in here. It’s hard to tell exactly what strategy was being employed here, but it’s clear the intent was to seed doubt and muddy the waters. Sure, the Robinson family’s full background wasn’t entirely known, but that didn’t disprove any reasonable conclusions being made about Robinson’s reasons for what he’s accused of doing.     Dilanian went on to, somehow, brazenly denied the obvious: So, at the end of the day, we're not really left with a clear motive. We're left with clear evidence that this was political, that he targeted Charlie Kirk because of Charlie Kirk's statements and beliefs that he disagreed with. But so much else is left unsaid here. Like what, Dilanian? Was there a specific TikTok you were looking for that finally pushed Robinson over the edge? Prosecutor Gray also revealed that the suspect’s mother claimed Robinson was “over the last year or so […] becom[ing] more political and started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and more trans-rights oriented.” MSNBC doesn’t want its audience to believe their own eyes: the suspect was, according to his mother, leaning further into liberal ideology and there is evidence the murder was politically-charged. Yet there is no clear motive to be found! O’Leary repeated Dilanian’s misdirect, suggesting authorities might unveil more information on that front in the future: “Well, they certainly didn't lay out any clear cut ideology, and they might have more of that.” If Utah State prosecutors do or will have more information on Robinson’s personal values, it’s hard to believe it will reverse any leading theory or prosecution strategy. Further, O’Leary attempted to connect the recent incident with an overall doom-and-gloom trend facing male youths: “I will say, one of the things we're seeing is this, this kind of theme of nihilism […] Hopelessness, frustration, depression, coming out of COVID or brought on by other things.” Who knows. Maybe it contributed, maybe it didn’t. Regardless, Robinson felt strongly about Kirk, and allegedly chose to act on those feelings in a violent manner. Without a motive, apparently! Anchor Katy Tur pushed back on O’Leary, but not hard enough: TUR: I want to ask Brandy about nihilism, but I just want to focus on for one more second. I mean, he does say that he wants to kill Charlie Kirk because of the evil and the hate that he spreads. Would that not be considered a pretty clear-cut motive? O’LEARY: It's certainly a motive, but is it necessarily clearly an ideology and part of a broader, you know, movement and political violence or terrorism? And statutorily it probably wouldn’t get us there. O’Leary was forced to admit that the suspect’s wish to kill Kirk was “a” motive, but questioned if it could be directly connected to liberal ideology. This was what the left has resorted to. They couldn’t deny A, B and C, but they will deny A plus B equals C. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports September 16, 2025 2:55:12 p.m. Eastern (…) KEN DILANIAN: It's pretty clear the roommate had no idea this was happening. And that's buttressed by the fact that that they're not charging the roommate. So, the roommate is incredulous. And the roommate asked why he did it, and he says, he answers, “I've had enough of his hatred. Some hatred can't be negotiated out.” But—and we also learned, of course, that, we got to read between the lines a little bit here, but he's in this same-sex relationship, and he explains to us, or explains that his father is MAGA. His family is conservative and traditional. But there's a lot more, I think, that the authorities know about that dynamic that they haven't put in here. So, at the end of the day, we're not really left with a clear motive. We're left with clear evidence that this was political, that he targeted Charlie Kirk because of Charlie Kirk's statements and beliefs that he disagreed with. But so much else is left unsaid here. But again, the fact that this Tyler Robinson just appears completely rational and lucid—and thought he could get away with it. Talked about trying to hide the evidence and retrieve the gun, and then only later it became clear to him that that he was caught and then negotiating his surrender. And we're not really giving the information about what the calculus was. He’s suggesting at one point he would rather take his own life than be brought into custody. Apparently his parents and a family friend talked him out of that. We don't—they didn't tell us whether he's talking now, whether he has expressed remorse. But we know from the other Discord chat, that was reported on by the New York Times, that initially, when he was confronted by some of his friends, he joked and played it off and just expressed no remorse whatsoever. And then in the Discord chat that the Washington Post is reporting on, he acknowledges that he did it, but—and says he's sorry to the to those members, but does not express remorse for the killing whatsoever. So this is a really chilling picture we're getting of this alleged shooter, Katie. KATY TUR: Chris, is that how you see this suspect as well, as a rational and lucid actor? CHRIS O’LEARY: Well, they certainly didn't lay out any clear cut ideology, and they might have more of that. But what we've seen in the last couple of years is—we call it salad bar ideology, where people are taking different pieces of different things. But it's not anything that we saw historically in terrorism and political violence, which is why you see some of these groups like 764 and O9A, Order of Nine Angles, which are really weird hybrids of different things. Ken laid it out perfectly. I will say, one of the things we're seeing is this, this kind of theme of nihilism. So, if you look back on the shooting in Minnesota, the Catholic school, even back to the first Trump assassination attempt, that's probably the one thing you can pull out of it. Hopelessness, frustration, depression, coming out of COVID or brought on by other things. People have talked about violent video games—that's not in and of itself the driver. But essentially your only socialization is you are on Discord, in the gaming community, and that's not real personal interaction. So, all of these things are contributing factors to some of these acts of violence. And some of these young men are looking at society and saying, “Well, what for?” So, that doesn't mean he's not a rational actor, but there might be underlying issues. TUR: I want to ask Brandy about nihilism, but I just want to focus on for one more second. I mean, he does say that he wants to kill Charlie Kirk because of the evil and the hate that he spreads. Would that not be considered a pretty clear-cut motive? O’LEARY: It's certainly a motive, but is it necessarily clearly an ideology and part of a broader, you know, movement and political violence or terrorism? And statutorily it probably wouldn’t get us there. (…)
Like
Comment
Share
The Blaze Media Feed
The Blaze Media Feed
7 w

'That's why he was shot': College students caught on camera destroying Charlie Kirk memorial
Favicon 
www.theblaze.com

'That's why he was shot': College students caught on camera destroying Charlie Kirk memorial

Not even a week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, leftist activists have come out of the woodwork to protest the show of support and religious awakening to which the tragedy has given rise. While many people face punitive measures for their awful reactions to Kirk's shooting, other awful reactions by leftists still abound across the country.In a viral video posted Tuesday afternoon, several activists at University of North Carolina Wilmington were recorded smearing paint over a Kirk memorial on a campus boulder. 'You destroy things you don't agree with. That's why he was shot.'One of the major subjects of the video can be heard arguing with a gathering crowd: "Charlie Kirk is definitely not the morals I support or the religion I support where you're taught to love your neighbor." While it is not clear which religion the young woman thinks Charlie Kirk was a part of or what her religious views are, she insisted she was religious. She also argued with the crowd about "judging." "It's not my right to judge, but it is also not your right to judge," she said, pointing a paint-covered finger at the apparently peaceful onlookers.RELATED: Rubio puts visa holders who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death on high alert Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesOne of the members of the crowd, apparently concerned by the display, shot back, "If we were judging, we would be taking your paint can and dumping it on you. But we're not, are we?"Prior to the vandalism, the American flag, a portrait of Kirk, and a quote had been painted on the boulder. The quote read: "'If you believe in something, you need to have the courage to fight for those ideas — not run away from them or try to silence them.' Charlie Kirk 1993–2025." In the aftermath, the two visible faces of the boulder were almost entirely covered in sky-blue paint, effectively erasing the entire Kirk image. Perhaps ironically, the leftist vandalism left the words "or try to silence them" uncovered near the bottom of the boulder. "You destroy things you don't agree with. That's why he was shot," one person in the crowd saliently remarked. Blaze News contacted UNCW's Dean's Office by phone and was told that the situation is "under review." Blaze News did not immediately receive an official statement when we followed up by email, as directed. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

MSNBC's Brandy Zadrozny: In Death, Charlie Kirk Became the Main Character in a Conspiracy Theory
Favicon 
twitchy.com

MSNBC's Brandy Zadrozny: In Death, Charlie Kirk Became the Main Character in a Conspiracy Theory

MSNBC's Brandy Zadrozny: In Death, Charlie Kirk Became the Main Character in a Conspiracy Theory
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Obama Blames Trump and Definitely NOT Himself or Other Dems for Level of Divisive Rhetoric In Politics
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Obama Blames Trump and Definitely NOT Himself or Other Dems for Level of Divisive Rhetoric In Politics

Obama Blames Trump and Definitely NOT Himself or Other Dems for Level of Divisive Rhetoric In Politics
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Five Police Officers Reportedly Shot in York County Pennsylvania
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Five Police Officers Reportedly Shot in York County Pennsylvania

Five Police Officers Reportedly Shot in York County Pennsylvania
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Frank Turek, Present at Charlie's Assassination, Shares Erika's Message of Instant Passage to Eternity
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Frank Turek, Present at Charlie's Assassination, Shares Erika's Message of Instant Passage to Eternity

Frank Turek, Present at Charlie's Assassination, Shares Erika's Message of Instant Passage to Eternity
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 6683 out of 97769
  • 6679
  • 6680
  • 6681
  • 6682
  • 6683
  • 6684
  • 6685
  • 6686
  • 6687
  • 6688
  • 6689
  • 6690
  • 6691
  • 6692
  • 6693
  • 6694
  • 6695
  • 6696
  • 6697
  • 6698
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund