Democrats, Tell Your Perverted Allies to Stop Murdering People

 

There’s a famous clip of the late, great Andrew Breitbart confronting a crowd of leftist weirdos, losers, and mutations – but I repeat myself – and shouting “Stop raping people!” Leftists were, in fact, raping people, just as leftists are now, in fact, murdering people – specifically us conservatives. The biggest free speech atrocity in recent memory is not the sidelining of some late-night leftist hack who is as funny as an anal abscess; it's a leftist shooting Charlie Kirk. A Democrat ally killed him to shut him up, and thereby shut us up, and many Democrats cheered. That’s the point. That’s the narrative, and we have to remember it, highlight it, and never let anyone forget it.

Bloody public assassinations of civil rights leaders being a bad look – at least to normal people – Democrats are doing everything they can to obscure the fact that they and their pet psychopathic demons want us disarmed, disenfranchised, and/or dead. Even< the Fredocons who used to tut-tut at us when we pointed out the murderous fantasies and aspirations of these creeps – “Stop saying they want us dead, you big meanies.

That’s not who we are. Oh well, I never!” – have had to concede that yes, that is exactly what the left wants. Now we need to transmit this truth to normal people. And we need to make sure that the left does not somehow muddy the waters with their “What about muh conservatives!” crap.

We need to keep telling them to stop murdering people.

Stop murdering people, you sociopaths.

When they weren’t outright cheering Charlie’s murder, they were covering it up. Well, they can’t cover up the killing itself, but they can try to change the subject. Once the initial celebrations died down – another bad look – it’s been nothing but dissembling, distraction, and outright deceit since the gun smoke cleared. First, they tried to shift the blame. When their “Charlie was asking for it by speaking freely” flex fell flat, they decided to go with trying to pin it on Charlie’s own people. Who would kill a conservative icon? A conservative, of course, because reasons and you’re fascists.

Then, when it turned out the leftist killer was hooked up in a human centipede with some trans furry pervert, well, that clinched it, because nothing says “MAGA” like hooking up in a human centipede with some trans furry pervert. His own words and actions demonstrating his allegiance to the chosen ideology of the Democrat Party were, in fact, a clever ruse to throw us off the scent. And his admission that he killed Charlie Kirk because he was mad that Charlie Kirk refused to validate the forbidden – for good reason – love between he and She-Ra the Anime Anteater was incomprehensible. Why, who can really say what a direct confession of the act and his motivation really means? It’s obscure. You can’t really tell. Occam’s Razor is, of course, racist.

The criminal charges blew that whole charade out of the water like a Venezuelan fentanyl ferry – but not for everyone. There remain a bunch of leftists still giving the “He was ackshally right-wing” narrative a good, old-fashioned college try – that is, trying the commie agitation and propaganda tactics the practitioners learned in college. But most of Team Goebbels took the hint and pivoted to something new.

They became freshly minted free speech absolutists, though, in reality, the only thing absolute about them is their absolute shamelessness. These are the same lil’ stormtroopers who were gleefully cheering on the wholesale censorship of conservatives by the Biden administration and its corporate cronies. Kick the leader of the opposition party off social media? Yes, please! It was especially remarkable when they howled that the removal of Jimmy Kimmel was an unprecedented attack on free speech. I guess they forgot about what happened a week before, when one of their fellow travelers shot Charlie Kirk while and for speaking.

They saw their chance to grab the spotlight by canonizing St. Jimmy, the patron saint of hack insights and flop sweat. ABC’s rural affiliates decided their audience did not want to watch that late-night ratings black hole slime the dead and slander the living, and revolted. ABC was probably delighted to unload its dead-weight host. His viewership had shrunk smaller than Robert Reich after a cold swim; even without his obnoxious behavior, Kimmel would have lasted in that money pit of a gig about as long as a glazed doughnut in the vicinity of JB Pritzker. This crisis was an opportunity to punt that loser, and ABC took it.

The left ran with the opportunity to change the subject. Instantly, the memo went out.

ABC firing its failed stuporstar was the Alien and Sedition Acts times McCarthyism plus Al Gore’s ex-wife’s (Tipper was so uptight and uncool about those massages!) campaign against 2 Live Crew – suddenly, as far as the First Amendment went, the left was “Me love you long time.” (No, I am not linking it!)

Yes, the left suddenly rediscovered its love affair with the 1A right then and there, declaring their commitment to free speech in terms almost as cringe as the declarations of unnatural love in their ally the killer’s text chain to his furry with benefits. Why, how dare you fire a comedian for the crime of doing comedy? Well, apparently, a comedian not named Roseanne.

Of course, Jimmy Kimmel does not do comedy; he does political schtick to impotent boomers with nothing better to do in bed at 11:30 p.m. than watch political diatribes broken up by occasional animal acts, crank calls, and appearances from the geriatric cast pimping the 73rd season of Grey’s Anatomy. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that they want to find the best ground to defend in the wake of their freak friend’s despicable murder and the blowback from the ugly women, femmy dudes, and gender-indeterminate strange-os who could not keep their fat, pierced traps shut. Turns out normal people think it’s bad to cheer on a public assassination.

Well, we can’t let them change the narrative. Our narrative has the formidable advantage of being objectively true. It’s a simple narrative, the best kind.

Democrats need to tell their perverted allies to stop murdering people.

The Democratic Party Is Becoming the Manson Family

 

I’m just going to say it.  The Democratic Party seems to be turning into a death cult. It reminds me increasingly of the murderous following that developed around the 1960s psychopath, Charles Manson, which came to be known as the Manson Family.

For those too young to remember, or need a short refresher, Charles Manson was a career criminal and amateur musician and songwriter. He lived on the fringes of Los Angeles in the 1960s after spending much of his youth in Ohio and West Virginia committing petty crimes and being incarcerated. He eventually wound up in California and spent time in prison, and then in Washington state, where a fellow inmate taught him to play guitar.

Manson became involved in drug experimentation, including LSD (reportedly as part of a CIA program). While living in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco in the late 1960s, he began to preach his own brand of philosophy that married up scientology, Dale Carnegie, and the Beatles. He attracted a following of mostly female fans, largely by manipulating troubled personalities with drugs and his strange proselytizing. They lived in a communal house in Topanga Canyon near Los Angeles. Combining LSD and mind-control, Manson sought to have all his “family” completely submit to his will.

Beginning in 1969, Manson and his followers committed a series of murders in California, the most notorious of which were the Tate-LaBianca murders. Manson ordered four of his followers, three female and one male, to go to a luxurious home near Beverly Hills that was occupied by 26-year-old film actress Sharon Tate, who was 8 ½ months pregnant, and three of her friends. Manson told his four disciples to “totally destroy” everyone in the house “as gruesome as you can.” Manson’s followers didn’t disappoint.  

The mayhem and murders of the home’s occupants after the Manson followers broke in were incredibly brutal. They were shot, stabbed, beaten and hung.  In addition to Tate and her three friends, the baby in Tate’s womb died, as did a hapless friend of the home’s caretaker who happened to drive up to the property shortly before the start of the rampage.

The following night, Manson ordered his followers to murder supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in their Los Angeles area estate. Their murders were equally gruesome.

The perpetrators were soon identified and apprehended, and their trials became a spectacle. Manson would carve an ‘X’ into his forehead, while the female defendants in the murder trials would duplicate the mark on their own foreheads, followed by other members of the Manson Family who were not on trial, but were holding vigils outside the courthouse. (Manson, with his penchant for theatricality, would later turn the ‘X’ into a swastika.)

In August 1969, President Richard Nixon complained that the media were trying to glamorize the Manson Family members, which resonates today, as we see the media glamorize Luigi Mangione, the killer of a healthcare executive. Charles Manson tried to physically attack Judge Charles Older, overseeing his trial, in the courtroom, prompting the judge to arm himself subsequently. Eventually all those charged were convicted and incarcerated for the murders. Manson would die in prison in 2017.

The cultural phenomenon that followed the Manson killings was shocking. Former Weather Underground member, Bernadine Dohrn, who later became a law professor and wife of Barack Obama’s pal, Bill Ayres, said of the murders: “Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate's stomach! Wild!"

We are now witnessing a shocking celebratory reaction of Charlie Kirk’s horrifying public assassination among many on America’s left and in the Democratic Party.  Teachers, professors, physicians, lawyers, and corporate executives have mocked or praised Kirk’s murder. Indeed, the No. 1 demographic celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder is reportedly professors and teachers. One can find countless videos posted to social media of disgusting displays of individuals celebrating the brutal slaying of this man, whose uniquely effective debating skills were too much for them to bear.

New polling data reveals a stunning level of acceptance of political violence on the part of American liberals. The question, “Do you generally consider it to be acceptable or unacceptable for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose?” was met with nearly a quarter of individuals who identified as “very liberal” – 24 percent – responding that it was “always or usually acceptable.” Three percent of those who identified as “very conservative” agreed with that sentiment.

Some Republicans have expressed concern about the potential development on the American left of an “assassination culture” in America.

Just as Charles Manson’s “family” of drug-addled psychopaths had been conditioned to completely submit to the will of their leader, too many Democrats seem to have lost their humanity and have been conditioned to embrace or accept homicide as a tactic in realizing their goals. The same penchants for narcissism, nihilism and public spectacle that drove Manson are what we are witnessing among much of America’s left today.  

Advertisement

Charlie Kirk was the nice guy on the conservative side who thought that his political opponents could be reasoned with by using logical arguments.  It cost him his life. My fervent hope is that the Democratic Party does not continue its descent into Manson-like psychopathy. Better yet, maybe many of its members will wake up and leave that party altogether.

Charlie Kirk’s Fight to Rescue a Generation From University Indoctrination

 

I think we all want to put the passing of Charlie Kirk in perspective. And it’s been a terrible week. And what are we to make sense of this terrible incident? One thing is to remember what Charlie Kirk did.

He was a political organizer. He was a media figure. But he was not trying to persuade people on the basis solely of politics. He didn’t go to the campuses and say, “This is the conservative agenda. This is the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’ This is the immigration. And I want you to vote along this ticket.” That’s what a traditional politician does. He wasn’t.

What he was trying to do was address root causes that make people vote in a particular way. So, he was saying to the Republican Party: We’ve got to address this existential crisis of young people—that was his forte—on campuses and off campuses that can’t afford to buy a car, that can’t afford to buy a home, that can’t afford, right away, to have children.

And that has enormous consequences, not just for the Republican Party—this alienation of the youth and its flirtation with socialisms and its false answers to these real problems. But more importantly, it’s creating a social, cultural problem called ”prolonged adolescence.”

People are not getting married at the age they used to. They’re not having as many children or as early in their lives as they used to. They’re not buying homes in their late 20s or early 30s. They’re going to school, not for four years, but for six or eight years. They’re not going and graduating after four years and getting a good job. They’re graduating at six, eight years with a quarter million dollars—in some cases—in student loans.

So, he was trying to address the cultural, the economic, the social maladies of this country that expressed themselves in politics. And he thought if he took care of that, then he would be successful elsewhere. And so, he was.

So, if you look at 2020, why Donald Trump lost, one of the reasons was that the youth vote that traditionally goes to Democrats really went to Democrats, Joe Biden in 2020. That key demographic of 19- to 40-year-olds. However, in 2024, Donald Trump made amazing rebounds. He got, nationwide, 6% to 8%, about 8% higher of that youth vote than he did in 2020.

But more importantly, in the key swing states—that would be places like Michigan, like Wisconsin, like North Carolina, like Arizona and Georgia—in some cases, he got up to 18% to 19%, flipping a greater margin in 2024 than he did 2020. And that ensured him an Electoral College.

And that was largely, not exclusively, due to Charlie Kirk’s efforts at addressing the real issues that young people were worried about.

There’s a couple of other things about him that were unusual. He was the most successful political activist under 40 of either party, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. And one of the reasons is it’s very hard for someone coming out of college to be a political organizer, a political activist, to create a business-like organization, although it was a 501(c)(3), it was nonprofit. But it was huge, with $100 million budget.

He was a writer. He was a podcaster. Part of that was because he did not go in the traditional academic pathway. He dropped out of college at 18. And he had to live by his wits, not in the artificial bubble of academia or the la-la land of the campus, where there are no consequences to behavior. But he had to earn a living. And he had to form an organization. And he had to appeal to people.

So, pragmatism was his benchmark. And so, he learned to speak to people in a practical way. He learned to write with people in a pragmatic way. He learned to organize and galvanize people in a practical way.

And he said, “The universities are training generation after generation after generation in this seriously dangerous leftist dogma.”

In other words, if you’re worried about this bizarre transgender movement, this cult-like effort to have biological men compete in women’s sports, to take one example; or you’re worried about the idea that you can steal $950 and not be prosecuted; or if you think that race is essential and not incidental to who you are—where did these things come from?

And he said they came from the campus. “And therefore, I’m going to the campus and trying to stop this indoctrination by offering a different pathway.”

You put it all together and if people want to remember Charles Kirk’s legacy, I think the best thing they could do is register, according to your station. Get as many people as you can to register to vote. And try to upset the historical law that says a president will lose and lose badly in his first midterm. If that should happen, President Donald Trump will have an agenda that will be derailed, and he will not be able to fulfill the promises that he made. And the Democratic House, in its lunatic fashion, will try to impeach him.

But if you do go out and register and you show the same energy and creativity that Charlie Kirk did, then you can pull off a historical upset and defeat the out party and ensure a large Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. And that will force multiply the Trump agenda.

The Left Can’t Handle Cancel Culture After Charlie Kirk Assassination

 

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.

Debunking the Left’s Series of Lies Following Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

 

We’re now approaching the first week of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And the Left has put out, I would call them, a series of lies or untruths that are trying to confuse the American people about what happened on that Utah campus.

Let’s do No. 1. They say this is the “conservatives’ George Floyd moment.”

It is not a George Floyd moment. In 2020, after the death of George Floyd, Antifa and Black Lives Matter led five months of violent protests: 35 people killed; 1,500 police officers injured; historic church, torched; police precinct, torched; federal courthouse, torched. In addition to that, we had 1,500 officers injured, $2 billion of property damage, arson, looting, violence. Tried to rush President Donald Trump in the White House and tried to get him on the grounds and sent him to the White House bunker.

That didn’t happen after the death of Charlie Kirk. All people did was try to double down on his efforts. They tried to subscribe, in great numbers, to Turning Point USA. They talked about registering to vote. But it was all peaceful and calm. It was not anything like George Floyd.

No. 2: George Floyd should not have died in police custody.

I’m not going to assess that blame one way or the other. And that was a tragedy that he died. But Charlie Kirk was not anything like George Floyd.

George Floyd was an eight-time career criminal. Eight times he had been convicted of crimes. He was a prison convict. He staged a home invasion robbery and put a knife at the abdomen of the occupant, a young woman.

George Floyd would’ve been fine if he had not been trying to pass counterfeit currency. That’s the only reason he had the encounter with the police. The store owner was scared that this stranger came in, was passing fake bills. They called the police.

He had a second chance. All he had to do was obey the police and get in the car and go to the police station. There would’ve been no problem. He was on amphetamines. He was on fentanyl. He had a COVID-19 disease. He had not been a good father.

Charlie Kirk had never been involved with law enforcement in a negative fashion. He had two kids. He had a wonderful wife. He had a stable family. He was just the antithesis of George Floyd. There was nothing at all similar.

A third lie about the passing of Charlie Kirk as well: This was a Right-on-Right violence because Tyler Robinson, the assassin, came from a Mormon family. And even his trans, transitioning boyfriend/girlfriend that he lived with, he too/she too was from a Mormon—that’s about as close as you can get to that untruth.

In fact, he took the effort to scrawl on the cartridges of the shells that he intended to kill Charlie Kirk—and one did. He had—what did he have on it? He had Antifa logos. Both in Italian and English. He had trans messaging. He was, on record, on a trans chat site, a group of radical people talking about—people were talking about, joking about killing Charlie Kirk.

People who knew him said that he was obsessed with the upcoming arrival of Charlie Kirk, that he damned him at a family dinner. People who knew him said that he was bragging what a great shot he was and how far Left he was.

That was a proven fact, that the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a member of the Left. Just exactly like Luigi Mangione or the Tsarnaev brothers, and a whole list of people who’ve tried to take out people as varied as the Jewish couple that was killed and butchered at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., or the former Bernie Sanders activist who tried to kill some of the Republican leadership and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise.

So, that was untrue.

And finally, it’s very important to see that, as a reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk, there’s nobody going out and threatening everybody. There’s nobody saying that we have to go after this particular person on the Left, we have to do this particular person, we have to have vast new laws to protect Charlie Kirk.

There’s anger that the Left has been promiscuous in the use of Nazi and fascism that lowered the bar of the acceptable. But it’s not like George Floyd, where all of a sudden, people on the Left—remember they were kneeling in the Rotunda, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. And immediately, immediately, the bureaucracy—then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—they used that occasion to mandate radical DEI transformations in our society.

The University of Chicago, to take one example, announced that their English department would take no applicants unless they were black studies concentrators.

So, the Left seized that moment and tried to push through agendas—and were successful—that otherwise would not have happened. Nobody’s trying to do that now.

They’re trying to commemorate Charlie Kirk by one positive way, and that is everybody go out and register to vote. Register as many people as you have. Register more people that are young and conservative than has ever been registered before. And then turn out in the November midterms in one year. And then do the impossible. Overturn historical precedent and elect a conservative House and Senate to empower a conservative Charlie Kirk agenda.