Charlie Kirk Did the Unimaginable. He Turned the Youth Against the Liberal Establishment.

 

After that quite amazing and moving memorial for Charlie Kirk, there’s been a lot written about him, his legacy, his achievements

We all were quite enthralled by his efforts as probably the most successful political organizer of any party under the age of 40 with Turning Point USA. It’s now up to, I think, requests for 75,000 new chapters. He was a columnist. He was a successful podcaster. He did it all.

But one thing, I think, that hasn’t been remarked about—what was the essence of his appeal to young voters? Why was he able to reverse the turnout in 2020 of young voters? Getting more of them out and getting somewhere from 6% to 20% more of the youth vote in particular states.

And he may have got as many votes for President Donald Trump of those in the more narrow category, 18 to 29, than voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris. Even the 18 to 39 was almost 50/50 in Michigan. So, in some ways, he might have won the election for Donald Trump.

So, what was the secret to his success? I think what he did was quite brilliant. He understood that young people are, by nature, rebellious. You’re full of energy. They’re full of hormones. They’re full of ideas. They haven’t lived a long time. And they question authority. That’s innate to all of us at that age.

But what he was trying to tell them was: Use that natural inquisitiveness, skepticism, maybe even rebelliousness, at the establishment. But you’re mistaken. The establishment is not conservative. The establishment, as defined by the network news, PBS, NPR; as defined by higher education, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford; as defined by the corporate boardroom at Budweiser or Target, or Disney; as defined by the popular culture, if you look—I could just direct you to the halftime show at the typical Super Bowl extravaganza. We could go on, but you get the message.

So what Charlie Kirk was telling young people is, you are living in a society in which the baby boomers of the 1960s and ’70s, are now the establishment. And they are ossified. They are calcified. They have no new ideas. They still are trapped in amber of a sort of revolutionary idea of the ’60s and ’70s—DEI, critical race theory, critical legal theory, radical green environmentalism, open borders.

The result of all this is that you, the youth of America, are told not to do what history says will make you happy: to get married, to have more than two children, or at least two children, to buy a home, to be active in your community, to be patriotic, to be traditionalist. These are things that are not establishment, Kirk was telling young people on campus. These are counterrevolutionaries. You are revolutionaries.

So, what he asked young people to do is to, say, rebel. But remember what you’re rebelling against. It’s not some conservative, 1950s stereotype of an uptight America. America is not uptight. It has no rules. It’s completely without order. It’s in utter chaos. Whether we look at transgenderism or DEI, or an open border, or our legal system, it is a mess. And you’ve suffered.

So, you are going to be revolutionaries. But the trick is you’re not going to try to destroy the old order. You’re gonna try to restore it. The old order is what was normality and common sense. What you grew up under is an aberration. So, as good counterrevolutionaries, tie your youthful zeal to formal efforts to overthrow this dominant paradigm that has made your life, in some ways, miserable.

So, we look back at his career, Charlie Kirk came up with the idea that he was going to go throughout higher education, indeed, youthful America in general, and encourage that natural skepticism. And not to say, “Please don’t question authority. Please be stayed. Please be true.” He was trying to say, “Be a counterrevolutionary because the establishment is not you or me. It’s radical. And it needs to be changed.”

Trump Is Shifting Strategy on Putin

 

There’s been a lot of news that President Donald Trump, apparently, has changed his position on Ukraine.

He addressed the United Nations recently and he said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is stalled, that he’s been fighting aimlessly, and that if he continues his air intrusions, whether by planes or drones, into NATO member countries, they might have to shoot them down.

He’s also said that if the Europeans will stop buying Russian oil and gas and start supporting Ukraine, Ukraine might be able to take back most of its territory lost after Feb. 24, 2022. Although, he didn’t intend Crimea or all of the Donbas.

What’s going on? What’s going on, Donald Trump came into office thinking that former President Joe Biden’s lack of a strategy, Joe Biden’s demonization of Putin, as a dictator or a murder—true, but you never really insult your future interlocutor—was shortsighted.

And because, as president, Donald Trump said: Well, you know, he went in under George Bush into Georgia, Ossetia, because Bush was mired in Iraq and projected, maybe, an image, unintentionally, of weakness. And then there was Barack Obama and the hot mic in Seoul. You know: Tell Vladimir, I’ll be flexible. Next thing you know he’s gone into Donbas and Crimea. And then with Biden, he tried to take—yeah, but he didn’t try to take it under me, Donald Trump.

And then Donald Trump said: I know Putin. He fears and respects me. So, I can cut a deal.

What Trump did not calibrate, though, very quickly, was that—in the worst mistake of his political life—Vladimir Putin went into Ukraine and he is in a slog, a morass, a World War I trench mess. He has lost over a million Russian dead, wounded, and missing or captured. And he thinks that he can wear down the Ukrainians that have one-fourth the population, one-tenth the economy, and one-thirtieth the area. And so, he will not stop.

And Donald Trump, now, has seen that, and he says to himself and to, now, the United Nations: Well, if NATO will stop buying oil and gas, I will start imposing a secondary boycott against China and India. And we will starve their income, and they’ll have to make an agreement and then all of NATO will, I guess, be self-sufficient in oil, either from the Middle East or they’ll have to develop their own natural gas, which, there are some deposits they’ve ignored in Continental Europe. And they can buy liquified natural gas from the United States. And therefore, we will starve Russia out and we will all combine and we can win.

And then he said something very controversial. He said: And they can get all the land back that they lost after Feb. 24, 2022.

As I said, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Vladimir Putin has, as I said before, an imaginary line, of which he thinks, if he gets to this point, he goes back to his controllers, the oligarchs, the military, and he says to them: “Yes, I lost a million to a million and a half Russians. But look how much land I got. I took our borders and I advanced them, all the way here. Not just Crimea as institutionalized. Not just Donbas as institutionalized. Not just Ukraine will never be in NATO. But I’ve got some very valuable territory. And now we’ll have a DMZ, like North Korea. But I got to get a little bit more territory.”

And so, we don’t know where that land is. But when he gets to that point, then he will feel that he will not be dethroned, murdered, or replaced for the biggest blunder in modern Russian history.

But Donald Trump said something—so we don’t know where that area to negotiate is. But it’s somewhere. But then Donald Trump said, I think, wisely, he said: But we’re going to make sure Ukraine doesn’t lose. And then he said they can take, as I said, they can take back all the land. They can’t.

We saw the 2023 offensive. This is World War I. And all of the assets are on Russia’s side. And it’s trench warfare. And the last time they tried to—in this new type of drone war and artillery war—advance with armor, with American advisers who had been plotting courses of offensives, it was a total catastrophe.

They don’t have the manpower. They don’t have the wherewithal. What they do have are brilliant fighters, a sophisticated drone industry, that if they are entrenched and they can hold a line where they are and they can selectively hit oil refineries and munitions plants in Russia, in Western Russia, then they can make it so costly—in a Somme- or Passchendaele- or Verdun-like resistance—that Russia will have to come to the bargaining table.

In other words, they can bounce Russia back and back and back because Putin apparently thinks he needs more land to justify this blunder and get a piece. And if the Ukrainians can hold fast and be rearmed and make it so costly that he doesn’t get more land, there will be peace.

But please, Mr. President, let’s not get the idea that you’re going to take a country that’s lost 12 million people, who have fled the country, and its economy is devastated, and the Europeans are terrified, and think we’re going to make a huge, armored offensive and go back into all of occupied Ukraine and take it back. It’s not gonna happen. And it will end up like the disasters of World War I. And the trenches are something like Stalingrad.

Don’t Look Away—These Are the Democrat Party’s True Colors

 

In the past, I’ve talked about all the narratives that the Democratic Party elite and the Left in general have floated to sort of confuse us about who or what was responsible for the horrific shooting of Charlie Kirk.

We’ve been told there was no motive. That was crazy. Or we’ve been told that MAGA people did it. That was shot down very quickly when evidence proved otherwise. We were told that President Donald Trump himself was the catalyst. That was shot down. We were told it was a “love story” between the shooter and his trans boyfriend/girlfriend, and that explained it, the emotional turmoil. That was shot down.

And finally, I suggested to you that they came to what they most naturally felt comfortable with. They were gonna be unapologetic. They were going to attack Charlie Kirk as a disruptive racist, horrible human being, and then things happen. Meaning, he asked for it.

I didn’t quite anticipate what we saw the last week. When Rep. Ilhan Omar went on national TV and when she was asked about some of her comments, saying that he sort of deserved what he got, she doubled down on it, just as I’d expected. But I didn’t think she would do it to that degree of vehement. She said that he was a racist and that he, every day of his life, had been espousing hatred for groups, such as herself.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tried to top that. And she said that—AOC came in and there’s sort of a rivalry, remember, among members of “the squad,” so she was obviously thinking: How can I gross out Ilhan Omar, by coming up with my own exegesis that is even more heartless and mean? And she did.

She basically said: I’m not gonna be in a position where I have to support Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Nobody was asking her to. They were just asking her, with other members of Congress, to express their sympathies for his family in a memorial vote of remembrance.

And then we, of course, had the ubiquitous Rep. Jasmine Crockett. She came on national news, and she said that she was really upset because the House had voted for this formal declaration of remembrance and commemoration for Charlie Kirk.

And then she said she was really angry because, in her view, there were only two Caucasians—I haven’t heard that word for the Russian caucus in a long time. It’s sort of been relegated to the dustbin. She’s used the word—Ilhan Omar used the word “dustbin.” But in this case, it’s apt. It kind of has the same fossilized, anachronistic sound as “Negro” does: Caucasian. But she used it, nevertheless. And she said, “Only two.” But like everything Jasmine Crockett says, you have to double-check because she is a chronic liar.

And in this case, there were 95 House members who voted not to sign that moment, that letter of commemoration and sympathy. Ninety-five chose not to sign it, and she says only two Caucasian.

That’s false because included in that group were the people who voted against it. And she may mean that applied to those who voted against it, but there was a greater number that never showed up, by intent, or voted “present.” You add them all together, Rep. Crockett, there were 118 House members who said they were not going to put their name or not show up or not vote on anything that expressed sympathy for the passing of Charlie Kirk. And in that 118, there were plenty of people of so-called white legacies.

But here’s the point. The House has a tradition, when major figures—political or in the media or in the popular culture—are gunned down, to express empathy.

One of the more horrific things that happened, recently, was in Minnesota, when the speaker of the Minnesota Legislature and her husband were gunned down by a—he was a private citizen, angry over abortion. And he shot both of them. And he also wounded another legislator and his spouse.

And the point I’m making is the House got together, almost immediately, and expressed their sympathy and outrage, and condemned that shooting. And 424-to-0 was the vote. So, every single Republican went on record saying this is atrocious, that a gunman shot these very liberal, Democratic legislators in the state of liberal Minnesota.

Nobody argued and said, “Well, the shooter was against abortion,” or, “Well, maybe he wasn’t right-wing because Gov. Tim Walz seemed to have appointed”—there was none of that. All that mattered was this was a horrific act. And everybody felt bad for the families, but more importantly, outraged that anybody would use violence for political purposes.

So, all people were trying to do after the death of Charlie Kirk, Rep. Crockett, Rep. Omar, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, just show a little sympathy, just put away the politics. And you failed that basic human test. And you not only failed it, you did something even worse.

You kept saying that he was a racist and he was a racist every day, and he was mean-spirited, etc. And then, you did not give one shred of evidence. You didn’t produce a written document. And when we have seen people who have quoted him, they misquoted him. Why don’t you just watch his videos and see what he says when he encountered racists of either side? And he always opposed that.

But for all of these representatives that represent the new face of the Democratic Party, the more we get to know you, the more we’re not going to like you or support you.

How Trump Exposed the UN’s Hidden Agenda

 

On Sept. 23, President Donald Trump gave an address to the United Nations. It was a rare address. Believe me. No one has ever been that blunt, that explicit, and that critical of the U.N.

It was scheduled to be 15 minutes—but on the other hand, if the U.N. membership was shocked at the candor of Donald Trump, Donald Trump had ample reasons to be candid because before he even gave the speech, he and first lady Melania Trump and their entourage were just, the minute they got on the escalator, it mysteriously shut down. And by the way, the London Times had run a story saying that some members wanted to shut it down in protest of Trump’s cutting back on U.N. support.

That was an odd thing to happen.

No. 2 was the teleprompter suddenly went out. But the escalator, by this time, was mysteriously back in service and the teleprompter would be too.

And then, three, unbeknownst to Donald Trump, people, reporters, and even first lady Melania Trump said you couldn’t hear Trump. All of a sudden, mysteriously, his sound was—what do you want to call it Deamplified?

And then fourth, for a minute, the translation did not come into English to the membership, but to Portuguese.

All four of those circumstances were almost impossible to occur in one session. So, what am I getting at? This is very serious. It means that the United Nations has employees, or perhaps administrators, who deliberately tried to sabotage an American president while on American soil.

So, Donald Trump, as he was experiencing the breakdown in the teleprompter, and had just gone through the escalator shock, decided to lengthen his speech from 15 minutes to about 55, and he had some blockbuster things to say.

First of all, the U.N. did not like it. They sat in stony silence. Why? First of all, he said the U.N. had been of no real importance when he was trying to negotiate peace, or at least a ceasefire, with the Congo and Rwanda, with Serbia and Bosnia, with Russia, of course, and Ukraine, Pakistan and India. I could go on, but he had seven separate conflicts that he at least got a temporary ceasefire. There was no U.N. praise, there was no U.N. input.

The subtext, what he was saying, is that most of their declarations of condemnation are against tiny Israel. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would follow his appearance at the U.N. and half—at least a lot of the contingents—just simply walked out.

Now, they didn’t do that for the Palestinians, of course. And notice another thing. Israel is a democratic country, and they walk out when the prime minister speaks. But they don’t walk out when Chinese leader Xi Jinping speaks. He’s got over a million people in a Uyghur labor camp. They don’t walk out when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks. Turkey has occupied for a half-century, illegally, Northern Cyprus. And they don’t, of course, walk out when a Russian diplomat speaks, when they’ve killed over 150,000 Ukrainians in this war.

It’s only selective because Israel is tiny, it’s Western, and—let’s speak frank—it’s Jewish. But Donald Trump—so, he knows all that in advance and he has no respect for the U.N.

The other subtext that got the U.N. people very angry was that he talked about Europe—not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America. And they felt excluded. But he—it was very passive-aggressive. He said to Europe: I love Europe. I want you to fulfill, essentially, your shared Western heritage with us, but you’re not doing it, and you’re not doing it for three or four things.

No. 1, you’ve embarked on a suicidal energy policy that subsidizes inefficient and unsustainable green energy—solar and wind, specifically—and you’ve given up oil and natural gas and clean coal and nuclear, and you’ve lost your competitive edge and your consumers are hurting.

No. 2, you let in millions of illegal immigrants—and not just any illegal immigrants, mostly from the war-torn Middle East, who were Islamic and had no desire to adapt to, integrate with, or assimilate with Western civilization’s customs, cultural norms.

And therefore, you’ve got a terrible problem with immigration, you’ve got inefficient energy, and you’re disarmed. And I’m lecturing you, Trump said, because I love Europe and I want you to be a full partner.

And that offended the rest of the world that wasn’t—didn’t get that privilege of having a U.S. president talk directly to them, but it also got the Europeans angry because he was telling them the truth.

The Crudity of the Obsessive-Compulsive Left

 Be

efore he arrived, there were reports that U.N. staffers had joked about shutting down the escalator to chastise Trump for cutting out aid to some U.N. programs.

Upon arrival, as if on cue, Trump was met by a series of mysterious coincidences.

As soon as he and first lady Melania Trump mounted the escalator, it suddenly froze—forcing them to walk up.

Other escalators worked fine. Shortly afterward, the supposedly broken escalator was just as mysteriously running again.

When Donald Trump went to the podium, his teleprompter mysteriously quit—and his alone.

As he delivered his speech from a text, the amplification in parts of the assembly was mysteriously lowered to near imperceptible levels.

Despite U.N. denials, all three “accidents” were too closely tied to Trump to be coincidences.

But they remind us that the left-wing hatred of the president has gone global—even after two near-successful assassination attempts.

The House of Representatives recently offered a resolution honoring the life and legacy of the conservative organizer Charlie Kirk, murdered by a leftist assassin.

The Left both feared and hated Kirk. Why?

He had been singularly successful in redirecting youth’s natural rebelliousness against the status quo onto the ruling, ossified liberal establishment.

Kirk was winning over a new generation of young Americans to be counterculturalists and counterrevolutionaries.

He urged them to question the entire left-wing orthodoxy of higher education, the corporate media, and popular culture—the ruling institutions that the baby boomers had enshrined as the current establishment.

His singular success may be why the terrified Left attacked him as much after death as they had while he was alive.

The House effort had followed an earlier bipartisan unanimous resolution honoring a Democrat Minnesota state legislator and her husband, recently murdered by an anti-abortionist assassin.

But unlike that earlier commemoration unanimously passed by all Democrats and Republicans, Kirk’s resolution was variously opposed by over 118 Democrat House members.

The new radical Democrats who increasingly control the party, such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Jasmine Crockett, were vocal in smearing the resolution.

But they went well beyond voting no by gratuitously slandering the late Charlie Kirk as an inveterate racist and all-around toxic person not worthy of any commemoration.

The common denominator to all their hateful outbursts was their venomous ignorance, given that they either never referenced anything Kirk actually said and wrote or quoted him inaccurately.

The race-obsessed Crockett whined that “only two Caucasians” had opposed the resolution commemorating Kirk’s life.

But this was another lie, since the majority of Democrats expressed their opposition either by voting no (58), abstaining by voting present (38), or by not voting at all (22).

Thus, contrary to Crockett’s trademark racist ranting, the majority of Democrat House members who opposed the resolution included far more than “two Caucasians.”

And even if she were honest, in her racialized world of hatred, would it have been more racist if only “two Caucasians” had opposed the resolution or if the vast majority of the Hispanic and black caucuses in bloc fashion had overwhelmingly and disproportionately condemned and denigrated Kirk and the resolution?

This increasing coarseness of the Left follows its recent canonization of the murderer Luigi Mangione.

The left-wing media also suffocated news stories about the horrific, lethal throat-slitting of immigrant Irnya Zarutska by 14-time felon DeCarlos Brown Jr.

Violent attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement centers and individual officers are now routine and more praised than condemned by the Left.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is emblematic of this fury and frustration of the new, obsessive-compulsive Left.

His state is in free-fall.

Huge deficits, unfunded mandates, and the highest housing costs, gas prices, and income taxes in the nation force hundreds of thousands of residents yearly to leave.

California’s electricity and gas are likewise the costliest in the U.S.

The poverty rate is over 20% of the population.

A third of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California. Nearly half of its homeless do too.

Newsom neglects all these existential challenges and instead seeks to outdo his leftist wannabe presidential rivals.

Shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Newsom tweeted an implied threat last Saturday to Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem, warning her that she was “going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

He had also earlier threatened the president with violence, “We are going to fight back and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.”

And Newsom had earlier extended that warning to half the nation of Trump supporters: “I’m gonna punch these sons of b—— in the mouth.”

The only mystery about the new obsessive-compulsive Left is whether their vulgarity, violence, and crudity trickle top-down from the uncouth Democrat elite—or rise bottom-up from thuggish Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the rioters who attack ICE and Tesla dealerships, and disrupt Charlie Kirk’s funeral services.

Rate this: