看來老美們沒有我想的那麼笨！

Republicans are ridiculing ‘No Kings.’ A striking new poll shows Americans aren’t laughing

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN, 10/22/25

Republicans have spent many days trying to marginalize the massive anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies held across the country over the weekend.

They’ve argued the people involved were extremists and even predicted they would be violent (which turned out not to be true). They’ve claimed the protesters hate America. And they’ve argued that the “No Kings” message itself is nonsensical, given President Donald Trump is a democratically elected president who sometimes works with Congress.

Trump said Sunday that the people were “not representative of this country.” He and his team have taken to mockingly posting memes and AI videos with Trump donning a crown — including one that the president shared in which he dumps brown waste on protesters.

House Speaker Mike Johnson added Monday night on Fox News that the protesters’ messages were “completely the opposite of what America was founded upon.”

New polling, though, reinforces how much the thrust of the “No Kings” message has resonated with much of the American public.

In fact, a majority of Americans appear sympathetic to it, at least to some extent. And their ranks appear to be growing.

The survey from the Public Religion Research Institute gave people two options. One was that

Trump is a “potentially dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys democracy.” The other was that
he’s a “strong leader who should be given the power he needs to restore America’s greatness.”

Americans chose the “dictator” option by a strong margin, 56%-41%.

And notably, that margin has nearly doubled since April, when Americans also sided with the “dictator” option but by a smaller, 52%-44% margin.

The same poll also showed a 54% majority sided with the view that Trump is waging an “assault on constitutional balances and the rule of law.” The alternative was that his overhaul of the federal government is “a long-overdue correction of disastrous policies” (43%).

It’s possible to oversell poll numbers like this. Giving people binary choices can inflate numbers by making people choose one extreme or another. People who don’t like Trump but don’t think he’s a dictator might feel compelled to choose the “dictator” option to avoid endorsing a man they don’t like.

But tellingly, the poll also asked people about the strength of their views. Fully 45% of Americans said they “strongly” agreed Trump was a dangerous dictator, and 43% strongly agreed that he’s waging an assault on checks and balances and the rule of law.

In both cases, nearly half of independents strongly agreed with those sentiments.

These are, to put it mildly, not insignificant numbers. Say what you will about elements of the “No Kings” rallies; this polling suggests the thrust of the demonstrations hardly appears ridiculous to a majority of Americans.

And this is merely the latest indicator that huge numbers of Americans have such concerns.

Clear majorities see him exceeding his powers

Whether “dictator” or “king” are particularly apt labels, Americans are clearly sympathetic to the idea that Trump is abusing his power.

*  56% said Trump had gone “too far” in “using the power of the presidency and executive branch,” according to a July CNN poll. That was up from 52% in February.
*  57% said Trump had gone “too far” in using presidential power to achieve his goals, according to an April AP-NORC poll.
*  62% said Trump has gone beyond his authority as president, according to a September Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
*  69% said Trump was exercising more presidential power than other recent presidents, and 49% said both that and that it was “bad” for the country, according to a September Pew Research Center poll.
*  54% of registered voters said he is “exceeding the powers available to him,” according to a September New York Times-Siena College poll. (That included nearly 1 in 5 Republicans.)

Amid the rallies Saturday, a number of conservatives argued that invoking “Kings” was a non sequitur, given Trump was popularly elected in 2024.
 
“I don’t understand how Trump is a King when he won every single swing state, the electoral college and popular vote in a democratic election,” said Meghan McCain.
 
Fox News analyst Brit Hume noted that at least some of Trump’s policies have gotten congressional approval. “Some King,” he said.
 
But there is no question that Trump has disregarded the limits of his authority — and disregarded Congress — in extraordinary ways. The protesters don’t seem to be arguing that Trump is technically a monarch, so much as that he’s seeking to exercise unchecked power when he can.
 
And that seems to be an argument that a majority of Americans sympathize with.
 
Many have worried about this for a long time
 
If anything, these concerns already existed and have just gotten more pronounced as Trump has grabbed for more power.
 
Before Trump’s second term began:

*  Americans were about evenly split on whether he would try to rule as a dictator, with 40% predicting he would and 41% disagreeing, according to a December Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.
*  53% said it was at least “somewhat likely” he would act as a dictator, according to a December Reuters-Ipsos poll.
*  53% of voters said they were “concerned” by Trump’s 2023 comment — he claims it was a joke — that he wanted to be a dictator for a day, per a Quinnipiac University poll.
*  49% of voters said Trump was a “fascist” in an October 2024 ABC News-Ipsos poll.

It’s not just a partisan thing

It might be tempting to look at these numbers and think, well, it’s just partisan.

A decade ago, many Republicans accused Barack Obama of acting like a king, too. And what about when Joe Biden tried to work around a Supreme Court ruling invalidating his move on student loans?

But Americans clearly see a difference with Trump.

For one, in that last poll mentioned above, only about 2 in 10 voters said Trump’s then-opponent, Kamala Harris, was a fascist — less than half of Trump’s number.

群眾就是聲勢和捐款金額，也就是權力的來源。「左」、「右」派的鬥爭明面上是「意識型態」的爭執；骨子裏其實跟兩派「窩裏反」的內鬥一樣，也都是聲勢、捐款金額、資源分配權的爭奪。

狗只能用爪子和牙齒搶骨頭；人有「文化」，所以，搶骨頭的方式得「文明」一些。

Charlie Kirk’s Far-Right Foe Turns Fire on His Widow

Adam Downer, 10/01/25

Far-right provocateur Nick Fuentes has revived his feud with Turning Point USA, aiming his ire at Charlie Kirk’s widow for her conduct in the wake of his death.

請參見本欄2025/09/15和09/24貼文以及下一篇《讀後》。

10 Charlie Kirk Quotes, Ranked from Simply Bad to Utterly Horrible

Everyone has the right to free speech, but what happens when it turns into radicalism and extremism?

Joanna Henderson, 09/21/25

I gasped as I read about Charlie Kirk getting shot last week. I wasn’t exactly surprised, since radical people and politicians are always at risk of violence due to what they do and perpetuate. And yet, reading about a human being getting shot in daylight is shockingly horrific, nonetheless. We all later learnt that he had succumbed to his injuries. It’s incredibly sad.

Or is it? I have to admit: it’s not exactly easy to feel 100% upset about someone that awful leaving our world. Charlie Kirk is one of the brightest examples of how hateful, racist, sexist, and overall morally ugly people get huge platforms, which they use to perpetuate hateful and discriminatory views — in my opinion, of course. He wasn’t as popular and well-known as Donald Trump, but Kirk's actions were, in some ways, even more damaging, because his work revolved around educating the American youth. Shaping young people’s minds with raging hate and influencing them to be anti-human-rights is a horrendous way to spend your life. But hey, this is exactly why true believers are the worst.

While we should mourn the passing of Kirk, as he was a human just like all of us, we must also remember the messages and views he championed. I collected ten quotes and ranked them from merely mediocre to absolutely terrible.

#1: Kirk Calling Women “Bitter” for Being on Birth Control

This man was vocal about women’s bodies and birth control:

“[…] Birth control like really screws up female brains, by the way. Every single one of you needs to make sure that your loved ones are not on birth control. It increases depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Birth control is the number one prescribed medication for young ladies under the age of 25. […] It is awful, it’s terrible, and it creates very angry and bitter young ladies and young women.”

If we put aside the right-winger’s attack on reproductive rights for a moment, out of all Kirk’s statements, this is far from the worst. I have been hearing stories and feedback from my female friends, as well as endless women online, about how birth control messed with their bodies and brains. And how going off of it and saying “no” to birth control helped them become less anxious, irritated and depressed. Studies vary on this, with some finding that the hormonal contraceptives are not associated with depressive symptoms, while other studies claim that such a link could be present. And yet, I currently have a close friend who went off the hormonal birth control a year ago, and she’s shocked by how clear her mind has been, and how lower her anxiety and negative thinking have become.

My beef with the oral and hormonal birth control is not necessarily about whether it worsens the mood swings. My problem is that women “poison” their bodies with hormonal medication that is completely unnecessary, as there are many other contraception methods. Not to mention, such birth control barely exists for men, meaning it’s women who have to mess up their bodies daily, all so that men can have pleasure. If I ever dated someone who suggested I go on the pill, I’d laugh in his face and tell him to start taking the drug himself. Just kidding — I would never want my partner to screw up his body and health with unnecessary hormones. Because, you know, I actually love him and don’t see him as a sexual object that must provide the highest rate of sexual satisfaction at the expense of their health.

Now, I completely understand that women should use the pill as opposed to not using anything at all. Enduring the side effects is not as awful as getting pregnant from a man who is fine with you damaging your body and health with hormones. And even without that, not every person who has sex is smart and mature enough to be a parent. So, by the end of the day, I am still pro-birth-control, even if it comes to the pill. So, I think Kirk had a bit of a point there. Well, except for him calling women “bitter” and “angry”, which isn't nice.

The main problem I see with this is that Charlie Kirk was encouraging young women to have children, as opposed to education and careers, which brings me to the second quote:

#2: Kirk Saying “Have Children, Not Careers” to Women

Listen, everyone should do what they want. One of the ideas of feminism is that women should have the freedom to choose their paths, whether it’s building careers, having kids, or combining both. The problem is, from the grand scheme of things, no human should be subjected to being a free nanny and a free maid, while not having proper useful education and work history, therefore making them fully dependent on others, and effectively “trapped” with a partner who may not be able to care for them, or may end up an awful human being. If a woman gives up her useful education (as in the one that can financially support her and her family) and career prospects, at the very least, it means that she won’t be able to take care of her partner if they get sick, very ill, or die. But most importantly, this is how some people end up in abusive relationships with little chance of leaving. It’s not just women who end up “trapped” with children in dangerous partnerships, but it’s mostly women.

Charkie Kirk’s comment that,

“[…] Women should have children, not careers…”

sets us back 50 years. I also truly believe that a good partner would never want their spouse to be helpless, uneducated, without work skills, or without a work history. Only abusive and controlling people would want their partner to become a free maid, cook and childcarer, without having anything else going for them. In contrast, a truly good person would want their partner to be properly educated, have a work history and a decent salary, and only then become a parent. Don’t forget that we live in an expensive world where bills are always due. But most importantly, becoming a mother who is “trapped” by their husband, who ensured that she has no education or skills, is one of the worst things that could happen to a woman.

It’s interesting how Charlie Kirk never said that men should have children, not careers. Because there are surely a ton of men who focus on careers as opposed to families. This is what men have been taught to do: to obtain proper education, go to work right away, and provide for themselves and others. Kirk never said that men should focus more on family and have children instead. He also never suggested that men should adopt children and raise them, perhaps within a family or on their own. All his rhetoric has always been about women going off birth control, not having abortions, and giving birth. This is all a woman is capable of and should do, according to Charlie Kirk. And while I find family to be the most important thing in the world, I find this approach to be ineffective, misleading, sexist, and extremely dangerous.

An educated woman can have kids slightly later in life. But Charlie Kirk knew that the smarter and more educated people are, the fewer kids they have. This is a documented fact. Also, the man never suggested that it should be about quality, not quantity. Isn’t having one or two kids whom you can properly afford and pay enough attention to better than focusing on the number of kids? Isn’t it better to raise kids in families where parents are better educated and bring in higher incomes, meaning there is less stress about money, and parents can take more time off to be with their children?

Note that the guy didn’t support universal healthcare, which would allow women not to worry about medical bills while being pregnant, giving birth and caring for their kids, who tend to get sick a lot at an early age. I say that because I couldn’t find any sources where Kirk expressed vocal support for the US mandating long-term parental leave (at least 12 to 15 months, or more). So… It was never about family values, women’s and children’s health and well-being, or having a loving family with mature, well-established adults who can care for their kids — wasn’t it?

#3: The “Sexual Anarchy” Comment

Charlie Kirk went trending on Twitter one day for saying Democrats live and want others to live in sexual anarchy. Here’s the direct quote:

“The Democrats want to destroy the country, we know this. They want to see America completely obliterated, the Constitution shredded, and remade in their own San Francisco-Brooklyn-Malibu-Manhattan image, where there is no cultural identity, where you live in sexual anarchy, where private property is a thing of the past, and the ruling class controls everything.”

I’m puzzled by the phrase "sexual anarchy". What does it mean? God knows what was happening in that man’s head. Googling it didn’t help much.

Suppose I were to guess, though, “sexual anarchy” likely refers to people making choices regarding their personal lives and how to express their sexuality. To how people do (and should) be free to be either sexually conservative or sexually active and explorative, or anything in between. Because, you know, God forbid a human being decides they are free to choose how to approach their own sex life, without being brainwashed into “serving God who doesn’t want you to have sex before marriage”, while also being brainwashed into having sex without birth control; not to mention, getting brainwashed into having a ton of kids early in life, since you’re not good enough for anything else. But hey, it’s all about “family values”! People like Charlie Kirk often fail to recognise the contradictions in their own statements and the illogical nature of much of what they say.

Sexual oppression, control and shame have been a part of the radical conservative agenda for decades. Sadly, the United States has clearly been on the downslope in recent years, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade serving as a turning point (in my opinion).

Clearly, Charlie Kirk had no interest in learning anything about sexuality, how it works from a scientific and sociological standpoint, how humans develop physically and psychologically, and how it all feeds into one another. For him, it was easier to shame people who dared to exercise their right to make decisions for their bodies for being “sexually anarchic”. Which is, in normal humans’ words, called “freedom of choice”.

#4: Transphobic Comments

You probably aren’t surprised that the guy was a huge teansphobe.

“These doctors need to be put in prison quickly. We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately,” – Kirk said on an episode of his show.

Oh snap. Every gender-affirming clinic doctor needs to be on trial. Not just any trial, but a Nuremberg-style one.

This comment highlights the total lack of education in people who share Charlie Kirk’s views. Why? Because they don’t have enough intelligence to understand what “gender-affirming care” is. From the term alone, anyone with half a brain should realise that it’s not exclusive to transgender people, but to all people. Because – surprise! – everyone has a gender, and people need to access gender-affirming care for many reasons.

Hysterectomy is an example of gender-affirming care. Mastectomy and breast reconstruction are gender-affirming, too. Those procedures are vital for preserving human life and preventing awful illnesses, and since they’re associated with one’s gender, they’re a part of gender-affirming care.

How about cisgender women receiving hormone replacement treatment after hitting menopause? Or cisgender men with low testosterone levels requiring testosterone therapy? Let me guess: according to Kirk, those are totally fine, despite also being gender-affirming. And guess what? Hormone replacement for menopausal women is not medically necessary; it’s just beneficial, since it relieves negative symptoms and makes women’s lives better. It helps them feel more like themselves. Same with men who have low libido and erectile dysfunction: they won’t die without getting it, but getting this hormone allows men to feel more manly, more like the gender they were born in, and resolve the issue with impotence. Which is… Whaaat? Yes, exactly what transgender people are asking for: to be treated as humans and get access to affordable medical care associated with their gender, even if it’s not medically vital to keep them alive, but it lets them live fuller, better, happier lives — physically, mentally, and emotionally.

But Charlie Kirk called for a ban on gender-affirming care. Probably because he didn’t understand what that medical term even meant. I suspect that he totally supported the gender-affirming care for men who suffer from erectile dysfunction, as long as no one else, especially transgender people, could get the care they needed.

His other fabulous quote on this topic includes:

Transgender women in women’s locker rooms should be “taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and ’60s.”

For context, back in the 50s and 60s, transgender people experienced brutal beatings, sexual assaults, harassment and other types of violence. According to Kirk, this is how we are supposed to treat them nowadays, too.

Do you really feel like saying, “rest in peace” after reading this?

#5: “Immigrants are Invading the Country”

I have always been fascinated by people who oppose immigration, while their country’s government has always supported it. Believe it or not, but countries accept immigrants because their own population is either in decline or simply does not possess the necessary education and work skills to fulfil the nation’s needs. IT workers, engineers, doctors, and many others serve as excellent examples.

Recently, Kirk made xenophobic comments about Indian immigrants. Because, you know, why not isolate a particular racial/ethnic group of people when discussing this topic? He said:

“America does not need more visas for people from India,” — he said.

Here’s a funny fact: Indian individuals are well-known for their skilled and experienced IT workers. I know that the IT sector might be in decline. However, San Francisco and other large cities are not the only ones in need of such employees – many smaller cities and towns lack skilled immigrants, and they need all kinds of new blood. That blood includes Indian folks as well. Not to mention, Indian immigrants usually speak perfect English, albeit with an accent that may come off as heavy; it’s okay, though – people get used to it. Not the entire of India speaks great English, but the skilled workers who get invited to work in the US surely do.

Don’t you also find it funny that a person of European descent is complaining about Indian immigrants, while residing on the land where European colonisers have murdered the Native American (including Indigenous) population? No issue at all, eh?

Additionally, I don’t think Charlie Kirk was of Native American descent. There is limited information about him online, and perhaps he has some Native American roots. But I suspect that he might be a descendant of European immigrants himself. They might be those who committed genocide against the Native population, or those who escaped one of the many horrific wars, violence, perhaps even famine (in case he had Irish heritage – I don’t know if he did). My point is, an immigrant or descendant of immigrants cannot make an argument against immigration.

Kirk was also perpetuating the anti-Hispanic hate, which means the fella clearly didn’t understand the way the US businesses happily hire illegal workers, so that they can pay them illegally low wages, offer no benefits, force them to work long hours, and benefit from it threefold, because no American would ever work as hard as a Mexican worker. Apologies if that sounds insensitive, but if you have ever worked a labour job with a Mexican person, you know what I’m talking about. As a Canadian, I wouldn’t be able to keep up with them either. But hey! According to Kirk, the US should slow down immigration. Nebraska is currently on the receiving end of this, with its agricultural sector getting decimated in 2025.

#6: All the Racist Anti-Black People Comments

The idea of this article was to rank Kirk’s opinions from bad to horrible, but this is the point where all his statements become absolutely awful. I cannot rank this one below any of the ones that follow by awfulness, as it’s morbidly disturbing and racist.

I am going to list many of his statements below, so you can see how horrendous they were:

“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified” — source.

“Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact” — source.

“You can see the white population collapse in L.A. That’s intentional. They’ve wanted it that way.” — source.

Wait, I saved the best for last. And by best, I mean the most horrific:

“Black people were better off in slavery and subjugation before the 1940s … It was bad & it was evil, but they committed less crimes.”

Imagine being so pathetic, hideous, ignorant and feeling superior to other ethnic groups, races or nations, that you say stuff like that. And disregard the country’s amazing people, who contributed to the United States’ development, its once thriving culture, and the country’s legacy. Especially in the Southern states!

But what is even more horrendous, imagine how despicable a human being must be to believe their racist and blatantly fascist views genuinely? How privileged you must feel to feel better than others, simply because of their skin colour, background, history or culture? It’s no wonder Kirk was called a fascist. Because that’s exactly who he was.

When you read his quotes, you lose any compassion for this guy’s passing. As I’ve been reading online posts over the last five days, this quote by Oscar Wilde keeps getting reposted a lot:

“Some people bring happiness by arriving; others by leaving — and a few only by dying.”

But I do want to end this part with a hilarious quote from CK — about Karens. You’re going to enjoy this:

“The Karen slur is attacking white women who believe in being treated respectfully, who want to live in a nice society and recognise that even when white liberal women are awful, they’re trying to get us to accept disgusting behaviour by exploiting our distaste for a subtype of white liberal woman. And they also just want to start a race war. The left would love to see a race war.”

A white supremacist and extremist claiming that “the left” wants to start a race war, all while promoting racism and extremism, is rich. And hilarious.

#7: “Islam is not Comparable with Western Civilisation”

During one of his interviews, Kirk said:

“Islam is not Comparable with Western Civilisation”.

That came from Charlie Kirk, who believes in a prophet (God), prays to him, reads the Holly book, and abides by the ethical code — while criticising Islam, based on believing in a prophet (Allah), praying to him, reading the Holly book (Koran), and abiding by the ethical code.

I have observed over the years that brainwashed Christians who criticise Muslim people and their belief in Islam don’t even understand how similar both religions are. But hey, there is one distinct similarity that is above all of them: just like a small number of radical Muslim individuals, these radical Christians don’t follow their religion at all. Meaning, they don’t love their neighbours (and preach to deport them). Also, they use the Holly Book as an instrument to manipulate, control and radicalise people. They misinterpret what the book says on purpose and tailor it to their own hateful and bigoted agendas.

Kirk’s words about Muslim people correlate with his statements about the Replacement Theory, far-right belief that white people are getting “replaced” by people of colour. CK’s ideas about Christians being “replaced” by non-Christians is similar to the Replacement Theory nonsense. So, while the anti-Muslim comments may not seem like the most radical ones right off the bat, by the end of the day, it’s connected to Kirk’s overall racist, anti-immigrant, anti-anyone-but-white-American-Christians beliefs.

#8: Guns

Kirk was a huge pro-gun supporter. Or, more particularly, anti-gun-regulation, anti-implementation-of-laws-to-save-lives, and anti-school-children-remaining-safe supporter.

The United States is known around the world as a country where 32% of people  (or 44% of households) have been brainwashed into thinking that carrying a gun is normal, and referring to their right to carry such a weapon is normal, too. Thank God for at least some children safety storage laws, but I don’t think that my life is much less valuable compared to children; I’d like to roam around knowing some idiot won’t accidentally shoot me trying to “protect their property” or “protect themselves” (rolling my eyes).

The United States is the only country in the world where gun drills are a normalized part of school life, all while refusing to improve the legislation and reduce the violence and death. all in the name of the Almighty Second Amendment. Because, you know, “freedom.” All so that the NRA keeps raking in cash, lobbying the government to block reform while disguising profit-driven gun culture as a sacred human right. It’s not about liberty — it’s about money and power, sold to the public as patriotism.

Charlie Kirk was extremely vocal about gun laws. He went as far as saying,

“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Ironic, isn’t it?

You have to admire the guy, though: he died believing in this. He was also murdered by the same object which he valued more than human lives, and especially children’s lives. And finally, according to him, his own murder is justified, all to help make the NRA profitable again, or more like their previous levels of profits (they hit $356 million in revenue in 2018, but “only” earned $176 million in 2023).

The day of Kirk’s death, there was a school shooting at Evergreen High School in Evergreen, Colorado. Thankfully, no one died, but two students got injured. Did you even see that news? Very few people did, as all the outlets were clouded by news about CK’s murder. Also, school shootings are currently on the rise, as there have been a record number in 2023 and 2024. But who cares, according to Charlie Kirk?

#9 and #10: Him Saying He’d Make His 10-Year-Old Daughter Give Birth after Being Raped, and His Stance on Abortion

Folks, we have finally reached the most horrific things Charlie Kirk said.

During the 2024 Jubilee debate, precisely at 17:35, the following dialogue transpired:

“Maren: So, I just have one question. There is… Do you think there is any case where you think abortion should be legal?
CK: There’s a very-very rare couple cases where…
Maren: So, you do think that in a couple cases, it is legal?
CK: If c-section is not going to save mother’s life, and the mother’s life is actually at risk, which is debated amongst a growing number of OBGYNs, that is the only case where abortion should be legal.
Maren: Okay… Do you think…
CK: People say that… There is a growing consensus in the pro-life world that abortion is never medically necessary.
Maren: Okay. So, if you had a daughter and she was 10 and she got raped, and she was going to give birth…
CK: I do have a daughter.
Maren: Oh wait! If she was going to give birth and she was going to live, would you want her to go through that and carry her rapist’s baby…
CK: That’s awfully graphic.
Maren: But it’s a real-life scenario that happens to many people.
CK: The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.”

(All original punctuation and errors have been preserved.)

Putting down the keyboard and going for a mental health walk. Upon returning, the only thing I can say is: not everyone deserves to be mourned.

A man who would make his 10-year-old daughter give birth after being raped, a man who believed in all the things listed above – does he deserve to be mourned and missed? Does he deserve to be made to feel bad? Also, would his God support such a belief about rape, abortion and children?

Fun fact. I am not religious, but the Bible says:

Ecclesiastes 4:1

“Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed – and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors – and they have no comforter.”

Ecclesiastes 4:2

“And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.”

Ecclesiastes 4:3

“But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”

If you ask me, Kirk was an example of such evil.

He may not have been as diabolical as Putin or Hitler. He may not have caused massive casualties directly with his own hands. But he surely supported, perpetuated and preached that evil. The evil that, in turn, could and likely did create a lot of harm. Can you imagine the young minds listening to what he preached and following it? Do you imagine the lives ruined, lives lost, nearly forced births that happened, and the lifetime of misery and unhappiness that transpired thanks to people like Charlie Kirk?

Doesn’t it seem like he was the oppressor referenced in the Bible? Didn’t he cause the oppression under the sun? Because, as I have been reading his radical, extremist, harm-inducing statements over the years, this is exactly how it felt.

Conclusion

I cannot, in good conscience, support the murder of a human being. Charlie Kirk was a human. He had every right to his beliefs (free speech), and every right to preach what he thought was right – even if it was extremist and fascist. The thing is, Hitler had every right to free speech as well. Kirk may not have started a world war and caused 60 million casualties. But in my opinion, based on his preaching, he has been doing the legwork to promote similar fascist beliefs. Remember: Hitler didn’t just wake up one day and start the war; it took him years and decades of preaching similar ideas to the German people, about other ethnic groups being inferior. Do you think that Charlie Kirk’s opinions are different? The topics might be different, but the idea remains the same.

I feel bad about any human being dying. But it’s hard to feel 100% compassionate about Charlie Kirk dying. He died from the exact thing he preached and supported: violence and extremism. He did not “deserve” to get shot, but he has been supporting and promoting these ideologies for decades. In the words of Gen-Z-ers, it looks like he f-ed around and found out.

I somehow ended up down the Bible rabbit hole while researching this, so here’s one more verse pertaining to CK’s murder:

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. — Matthew 26:52 (KJV)

Meaning, those who live by violence will eventually fall to violence themselves.

The world might become a better place without people like that. I’m sure Charlie Kirk will enjoy Hell, with warm temperatures and easy access to marshmallow roasters. I’m slightly envious, though, because he gets to relax in Hell, while we get to live in the society he created.