The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

THE ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ADDRESS
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and to begin with, president Donald Trump announced the passing of Charlie Kirk after he was shot at an event at Utah Valley University. In his announcement, he detailed that his administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to the atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after American judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to the US.
President Trump exclaimed that he is filled with grief and anger at the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus, adding that Charlie inspired millions. Referencing to all-so-recent violent occurrences in the US, President Trump added that from the attack on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others. Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. He then asked all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died, the values of free speech, citizenship, and the rule of law.
THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION IS ONGOING
Secondly, regarding details of the assassinaton, as far as the shooting is concerned, as we mentioned this incident occurred on a college campus. The suspect in the shooting is not yet in custody, according to a spokesperson from Utah Valley University, despite saying earlier the police did have someone in custody. In addition, former FBI Agent Stuart Kaplan shared that Charlie Kirk’s Assassination was a “professional hit”, which would add the implication that this was an organised and possibly even funded effort.
IT IS NOTABLE THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS
But, there is a slightly less shocking realisation to the fact that Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus. He often visited college campuses and encouraged debate. He was famous for fielding extremely hostile questions and answering them civilly—the antithesis of those, such as his killer, who silence their opponents with violence.
However, in recent years, many college campuses have become dark, atavistic places of ideological possession and rage – so much so that thirty-four percent of college students recently said they supported using violence in some circumstances to stop a campus speech. More specifically, for years now, institutions of higher learning have exhibited dwindling student tolerance for opposing viewpoints, and this year is the worst yet. A new nationwide survey conducted by my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and College Pulse shows that 34% of college students believe that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable in some cases. Since 2021, that share has risen from 24 percent, which was already unacceptably high.
And so, this data is grim. More college students than ever believe that, at least in some rare circumstances, it can be acceptable for their peers to engage in violence to stop speech they don’t like. This is extremely troubling, because violence in response to speech is how our culture of free expression — and the civil society it creates — begins to crumble completely. When it comes to violence, even “rarely” is too often. And yet, a majority of students — cutting across both liberal and conservative ideological lines, by the way — oppose their schools allowing controversial speakers on campus. And more than two-thirds of students believe it’s acceptable for their peers to engage in the so-called heckler’s veto, shouting down a planned speech with the explicit intention of preventing it from being heard. In addition, more than half of surveyed students believe that physically blocking entry into such an event can be permissible.
But, as alarming as these findings are, unfortunately, they are also not very surprising. For one thing, this has been going on for a long time; FIRE has been issuing these surveys for six years, and each has produced more concerning results than the last. The data is also reflective of an overall polarization in the US and a calcifying antagonism toward perspectives that differ from one’s own.
HOWEVER, there are deeper and more consequential implications at play here as well. The preferences expressed by these students undermine principles that are not just foundational, but fundamental to higher education: and these are principles of open debate, free inquiry, and exposure to differing viewpoints. They are also the pillars of American civil society that are increasingly falling out of favour. Nothing good can come from this — especially when violence is on the table. In fact, democracy requires deliberation and debate. It is premised upon the notion that no one person or group possesses the absolute truth, and as a result they should not possess absolute power or control. When we become so convinced that we are right that we are willing to use force rather than argument to impose our will upon others, democracy dies.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM THAT FUELS VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY
Speaking of an inclination to violence, to underscore the abyss of stupidity in which the political Left has sunk in America, MSNBC Host Katy Tur said on her show—while breaking the news—that Kirk is “divisive” and “polarizing.” Then, one of Tur’s guests on the show, Matthew Dowd—who ran for Lieutenant Governor of Texas as a Democrat in 2021— said, “We don’t know… if this was a supporter shooting their guns off in celebration.” Dowd, who was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, is an expression of the diabolical alliance between Bush era ghouls and today’s Democrat establishment.
Well, immediately following this, a statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler was released, which stated that (quote): “During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.” In addition, Matthew Dowd has also been fired from MSNBC after blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death, in light of Kirk’s Support for gun ownership. It’s incredible to see that Charlie Kirk’s passing has inspired a sense of remorse in the mainstream media, and I hope it does not only become manifest in instances where a person has died.
THE LEFT TRIED TO USE KIRK’S DEATH TO DRUM UP SUPPORT AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT
But, to further the discussion, I’d like to once again respond to the frankly now aggravating misplaced talk about the second amendment and gun ownership in instances where a person dies. However, people minimise the intent of the second amendment, because it is rather incredibly valuable in the grand scheme of things. In more detail, the Second Amendment was originally intended to provide states with the ability to rapidly stand up a militia if needed to push back against federal oppression. As such, the argument that “guns won’t stop a government” comes from a place of defeatism and misunderstanding. Sure, firearms cannot counter a nuclear strike, but that is not the point. The sheer number of guns in America, more than one per person, makes a ground invasion by any foreign power a logistical nightmare. Unlike countries with stricter gun laws, such as those in the UK or Canada, the US is uniquely fortified by its armed populace. Would it be chaotic and bloody? Absolutely. But it would never be a walkover. Therefore, the Second Amendment acts as a powerful deterrent against both foreign and domestic threats on a large scale.
Secondly, it is possible to infer that the existence of the Second Amendment has slowed down a number of so-called “new world order” and big government agendas. This is considering that the American Founding Fathers did not enshrine this right for minor disputes; they designed it to prevent a tyrannical government from overreaching, drawing a clear line in the sand after breaking free from British rule under King George III. They wanted a system that empowered citizens to resist oppression, distinct from the monarchical control they escaped. And so, ultimately, the 2nd Amendment insures that the people are sufficiently respected by governmental authority to deter those who would use government power to strip them of their rights. Which is what Charlie Kirk advocated for.
However, when a shooting does occur, it is easy to see the weapon as the reason for the loss of life. But, here’s how we can think about it: if the shooter did not have a gun, would they also not have the same motive to kill? And chances are, they would likely still have the motive to kill, and would have found other ways to do it. Afterall, we’ve all heard of cases of domestic violence, or terror attacks where it was not a gun that was the primary weapon.
But, the truth is, using Charlie Kirk’s assassination through a gun is only a cover for the evil motives that lie beneath what liberals and Democrats stand for. And I think this was perhaps demonstrated by the fact that Democrats protested praying for Charlie Kirk before they learnt of his passing. In what was one of the most repulsive and evil things ever seen, just before we learned Charlie had passed, Republicans tried to lead a prayer on the House floor – praying for his recovery after he was tragically shot. The Democrats started booing and yelling at them. And yet, it is their rhetoric that often influences these sorts of behaviours! Kindly watch this.
THE LEFT IS THE VIOLENT DANGER THEY PRETENTIOUSLY WARN ABOUT
Shaun Maguire put it aptly when he said, “The Left lectured us for the last decade about the dangers of violence from the Right. But, from the assassination attempts of President Trump, to Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO, being murdered, and now to Charlie Kirk – all this exposes that the danger was actually on the Left. They are the ones who peddle violence against opposents, and actually take violent actions! They are the ones who applaud public speeches relishing the thought of killing Trump and his supporters. They are the ones who applaud as being an artistic edge, artists who make music videos or portrayals of Trump being beaten and fatally shot – they stand behind this, and perpetuate it themselves.
THE MURDERS OF CONSERVATIVE NEWS PERSONALITIES INDICATES A WAR ON PRESS FREEDOMS
You’d recall that we discussed here on The War Room earlier this year the murder of an info wars reporter. In essence, while limitations on press freedoms were being placed on journalists in Ukraine, people like Jaime White were exposing the atrocities of the Ukrainian government. While this was happening, Jamie White, not only covered the proxy war in Ukraine, but posted on X on the 12th of June, in the year 2024, that he found out that he was on the Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war. In addition, the group that is said to have compiled this so-called ‘Enemies List’ is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros.
With this in mind, and considering the fact that the report from law enforcement says that Jaime White was killed by car burglars – here is why I think this connection between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy is important to consider in light of his unacceptable and the broader war on press freedom. First, if he reported in June 2024 (which is before the second Trump administration and DOGE) that the so-called ‘Enemies List’ he was put on is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros – then this should immediately raise alarms, as being one of the clandestine operations that USAID financed that resulted in the deaths of innocent people or oven specific figures of interest. I say this, because we now know that USAID (which is a CIA front) even funded terrorist organisations.
The second reason why this link between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy war is important is because we now know that USAID funded operations in Ukraine; and those operations were not exclusively tied to financing what was (itself) an unjust war. Rather, these operations even include the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and even the killing of political opponents and persons of interests in and outside of Ukraine. All of this to say, that the US military industrial complex, has a vested interest in the proxy war in Ukraine, not only as a means for profit, but also as a tool of shaping geopolitics in Europe through NATO.
And so, if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a professional hit (which can be deduced from the circumstances), and also if Jaime was on a Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war, then there very well could be an intentional targeting of the conservative media and prominent voices.
DEBATE AND DISCOURSE REMAIN PARAMOUNT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DECEPTION
Finally, I think what remains unchanged is that debate and discourse remain paramount. Not only is the freedom of speech an inalienable, God-given right but it is instrumental to bridging gaps that fuel misunderstanding. I’ve followed Charlie Kirk for some time and had a genuine appreciation for his approach to engagement with the youth (while emphasising the Christian perspective), and I think it lies in part with the shared value for debating. Since literally the 6th grade when I took debating as an extra-curricular activity, to high school and university, where I was blessed with opportunities to travel to various countries and debate with students in high school and universities (on various matters, which included beating two Oxford university teams on a Brexit motion, to debating the merits of operation car wash and its role in Bolosanaro’s accession to power in Brazil) – with all of this, to many around the world, debate became more than an extracurricular activity, and became a tool for organised and meaningful discourse. Hear’s why:
First, debate (at least competitively) encourages one to form an antagonistic relationship with ignorance. And this is because those who want to do exceptionally, or deliver speeches with great impact, are compelled to learn the most and go beyond ideas that are on the surface – meaning that you genuinely always want to know so much that you can adequately deliver nuanced approaches to the subject of discussion.
Secondly, debate (when done in sincerity) demands the development and practice of compassion. This is because, often, you will have to debate motions that are trying to solve an issue that does not affect your immediate circumstance, but it will still be required of you to understand the characterisation and circumstances of the primary actors affected enough to contribute a meaningful solution to their crisis. It is why, despite never having lived in the UK, I care deeply about the fact that they do not have a written constitution, which has enabled the Labour government to perpetuate a war on free speech; it is also part the reason why so many of us around the world used various platforms of engagement to foster constructive discourse about the necessity of a second Trump administration, and analysing policy comparisons between him and Kamala Harris before the November 2024 election – despite the fact that we were NOT all Americans who would have an opportunity to cast a vote. Debate, make critical issues matter to you beyond on-the-surface consideration – even if they may seem factually distant to your everyday circumstances.
But then most importantly, debate is one of the most paramount means for facilitating civility among people who disagree, and is also a paramount tool in the fight against deception. This is to say that people are certainly not homogenous beings: people who come from different backgrounds, and are exposed to different information will not often share the views of those who’ve experienced different circumstances. Therefore, building on this concession, debate nevertheless promotes a structured engagement between different people and views, where what matters is who is able make the most compelling case – as opposed to relegating people to isolated thinking silos, where their ideas are never challenged. This is why, even here on ‘The War Room’, I make an effort to reference and display the views that I believe are contrary to truth and what I stand for, before proceeding to offer a refutation and direct response. This is because debate and constructive discourse invites others to share their views; it does not benefit from the censorship of others.
Similarly, debate is a paramount tool against deception – and Charlie Kirk understood this. In his engagements with youth in campuses, he demonstrated that often the disagreements that liberals promulgated against conservatives were based on distorted representations or strawmans of what conservatives actually stand for. He spent a lot of his time dispelling deception by making truth or facts apparent through direct engagement. And so, his activism for Christianity and conservative political ideas was effective for this: he welcomed debate from those who thought differently to him. And so, this is what I hope does not get lost.
I hope it is not lost on us that Charlie Kirk had a gift for embracing his critics, for refuting their arguments in open debate. He loved debate and he loved ideas. He believed in discussion and openness, and urged this country to open it up so that everyone had a place, not just those who agreed with codified claims of mainstream media. Kirk even ran a nationwide debating society, building it from its founding to a huge national presence. His talent for debate, more than any other force in the country, even played a significant role in President Trump winning the Gen Z vote in November 2024 – emphasising that debate is a powerful force capable of turning what was said to be one of the most liberal and political confused generations into a force that rallied behind God’s choice for America. But, here’s Charlie Kirk (himself) making the point himself that when people stop talking (meaning when debate and meaningful discourse stops), that is when bad things happen.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso