The Assassination of Charlie Kirk’s Reputation

Some are so desperate to smear Kirk that one wonders if they can hear themselves.

On September 12th, YouGov published a set of polls which reported that, while most Americans either thought political violence was “a very big problem” or “somewhat of a problem,” this majority only stood at only 59%.

When the respondents were categorized by political ideology, “very liberal” and “liberal” were the least likely to be concerned about political violence. When the respondents were categorized by age, the young (18-29 and 30-44) were least likely to consider political violence a problem.

The results are similar when the question becomes whether political violence could be justified. The poll shows that the young and those who identify as liberal are the groups that most find political violence justifiable, whether it’s against a presidential candidate speaking to a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a UnitedHealthcare CEO walking home through Midtown Manhattan, or a young Christian conservative debating college students on a campus in Utah.

Why this survey is disturbing is that it was initiated on September 10th, the day of Charlie Kirk’s murder. One might have hoped that Kirk’s death would be more of a unifying event against political violence.

Yet, even this tragedy was not enough to bring the percentage of Americans who consider political violence unacceptable closer to 100% than 50%. Even the sight of a young man with a wife and children did not persuade a sizeable percentage of young liberals that this horror should never be tolerated in a civilized society.

Kirk’s murder did bring some bipartisanship, however. The Senate unanimously passed a “National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk” resolution to honor his commitment to “the values of individual liberty, open debate, the importance of civic engagement, and the defense of constitutional principles.”

The House also passed the measure, but not unanimously. In contrast to the resolution that condemned the shooting of two Minnesota Democrat state lawmakers, which passed 410-0, the House resolution for Kirk saw 58 Democrats voting no, 38 Democrats voting present, and 22 Democrats simply refusing to vote.

Chief among those who refused to support the Kirk resolution is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a New York congresswoman especially popular among young liberals, who complained that the passage of the bill “brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.”

She then goes on to paint a slanderously inaccurate portrait of Kirk’s views:

“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.”

AOC is implying here that Charlie Kirk opposed the right of African Americans to vote. He doesn't. Kirk opposed the act because he felt the Civil Rights Act (CRA) led to a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy,” one that often superseded the U.S. Constitution.

Kirk often prefaced his argument against the CRA as radical, but it is an opposition shared by libertarians from Barry Goldwater in 1964 to today. Many libertarians have argued that, though they support civil rights, our federal government should not infringe upon the rights of private businesses or of the states. It is not an argument that I support, but it is not one founded in racism.

AOC also takes Kirk’s remark about Paul Pelosi out of context in order to falsely portray him. She implies that Kirk felt that because Paul Pelosi, husband to Nancy Pelosi, was a prominent Democrat, it would be patriotic to free the attacker on bail. However, Kirk argued that the attack was “awful” and that the attacker should be bailed out in order to investigate why the attack occurred:

“And why is he (Pelosi’s attacker, David DePape) still in jail? Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out… Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”

Kirk clarified that he wasn’t “qualifying” the attack.

“I think it’s awful. It’s not right,” he said.”

Kirk also saw no reason to be shy about expressing his view that Jews have an oversized influence on certain areas of American life because the facts, and many Jews, support him.

For example, according to a study reported in The Jerusalem Post, only 2% of Americans are Jewish, yet 50% of the donations to the Democratic Party come from Jews. The Jerusalem Post also confirms that “the entertainment industry has disproportionately many Jewish people working in it.”

So where is the lie in Kirk’s comment?

Unfortunately, AOC is not alone in her slandering of Kirk. Since his death, there has been an overwhelming number of attempts to sully his name.

Kirk was, as mentioned, a fierce opponent of DEI, for example. He said that because of DEI hiring practices — hiring based on the promotion of diversity, equality, and inclusion; rather than on merit — that “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”

Kirk expanded upon his argument here:

“Let me tell you exactly what I said, okay? So this was in response first and foremost to United Airlines saying that half of all their new pilots that they are going to hire are going to be women or people of color. Currently, they are 15%. So they want to go from 15% to 50%.

A conversation then ensued about how every time affirmative action is employed, standards have to be lowered. There is not a single incidence when that does not occur. So then I said ‘Boy, if I see a Black pilot, I am now going to wonder is that individual qualified, or were they selected because of their race. Comma. But that’s not who I am but this makes me think this way. And I stand completely by that statement.

Secondly…DEI and affirmative action, what it does, is it lowers the merit, it lowers the threshold of standards, and increases the things that do not matter, such as skin color and ethnic background. So that is what I said.

A more important question to ask me is ‘Charlie, do you believe that Black pilots can be qualified?’ Of course. Any individual can be qualified. I want a hiring quota and program that only cares about qualification, not skin color.

And thirdly, I would say, why does United Airlines care so much about the color of the pilots that are flying them. Shouldn't they just want the best pilots?”

Kirk was also known to point out that more crime was emanating from the African American community than from other communities. His statements on this issue may be uncomfortable to hear, but were rooted in fact, and hardly racist.

Some are so desperate to smear Kirk that one wonders if they can hear themselves. Some, for example, point to Kirk’s dislike" of Dr. Martin Luther King as proof of his racism. It is not a dislike that I share. However, using his assertion that “Fredrick Douglass, Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, and Justice Clarence Thomas are far better Black role models to celebrate than Martin Luther King” is not the slam-dunk evidence that Charlie Kirk is a White Nationalist that they seem to think it is.

Another post circulating on X claimed as fact that Kirk was a “White supremacist” because, believe it or not, he didn’t like Beyonce’s music. If you don’t like “Crazy in Love,” then you hate Blacks, apparently.

Perhaps the most incredible attempt to prove that Kirk was a racist is another post that had gone viral on X with 17 million views, claiming that the video was of Kirk calling an Asian woman a “chink.”

According to FactCheck:

“The video, however, does not show Kirk using the slur. Rather, as an X Community Note explains, Kirk was shouting at Cenk Uygur, a co-host of the Young Turks, a progressive online news show, and using his first name. The two men were at Politicon, an annual nonpartisan political convention, in October 2018.

“I live like a capitalist every single day, Cenk!” Kirk said angrily to Uygur, after Uygur interrupted a debate Kirk was having with the Young Turks’ Hasan Piker about what political views young people should have. “Come on, Cenk, let’s go,” he said later.”

If one truly wants to know Kirk’s view on race and racism, one should not look to social media or the mainstream media. His view on these issues, much like his view on a list of topics, are very easy to find:

“If you look at DNA independently in a science laboratory, they cannot distinguish between a Black person or a white person. They cannot just look at DNA. Because the only difference is melanin . . . Racism is a social construct that I want to break out of.”

Charlie Kirk’s murder affected this nation in a way matched by few. He was not in a position in which he could directly affect many lives. He was not a governor or a president. He was not a general. He was not on the Supreme Court. He could not send anyone to war or even raise anyone’s taxes. No one who did not like him was obligated to attend any of his debates.

He was only a husband, a father, and an American who voiced his opinions.

Despite his youth, his organization, Turning Point USA, reached tens of millions — online, at faith-based events, in high schools, on college campuses, at major political conventions — and the like. He was focused more than most on preaching conservatism and Christianity to the very group of young Americans who, as evidenced by the aforementioned YouGov poll, are most easily radicalized.

He died because of his beliefs. By doing so, he exposed the enemy. It is the same enemy that is seeking to follow his assassination with an assassination of his reputation.

—DK