Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page
Books and eBooks by the Director
Thoughts on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Part Three
(Leftists Misrepresent Kirk’s Views; The Alleged Assassin’s Motives; What Free Speech Entails)
This multi-part article is continued from Thoughts on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Part Two (Alleged Assassin Not a Conservative, But in the Leftist/ LGBTQ Camp; Charlie’s Family and Faith).
Corrections
Let me first correct a couple of minor points from my previous reporting. Tyler Robisnon did in fact turn himself in, not his father, but his parents urged him to do so. Also, it was not a minister but a family friend who was a retired deputy sheriff who helped convince Tyler to turn himself in. But the family knew him from church, hence the minister idea.
Charlie Kirk: Hateful and Evil?
I’ve seen or heard many people claim Charlie said things that were “hateful” or “evil.” Some have even claimed he should be “damned” for the evil things he said or are sure he is “burning in hell” right now for those hateful comments.
However, when challenged to provide evidence of his evil or hateful comments, they are unable to do so. The best they can do is to say he hated trans people or that he said causalities are okay to ensure gun rights. But when challenged as to exactly what he said in those regards, they are unable to provide an exact quote.
But not just an exact quote is needed but the source for the quote. Provide a link to the debate, speech, or message in which he made the statement so that we can be sure the quote is indeed accurate and not taken out of context.
I say all of this, as I have watched many Charlie Kirk videos, especially his debates with college students. In all of them, I find him to be very respectful, to let them have their say, and to calmly refute their arguments, with no sense of hate or evilness.
On the trans issue, he mainly challenges the person to define what a woman is. Every time, they reply, “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” When Charlie correctly points out you cannot define a word by using the word, they just keep repeating, “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.”
Pushing someone on correct English is not hateful nor evil. But it is disheartening that college students don’t understand the basics of the English language, or any language for that matter. Defining what you mean by a word is basic to communicating in any language.
I haven’t seen a video yet on the gun rights issue where Charlie says anything close to what is claimed, but I would bet even if he said something like that his comments are not at all as portrayed. My guess is his reasoning would go something like the following:
Given the 2nd Amendment, there will be people killed by those using legally attained firearms. However, there will be more cases of lives saved and property protected from being stolen or vandalized by defensive gun use using legally attained firearms. Meanwhile, most murders are committed with illegally attained firearms. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would thus make people less safe, as all of those lives saved and property protected would be lost, while all of those murders committed with illegal guns would still occur. Consequently, there would be a net increase in lives loss and property stolen or vandalized without the 2nd Amendment.
The reader might disagree with this line of reasoning, but that does not make you loving and me hateful, any more than it would make Charlie hateful if this would indeed be his position. It just means we disagree as to the effect of having versus not having the 2nd Amendment.
That said, I am very sensitive to the misuse of language and to people misquoting words and taking them out of context, as I see and hear people doing it with the Bible all of the time. They also do it with Trump all of the time. I document the former in my various Christian writings (especially my Scripture Workbook: Third Edition), and the latter in my various politics writings (especially my book Alleged Corruption, Bias, and Fraud).
When challenged, they are unable to provide book, chapter, and verse in the case of the Bible or the source for the Trump quote. Or if they do, when I check it out, they have indeed misquoted it or taken it out of context. And now, if I had the time, I could do the same with Charlie and his comments.
Tyler Robinson Formally Charged
Alleged assassin Tyler Robinson was formally charged on Tuesday, September 16, 2025.
Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray charged Robinson with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. Gray said he intends to seek the death penalty against Robinson (CBS News. Charlie Kirk shooting).
All of these charges are perfectly appropriate, as is the seeking of the death penalty.
5“For even the blood of your* lives will I require at [the] hand of all the wild beasts, and I will require [the] same even at [the] hand of [his] brother man. I will require the life of a person. 6The one shedding [the] blood of a person, in place of that blood will his be shed, for in [the] image of God I {Heb., He} made humanity.
[Note: Execution is prescribed as the punishment for premeditated murder (see Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17; Numb 35:30f; Deut 27:24 and notes).] (ALT Torah with note for the forthcoming “Study Version” of the same).
During the press conference after the charging, the following was revealed:
The 22-year-old man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk said in text messages to his romantic partner that he had “had enough of his hatred” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out,” according to prosecutors who filed a murder charge against the suspect on Tuesday [9/16/25]….
A charging document filed by prosecutors in court said that Mr. Robinson’s mother told investigators that her son had grown more political, and that his political views had moved to the left over the last year or so. She also told the police that he had become “more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.” Mr. Robinson’s partner, who was living with him, had been transitioning to being a woman from a man, prosecutors said….
The text messages are illuminating, but they do not show Mr. Robinson discussing which specific views of Mr. Kirk’s he found to be hateful (NYT. Texts).
Tyler Robinson’s mother told investigators she had watched her son change dramatically in the year leading up to the Utah college shooting of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
Once a college scholarship recipient with a promising future, Robinson had “become more political,” leaning left and supporting “pro-gay and trans rights,” his mother said, according to court documents.
She also recounted heated arguments between Robinson and his father, who held sharply different views and regularly sparred over their competing ideologies….
“As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn’t go to jail and just wanted to end it,” prosecutors wrote. “When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there is too much evil and the guy [Charlie Kirk] spreads too much hate.” …
But authorities, citing interviews with his mother, said he had radicalized over the past year — after entering a relationship with a biological male roommate who is transitioning to female….
Authorities said they recovered a Mauser .30-06 rifle wrapped in a towel in the woods near UVU
(Fox News. Mom).
This reporting of what was revealed at this press conference by first a left-wing and then a right-wing news outlet should put to rest any claims the alleged assassin was a conservative. It also puts to rest what his motive was. He believed the leftist misquotes and out-of-context representations of what Charlie had said that falsely labeled him as evil and hateful.
Evidence Against Tyler Robinson
There is a mountain of evidence against Tyler: a note he wrote and left for his trans sexual partner before the assassination, comments he made to two people before the assassination, videos of him walking still-legged before the shooting, getting up onto the rooftop, getting off of the rooftop, and fleeing after the shooting, DNA evidence on the towel the rifle was wrapped in, on the trigger, and on a screwdriver, a handprint, a shoeprint, a sniper position impression on the roof, the unique looking rifle that was used in the shooting matching a rifle given to Tyler by his grandfather, his confession to his father, his confession in an online chat on Discord, and his confession to his trans sexual partner in a series of texts.
The still-legged walking is believed to be because he had the rifle hidden in right pant leg. In that series of texts there is the following chilling exchange:
Roommate: Why?
Robinson: Why did I do it?
Roommate: Yeah
Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out (BBC. Read).
In this exchange, Tyler both confesses his guilt and gives his motive, which again, is that he believed the lie that Charlie was hateful.
The online confession is being investigated, as are all of those who were in that chat to see if they had any part in or foreknowledge of the assassination and if they can verify otherwise Tyler’s guilt. Discord is cooperating in the investigation, in an attempt to keep it from being implicated in the assassination.
However, Tyler will have his day in court. He is set to make a court appearance on September 29th, where I assume he will have to enter a plea. But what will be his defense will be interesting to see.
Given his clear-headed exchange with his trans sexual sin partner shortly after the shooting, an insanity defense would be hard to present. And given this mound of evidence, it will be difficult to prove his innocence. Though, of course, it is the state of Utah that must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Tyler is considered innocent until then.
It must also be noted, missing in the videos is an image of Tyler in the sniper position on the roof and of him actually shooting the rifle. Maybe his defense will make a big deal of that missing evidence.
It is possible he will try to made a deal to plead guilty in exchange for taking the death penalty off of the table. Though I don’t know if the prosecution will go for that or not.
Finally, it was said that the rifle was a hunting rifle with a scope, again, a gift from his grandfather. That means, unless the left bans hunting and a grandfather giving a gun to his grandson, this shooting would not have been prevented by any proposed gun law.
That is more true as Tyler had no prior criminal record and no mental health history. Thus, he would have passed any background check, if such was required for his grandfather to give him the hunting rifle.
Media and Leftists Still Pushing “Conservative” Lie
In his monologue on Tuesday [9/16/25], [Jimmy] Kimmel said that “we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it” (Newsmax. ABC Suspends).
A firestorm has erupted over these comments by late night commentator (not comedian) Jimmy Kimmel. But here, I want to focus on what he said and the fact that it was a lie. And note the date, the same day but after the aforementioned press conference.
That means, all of the evidence that I presented in Part Two that “Alleged Assassin Not a Conservative, But in the Leftist/ LGBTQ Camp” and the preceding in this Part Three had already come out. That means, Jimmy had to know what he was saying was untrue. But as I said at the end of Part Two, leftists are not adverse to lying if it furthers their agenda. Here, that agenda was to still blame conservatives for the assassination, despite all of the evidence being to the contrary.
And sadly, Kimmel is not alone in still pushing this lie. The Internet is still awash with leftists pushing it, while the media is still saying the motive for the assassination is not known. Again, leftist are not adverse to telling lies to further their agenda.
What Free Speech Entails
The chant of the left, especially on college campuses, for many years has been, “free speech; not hate speech.” But if free speech does not include hate speech it is not free at all. In fact, it is to protect what some might consider hateful is exactly one type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. It also protects speaking lies and misinformation. However, free speech does not protect threats of or incitements to violence. But determining the difference between the two and proving the latter is very difficult to ascertain.
Take, for instance, Trump’s speech on the morning of January 6, 2021, at the ellipse in Washington DC. Many on the left believe that his speech that morning incited the violence that occurred a mile away at the Capitol Building that afternoon. That narrative was already being pushed while the uprising was still occurring by CNN and callers to C-Span. However, at no point in that speech did Trump call for violence. He in fact said for those attending the speech to “walk peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to make your voices heard.”
I document all of this in my book Tragic Ending to Donald J. Trump’s Great Presidency. In it, I present Trump’s entire speech and highlight those statements the left claims were calls to violence, like his “fight like hell” statement. But I explain why they were not such. But it was such statements that got him kicked off of social media, that I also discuss in that book.
The left then made a concerted effort to keep Trump from running for President again, as I document in that book and in my follow-up book The Biased J6 Select Committee and on my politics website.
Now it is the right who is claiming the left incited this assassination and the two assassination attempts on Trump with its harsh rhetoric against Trump and conservatives in general, including Charlie Kirk. But again, that speech does not include specific calls to violence but the labeling of Trump, Kirk, and others as: Hitler, Nazis, fascists, destroyers of democracy, racists, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, xenophobes, and whatever other negative labels they can think of or make up.
The idea is, if you could travel back in time to 1939 and assassinate Hitler, would you? If so, and if Trump is indeed today’s Hitler, then assassinating him today would make just as much sense.
But the evidence that Trump, Kirk, and conservatives in general is such simply is not there. Kirk, for instance, was called a fascist in many of the videos I have watched of him debating college students. But when he would challenge the person making the allegation to give him examples of such, he or she was unable to present even one example.
The same has happened on radio talk shows I listen to. A caller will make such a claim. The host will ask for an example. The caller will say they are so many. The host will press for just one, but the caller will never be able to do so.
In any case, given this harsh rhetoric by the left, the right has been exposing those on the left who have made uncouth statements about Kirk’s assassination and even contacting their bosses to get them fired. That includes Kimmel. That leads to an important question.
Cancel Culture and a Violation of the First Amendment or Legitimate Firings?
Residents of Palmetto Bay, Fla., have demanded the resignation of Councilman Stephen Cody, who wrote a post mocking Charlie Kirk’s support for gun rights….
Campaigns have been mounted to publicly shame these critics, and in many cases to get them fired from jobs or expelled from schools — a conservative version of the cancel culture that only a few years ago was wielded by the American left (NYT. He wrote).
The right is defending its calls for the firings and resignations of people like Kimmel and Cody, saying it is not the same as cancel culture. That was an attempt to cancel (get fired or kicked off of social media or deplatformed) any person or organization that did not toe the liberal line. It also included digging things people said or posted years or even decades ago and using that to get them canceled.
But the right says, we now have people who make life or death decisions (such as law enforcement, medical personal, even a Secret Service agent) who have shown they believe some lives are not worth living. That is based on statements they just made now, as a professional adult, not something they posted as a teenager decades ago. The idea is, would you trust a doctor who believes those on the right would be better off dead? There have also been many teachers and professors who are guilty of uncouth comments. Thus again, do you want such people teaching our children?
I am not sure if such reasoning holds up or not. I just stand by what I said in Part Two, “Though you are free to make any disgusting remarks you want, your employer or business associates are free to cut ties with you if you bring disrepute to their companies.” By “free” I mean you have the First Amendment Right to such speech.
However, that does not extend to you having the right to a job at a news outlet or TV network:
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Friday [9/19/25] that he doesn’t think late-night host Jimmy Kimmel would have a case if he decided to sue ABC for suspending his show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely….
ABC is the one who has the First Amendment right to decide who should be on and who shouldn’t be on. Kimmel is just a person who implements ABC’s decision. Again, like The New York Times. It’s The New York Times, according to New York Times v. Sullivan, which has the First Amendment right. The op-ed writer is assigned by The New York Times. If The New York Times doesn’t want to, that’s not a violation of the First Amendment (Newsmax. Dershowitz).
Conservatives, including Trump, are saying this was a business decision. Kimmel’s ratings had been plunging for the past few years, and his show was losing money, then after this remark, several major affiliates threatened to pull his show, so ABC’s parent company of Disney made the business decision to pull the show. The left, however, is pointing to statements made by the head of the FCC as evidence this cancellation was forced by the government, thus it is a breaking of the First Amendment.
The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast…
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at” (NYT. ABC Pulls).
I am not sure if we will ever know which was the greater factor, the low ratings and affiliates’ threats or the comment by Carr. But it is certain Trump had nothing to do with it. He was in the UK attending a state dinner at the time. Trump’s current Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt on his former Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s new FNC show (9/20/25) confirmed she was the one who told Trump about the cancellation, and he was surprised though pleased to hear it.
The overall point is, again, you have the right to speak whatever you want, but words have consequences. And you do not have a right to a job at any given company. Thus again, a business can fire you for your uncouth comments if it is in its best interest to do so.
Erika Kirk Made CEO of TPUSA
The board of conservative group Turning Point USA unanimously elected Erika Kirk as its new chief executive officer and chair of the board, according to a post on the organization’s official X account.
The decision follows previous private conversations in which leader Charlie Kirk reportedly expressed his desire for Erika Kirk to assume those roles in the event of his death (Newsmax. Turning Point).
This decision is especially significant as leftists have tried to portray Charlie as saying a woman’s place is in the home; that a woman should not be in the business world. I even heard a comment by some female news host say she wished Charlie had lived to see his daughter grow up and become a business CEO, as that would cause him to suffer more than being killed.
However, Charlie having expressed his desire for his wife to succeed him as CEO of Turning Point if something were to happen to him bellies that claim. Moreover, I watched a Kirk debate video when this topic came up. Charlie’s position is that a woman should get married and have kids first, then build her career after the kids are grown. That is because there is a “ticking clock” on a woman’s ability to get pregnant but not on her ability to become a business success.
But the perspective today is the exact opposite; that it is best for a woman to first get established in her career, then to get married and have children. But that means she will be in her thirties when she tries to start a family; but by then, it is more difficult to get pregnant, and pregnancy carries greater risks as a woman’s age increases.
Charlie also mentioned that a survey found the happiest women are those with three or more children. That is similar to surveys I cite in my book God’s Sex Plan: Volume Two that show the happiest women are married Christians. All of that makes sense, as it is God’s sex plan for a woman to believe in Him and to get married and have children.
In any case, this goes back to the left mispresenting Kirk’s positions, misquoting his words and taking them out of context. In context, Kirk’s position in this regard makes much sense.
Going after Leftist Groups
The left is going nuts over claims the Trump administration will be going after leftist groups. They are saying this is Trump trying to shut up his political opponents. AG Pam Bondi fueled the flames when she posted on social media that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But she then later clarified that she meant hate speech designed to elicit violence is not protected. And that is exactly what I stated above.
The Trump administration is also saying it will use the RICO act (designed to go after gangsters) to target those who fund violence on the left. The funding of violence is also not protected in any way.
However, as indicated, it will be difficult to prove that speech is designed to incite violence, unless a call is specifically made for violence. The same goes for the funding of violence. As such, I doubt much will come of any of this, except to make the left go nuts.
The problem we have is on the left, if you look at the problem,” Trump told reporters on the tarmac in a media scrum Sunday [9/14/25] night. “The problem is on the left. It’s not on the right like some people like to say is on the right.
“The problem we have is on the left. When you look at the agitators, when you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that’s the left. That’s not the right.”
When asked if there are investigations going high up into leftist groups, Trump said, “they’re all under investigation,” adding “we’ll see” what comes of it after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the two attempts on his own life on the campaign trail (Newsmax. Trump Vows).
Several other officials, from Vice President JD Vance on down, made it clear on Monday [9/15/25] that they believed that political violence was a liberal problem and not a conservative one.
Mr. Vance said the administration would not go after “constitutionally protected speech” but rather what he described as a network of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations that “foments, facilitates and engages in violence” (NYT. White).
As long as that statement by Vice President (not “Mr.”) Vance is correct, then this probe is just fine. But if it becomes the way of shutting down non-violent though disgusting speech as the left fears, then it is a problem. But I seriously doubt that will happen.
However, it is ironic that after years of the left shutting down speech on the right, it is now the left that is screaming for free speech rights. I document many attempts on the part of the left to shut down conservative speech in my various political writings, especially again my book Alleged Corruption, Bias, and Fraud).
And, as I mentioned in Part One, Trump is correct that most of the violence is by the left, as I document in my politics writings, starting with my 2018 book Tearing the USA Apart. Though written seven years ago, in light of these current events, that book is more relevant today than ever.
This
multi-part
article continues at:
Thoughts on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Part Four
(Kirk’s Money and
Memorial; Trump’s Speech and the Gospel; Bible Verses)
References:
See Thoughts on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk: References.
The links to Amazon are advertising links, for which I receive a commission in addition to my royalty if a product is purchased after following the link.
The 2020 Election, the January 6 “Insurrection,” and Their Aftermath
They called it “election fraud conspiracy.” They branded J6 an “insurrection.” Now they’re rewriting history—but these books preserve the truth.
The Definitive Record of 2020-2022:
This isn’t theory. It’s evidence. Read it before the next “election surprise.”
Trump’s 2020 Election Tweets, Georgia Phone Call, and January 2021 Speeches: Did Trump’s Claims of Election Fraud Lead to the Capitol Building Uprising?
See also this series on Amazon.
The above article was posted on this website September 22, 2025.
It was last updated September 28, 2025.
Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life
Charlie
Kirk Assassination
Forgiveness and Salvation
Charlie
Kirk Assassination
2025
Politics Articles
Charlie
Kirk Assassination
Text Search
Alphabetical List of
Pages
Subject Index
General
Information on Articles
Contact Information
Darkness
to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian
Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page
www.zeolla.org/politics