Charlie’s life was a testament to conviction, and his death a call to conscience—this is our moment to choose compassion over hate and protect the freedom that cost him everything.
One small quibble on the headline -- it is a political assassination which is far worse to my mind than a simple murder.
There was one shot from over 200 yards away, with the assassin managing to get away (for now). To get that sort of shot off from that sort of trajectory implies planning and a certain amount of skill.
Thankfully political assassination remains very rare in the US.
It is indeed a moment to choose the right to debate freely and find solutions and compromises to the very real divisions.
Whatever you want to call it, it is indeed a tragedy.
Your piece here is succinct, clear, and well-stated, doing so "in brief space" -- E. B. White and Will Strunk before him would be proud.
You were specific both "in the horror of the act" and the pointed summation: "THIS WAS EVIL" while addressing the general need for handling the strongest conviction while in heated disagreements. These are two very good things.
Mostly of all, I applaud your articulation about what America needs most in the unmistakable words, "the balls to say what we mean & not mince words." And your piece does exactly that. And -- in my mind’s eye -- with grace and skill. Excellent work.
Yes, "The right to speak freely is either for everyone, or it is for no one." And yes, "Violence is a cancer. So are bad ideas. And the only way to defeat both is with light, not darkness."
This is cancel culture taken to it's logical conclusion. This is fermented in the petition to prevent his presence on campus because he did not represent your "values". This is violence being "inclusive".
I disagreed with Charlie on many things, but to me he is the exemplar of the defining liberal principle -- a paraphrase of Voltaire's philosophies by Evelyn Beatrice Hall -- that "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Indeed, that defines what Charlie did to tragic literalism.
When asked why he publicly debates people, and in a peaceful, inclusive manner, his response was "When we stop talking, that's when violence begins." This is a brilliantly concise paraphrasing of a principle we understand well in both psychology -- as ingroup/outgroup tribal psychology -- and global politics as espoused in the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, that "if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression".
While we define Charlie's beliefs as "conservative", the way he expressed his beliefs with respect to those who disagreed with him was as liberal as it comes.
I think the most apt response I can give to this tragedy comes from a similar tragedy a decade ago:
"While we define Charlie's beliefs as "conservative", the way he expressed his beliefs with respect to those who disagreed with him was as liberal as it comes."
Perfectly said. And this is also why I think he was a such substantial threat to those that want to keep us divided. He exemplified how to have difficult and uncomfortable conversations. Something that is sorely lacking nowadays.
The MSM is complicit with the Left FOR calling out things that are wrong. The Righteous call out FOR things that are right. The Yankees honored Charlie Kirk by a minute of silence, but not our elected representatives. The Left is infected with an incurable virus. What should be our response?
He was assassinated for speech. This is a tipping point. Already some interloper yells one thing at a group of mourners and he got his butt kicked. Moreover by someone carrying a gun who could’ve used it but did not.
We are one small tick on the clock away from shooting for speech becoming commonplace.
“This is a moment to come together” … yes, Charlie would have wanted this. But I have tried to engage in respectful dialogue with my left-wing friends and family for YEARS and only been met with derision, contempt and ugly name-calling. And now they are murdering the best among us and CELEBRATING. So tell me, please … and this is a sincere question …. why is it that WE on the right are being urged to “come together” NOW with those who have been hating and vilifying us for YEARS … do you really imagine it will be different somehow? And just HOW are we to “come together” … ??? I can’t begin to imagine a universe in which the left will ever willingly accept our mere existence. They are our Hamas and we their Israel … “from the river to the sea” … they want us dead.
So. You do NOT choose compassion. You choose hate.
Charlie 'propagated' *Freedom*. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of political choice. Do *you* choose that? Or do you stand on your self-righteousness and say, "Charlie Kirk died because he thought people should be free, and I disagree."
No, he didn’t, that was MAGA-make-up. By the way, did you feel compassion for the victims of the political Illinois-shootings? Also, you’re logic is flawed: no compassion doesn’t necessarily lead to hate.I didn’t hate Kirk, I just loathed his ideas (except some about wokeness). If he would have gotten to power, I probably would have hated him, just as I hate Trump or Putin. But killing him? No :). Also, where would I get the weapon - if this were the case here in Europe? That’s the crux of the story: him being against gun control. We’ll put him up for the Darwin Award.
Didn’t Charlie Kirk talk about stoning homosexuals? So much for freedom. You people are cognitively infected, weak, hateful, hypocritical, racist, spineless creatures. And probably very religious too? How do you rhyme that? I hate everything you stand for, I despise you, but I will never physically attack you, unless in selfdefense.
Your blame-the-victim rhetoric and lack of compassion are 2 of the contributors to the growth of political violence in our society. You may want to consider being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
You exhibit a smallness of mind and spirit that is unfortunate and saddening. I disagreed with Charlie on some things (not gun rights, as it happens), but his death is horrific to me and I feel a profound sense of grief over his loss. He was a peaceful man and he was doing it right. I am proud to count Charlie Kirk as a fellow American.
You need to ask yourself why you are allowing sanctimony to override your basic humanity. Your attitudes ARE the problem, sir. You are suffused with hatred. I hope that life will present you with an opportunity to expand your thinking.
“Charlie Kirk’s fame and fortune was built on division, on turning marginalized groups into punching bags for applause lines and fundraising drives.
Kirk’s career was a long rehearsal of contempt: immigrants painted as invaders, LGBTQ+ Americans as predators, unhoused people as moral failures. He honed a style that was not about persuasion but humiliation, delighting in exposing the vulnerability of students who dared challenge him at his campus debates.
And now, in a cruel symmetry, the man who trafficked in cultural fear and suspicion has died in an act of political violence. Whether the shooter was driven by ideology, grievance, or some darker instability, Kirk’s end forces us to confront the reality that America is drowning in guns and grievance. Nearly 46,700 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. Most were suicides, but over 17,000 were homicides. Mass shootings have become so routine that one in fifteen Americans has personally witnessed one.
For years, Kirk told audiences that the real threats to American safety came from immigrants crossing the border, from “woke” teachers in classrooms, from transgender people demanding recognition. He cast suspicion downward, toward the vulnerable. Yet the violence that killed him came not from the communities he vilified but from the same climate of fear, rage, and easy access to firearms that he helped cultivate. The irony is bitter. The consequences are not confined to him.
it would also be dishonest to ignore the legacy he leaves behind. He normalized contempt as a political strategy. He made his wealth and his name by teaching others to scorn those who were different, to view the poor, the queer, the immigrant, as objects of ridicule rather than fellow citizens, or hell, fellow human beings.”
His fame was built on talking and debating, not division. He tried to find common ground. He gave opposing speakers respect and even quieted those who would interrupt opposing views.
He was very clear that he loved and cared for everybody, that he "hated the sin, not the sinner". He literally said he had a heart for LGBTQ+ people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hmgxZssQ4&t=70s
I couldn't find anywhere he said he was opposed to immigrants. ; he was opposed to line-cutting. He very much supported people coming to America from all over the world as long as they followed the legal immigration process, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxRYsT9mPU&t=61s
May I suggest that the problem here is that you've had your ingroup/outgroup psychology evoked. It's a brain structure we all have going back to our ape days millions of years ago, that overrides our reasoning faculties and imposes strong urges, similar to "fight or flight", or addiction, or OCD. In this case, the tribal psychology module is evoked by being in an environment where the social messaging you see does two things: (1) separates people into groups defined by some trait (belief/religion/political leaning, race, ethnicity, nationality, language, favorite sports team, PC vs Mac, etc.), and (2) repeatedly reinforces that these groups are in an important battle against each other.
When that happens, tribal psychology starts to take over and it becomes "us vs them" where "our side" is good, smart, knowledgeable, compassionate, caring, orderly, and "their side" is evil, dumb, mean, hateful and violent.
You then stop caring about what is true and instead care about what reinforces our side as being good their side as being evil. Hence you don't check your facts; you just accept stories you hear about your side being good and their side being bad, and reject any story that says the reverse.
The problem nowadays is that it's all on video. What Charlie believed is there to watch, and how he behaved with people he disagreed with is there, along with answers about why he debated people: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qlSIMoiuDjA
Do you think it is possible that you might be wrong?
And to be clear, I don't generally agree with Charlies beliefs on most things. And I could be wrong -- maybe there's video of him violently attacking people he disagrees with, or even promoting violence against people he disagrees with. If you have any such videos, please show them. If not, can you at least admit to yourself, even if not to us, that you might have been misled about him?
CBC News tried playing the same game. They had a 'hate expert' (ironically, she seems to be good at propagating hate) who tried to make the same claims about Charlie. Juno News easily debunked her.
“Mr. Kirk has expressed that the bible verse Leviticus 20.13, which does endorse the execution of homosexuals, ‘serves as God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters,’” Kelly claimed in an email.
The quote refers to a video where Kirk reacted to statements made by children’s show YouTuber “Miss Rachel,” where she quoted the Bible during Pride Month in 2024, saying Christians are called to “love thy neighbour.”
In the segment referenced by the CBC, Kirk quoted a different verse from Leviticus to illustrate the problem with quoting scripture selectively, but did not advocate for queer people “to be executed” as Perry remarked. Additionally, Kirk said, “the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law,” not the specific verse quoted as CBC indicated.
“So you love God, so you must love His law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth — not by confirming or affirming their sin. By the way, Miss Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser-referenced part of the very same section of Scripture — Leviticus 18 — it says: ‘Thou shall not lay with another man; it is an abomination, punishable by stoning to death.’ Just saying,” said Kirk in the referenced segment.
“So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ But the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
Obviously you know nothing of my country. Why wouldn’t it be permitted in Belgium since it has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world? Yesterday your despicable secretary of Homeland Security visited our harbour (for some cozplay?). I’m sure our mayor and our prime minister washed their mouth with soap afterwards. I’m curious what master that would be, because your administration seems to be doing a great job at it. They don’t need any help, it seems. And they can always ask putin. Patrick, Antwerp, Belgium.
Your logic is more than flawed. You are full of conspiracy shit in that little pathetic maga-mush brain. Turn off fox news and read your constitution. I’m Belgian and probably know it better than you do. Here in Europe you are a laughing stock, you have no idea. Better keep your ass over there. You’re not welcome anymore. Maybe Russia is something for you, since Trump has become Putins pet?
You use the freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans, to infect this commentariat in ways that would never be permitted in what you claim to be your own country. A propos of which, I don’t believe for a minute that you’re Belgian. I believe that you are a plant serving a master whose geopolitical goal is to divide the West.
Sometimes the victim can be blamed. It’s not a universal metaphysical principle . So, how do you stand on gun control? And on the Trump administration?
So when your friend, daughter or coworker is raped, it's their fault. When a young woman is knifed to death on public transportation, it's her fault. When a young man is assassinated for his opinions, it's his fault.
And what say you when they come for you?
I am a Constitutionalist. If I am going to have Freedom of speech, I have to have the Second as well. Which I am for. The Trump administration is doing a HELLA better job than Joe "what storm" Biden and company ever did. How many of the 350,000+ missing children from the Biden administration has the Trump administration found, 23,000?? 28,000?? I don't remember....
The greater tragedy is the language of hatred and war against democrats from your republican leaders. What do you think about that?And what about the republican outrage when democratic representatives were killed a couple of months ago. The hypocrisy is staggering. Only in a cult: MAGA in alliance with the evangelicals: a cognitive plague.
A beautiful articulation of the concerns raised in several conversations I had yesterday…. Well done!
One small quibble on the headline -- it is a political assassination which is far worse to my mind than a simple murder.
There was one shot from over 200 yards away, with the assassin managing to get away (for now). To get that sort of shot off from that sort of trajectory implies planning and a certain amount of skill.
Thankfully political assassination remains very rare in the US.
It is indeed a moment to choose the right to debate freely and find solutions and compromises to the very real divisions.
Whatever you want to call it, it is indeed a tragedy.
Reid --
Your piece here is succinct, clear, and well-stated, doing so "in brief space" -- E. B. White and Will Strunk before him would be proud.
You were specific both "in the horror of the act" and the pointed summation: "THIS WAS EVIL" while addressing the general need for handling the strongest conviction while in heated disagreements. These are two very good things.
Mostly of all, I applaud your articulation about what America needs most in the unmistakable words, "the balls to say what we mean & not mince words." And your piece does exactly that. And -- in my mind’s eye -- with grace and skill. Excellent work.
Thank you for your kind words Jim. I really appreciate it.
Yes, "The right to speak freely is either for everyone, or it is for no one." And yes, "Violence is a cancer. So are bad ideas. And the only way to defeat both is with light, not darkness."
Thank you for this article.
You are very young but very wise. Restocking and following. Keep up the good work.
Thank you.
This is cancel culture taken to it's logical conclusion. This is fermented in the petition to prevent his presence on campus because he did not represent your "values". This is violence being "inclusive".
Well said, Stosh.
I disagreed with Charlie on many things, but to me he is the exemplar of the defining liberal principle -- a paraphrase of Voltaire's philosophies by Evelyn Beatrice Hall -- that "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Indeed, that defines what Charlie did to tragic literalism.
When asked why he publicly debates people, and in a peaceful, inclusive manner, his response was "When we stop talking, that's when violence begins." This is a brilliantly concise paraphrasing of a principle we understand well in both psychology -- as ingroup/outgroup tribal psychology -- and global politics as espoused in the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, that "if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression".
While we define Charlie's beliefs as "conservative", the way he expressed his beliefs with respect to those who disagreed with him was as liberal as it comes.
I think the most apt response I can give to this tragedy comes from a similar tragedy a decade ago:
Je suis Charlie.
"While we define Charlie's beliefs as "conservative", the way he expressed his beliefs with respect to those who disagreed with him was as liberal as it comes."
Perfectly said. And this is also why I think he was a such substantial threat to those that want to keep us divided. He exemplified how to have difficult and uncomfortable conversations. Something that is sorely lacking nowadays.
So agree!
The MSM is complicit with the Left FOR calling out things that are wrong. The Righteous call out FOR things that are right. The Yankees honored Charlie Kirk by a minute of silence, but not our elected representatives. The Left is infected with an incurable virus. What should be our response?
He was assassinated for speech. This is a tipping point. Already some interloper yells one thing at a group of mourners and he got his butt kicked. Moreover by someone carrying a gun who could’ve used it but did not.
We are one small tick on the clock away from shooting for speech becoming commonplace.
Thank you for such a great and beautiful piece of writing after the heartless murder of Charlie! I had tears in my eye the whole time...
“This is a moment to come together” … yes, Charlie would have wanted this. But I have tried to engage in respectful dialogue with my left-wing friends and family for YEARS and only been met with derision, contempt and ugly name-calling. And now they are murdering the best among us and CELEBRATING. So tell me, please … and this is a sincere question …. why is it that WE on the right are being urged to “come together” NOW with those who have been hating and vilifying us for YEARS … do you really imagine it will be different somehow? And just HOW are we to “come together” … ??? I can’t begin to imagine a universe in which the left will ever willingly accept our mere existence. They are our Hamas and we their Israel … “from the river to the sea” … they want us dead.
Well said, Reid. Very well said. I too hope this will be a turning point.
Very well said. Love it.
It’s terrible? Shouldn’t have happened, though he was killed by what he propagated. But compassion? No. Not for him.
So. You do NOT choose compassion. You choose hate.
Charlie 'propagated' *Freedom*. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of political choice. Do *you* choose that? Or do you stand on your self-righteousness and say, "Charlie Kirk died because he thought people should be free, and I disagree."
No, he didn’t, that was MAGA-make-up. By the way, did you feel compassion for the victims of the political Illinois-shootings? Also, you’re logic is flawed: no compassion doesn’t necessarily lead to hate.I didn’t hate Kirk, I just loathed his ideas (except some about wokeness). If he would have gotten to power, I probably would have hated him, just as I hate Trump or Putin. But killing him? No :). Also, where would I get the weapon - if this were the case here in Europe? That’s the crux of the story: him being against gun control. We’ll put him up for the Darwin Award.
This is repulsive and ghoulish. I'm surprised you even subscribe to FAIR.
https://substack.com/@vilniusschoolmaster/note/c-154614717?r=py5ph&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Tenderfoot. Anyway, what’s so repulsive and goulish about this? Elaborate?
Stop your vile chittering today of all days. Find some peace in your hate filled heart.
Didn’t Charlie Kirk talk about stoning homosexuals? So much for freedom. You people are cognitively infected, weak, hateful, hypocritical, racist, spineless creatures. And probably very religious too? How do you rhyme that? I hate everything you stand for, I despise you, but I will never physically attack you, unless in selfdefense.
You’re Maga, that hate-death cult?
"MAGA-make-up" ??? do you buy that at Ulta or Sephora?
Yes, I did feel compassion, and horror. As you obviously do not. My logic is fine. Your hate is not.
Put down the energy drink, get off the couch and go outside. Your brain is looking for fresh air.
Your blame-the-victim rhetoric and lack of compassion are 2 of the contributors to the growth of political violence in our society. You may want to consider being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
You exhibit a smallness of mind and spirit that is unfortunate and saddening. I disagreed with Charlie on some things (not gun rights, as it happens), but his death is horrific to me and I feel a profound sense of grief over his loss. He was a peaceful man and he was doing it right. I am proud to count Charlie Kirk as a fellow American.
You need to ask yourself why you are allowing sanctimony to override your basic humanity. Your attitudes ARE the problem, sir. You are suffused with hatred. I hope that life will present you with an opportunity to expand your thinking.
“Charlie Kirk’s fame and fortune was built on division, on turning marginalized groups into punching bags for applause lines and fundraising drives.
Kirk’s career was a long rehearsal of contempt: immigrants painted as invaders, LGBTQ+ Americans as predators, unhoused people as moral failures. He honed a style that was not about persuasion but humiliation, delighting in exposing the vulnerability of students who dared challenge him at his campus debates.
And now, in a cruel symmetry, the man who trafficked in cultural fear and suspicion has died in an act of political violence. Whether the shooter was driven by ideology, grievance, or some darker instability, Kirk’s end forces us to confront the reality that America is drowning in guns and grievance. Nearly 46,700 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. Most were suicides, but over 17,000 were homicides. Mass shootings have become so routine that one in fifteen Americans has personally witnessed one.
For years, Kirk told audiences that the real threats to American safety came from immigrants crossing the border, from “woke” teachers in classrooms, from transgender people demanding recognition. He cast suspicion downward, toward the vulnerable. Yet the violence that killed him came not from the communities he vilified but from the same climate of fear, rage, and easy access to firearms that he helped cultivate. The irony is bitter. The consequences are not confined to him.
it would also be dishonest to ignore the legacy he leaves behind. He normalized contempt as a political strategy. He made his wealth and his name by teaching others to scorn those who were different, to view the poor, the queer, the immigrant, as objects of ridicule rather than fellow citizens, or hell, fellow human beings.”
He was a bad person.
And yet, the author of this compassionate article is someone from the LGBT community.
His fame was built on talking and debating, not division. He tried to find common ground. He gave opposing speakers respect and even quieted those who would interrupt opposing views.
He was very clear that he loved and cared for everybody, that he "hated the sin, not the sinner". He literally said he had a heart for LGBTQ+ people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hmgxZssQ4&t=70s
Or here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/34N9pIWc_pc
I couldn't find anywhere he said he was opposed to immigrants. ; he was opposed to line-cutting. He very much supported people coming to America from all over the world as long as they followed the legal immigration process, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxRYsT9mPU&t=61s
May I suggest that the problem here is that you've had your ingroup/outgroup psychology evoked. It's a brain structure we all have going back to our ape days millions of years ago, that overrides our reasoning faculties and imposes strong urges, similar to "fight or flight", or addiction, or OCD. In this case, the tribal psychology module is evoked by being in an environment where the social messaging you see does two things: (1) separates people into groups defined by some trait (belief/religion/political leaning, race, ethnicity, nationality, language, favorite sports team, PC vs Mac, etc.), and (2) repeatedly reinforces that these groups are in an important battle against each other.
When that happens, tribal psychology starts to take over and it becomes "us vs them" where "our side" is good, smart, knowledgeable, compassionate, caring, orderly, and "their side" is evil, dumb, mean, hateful and violent.
You then stop caring about what is true and instead care about what reinforces our side as being good their side as being evil. Hence you don't check your facts; you just accept stories you hear about your side being good and their side being bad, and reject any story that says the reverse.
The problem nowadays is that it's all on video. What Charlie believed is there to watch, and how he behaved with people he disagreed with is there, along with answers about why he debated people: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qlSIMoiuDjA
Do you think it is possible that you might be wrong?
And to be clear, I don't generally agree with Charlies beliefs on most things. And I could be wrong -- maybe there's video of him violently attacking people he disagrees with, or even promoting violence against people he disagrees with. If you have any such videos, please show them. If not, can you at least admit to yourself, even if not to us, that you might have been misled about him?
CBC News tried playing the same game. They had a 'hate expert' (ironically, she seems to be good at propagating hate) who tried to make the same claims about Charlie. Juno News easily debunked her.
https://www.junonews.com/p/cbc-hate-expert-falsely-claimed-charlie
From the article:
“Mr. Kirk has expressed that the bible verse Leviticus 20.13, which does endorse the execution of homosexuals, ‘serves as God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters,’” Kelly claimed in an email.
The quote refers to a video where Kirk reacted to statements made by children’s show YouTuber “Miss Rachel,” where she quoted the Bible during Pride Month in 2024, saying Christians are called to “love thy neighbour.”
In the segment referenced by the CBC, Kirk quoted a different verse from Leviticus to illustrate the problem with quoting scripture selectively, but did not advocate for queer people “to be executed” as Perry remarked. Additionally, Kirk said, “the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law,” not the specific verse quoted as CBC indicated.
“So you love God, so you must love His law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth — not by confirming or affirming their sin. By the way, Miss Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser-referenced part of the very same section of Scripture — Leviticus 18 — it says: ‘Thou shall not lay with another man; it is an abomination, punishable by stoning to death.’ Just saying,” said Kirk in the referenced segment.
“So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ But the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
Obviously you know nothing of my country. Why wouldn’t it be permitted in Belgium since it has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world? Yesterday your despicable secretary of Homeland Security visited our harbour (for some cozplay?). I’m sure our mayor and our prime minister washed their mouth with soap afterwards. I’m curious what master that would be, because your administration seems to be doing a great job at it. They don’t need any help, it seems. And they can always ask putin. Patrick, Antwerp, Belgium.
Your logic is more than flawed. You are full of conspiracy shit in that little pathetic maga-mush brain. Turn off fox news and read your constitution. I’m Belgian and probably know it better than you do. Here in Europe you are a laughing stock, you have no idea. Better keep your ass over there. You’re not welcome anymore. Maybe Russia is something for you, since Trump has become Putins pet?
You use the freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans, to infect this commentariat in ways that would never be permitted in what you claim to be your own country. A propos of which, I don’t believe for a minute that you’re Belgian. I believe that you are a plant serving a master whose geopolitical goal is to divide the West.
Sometimes the victim can be blamed. It’s not a universal metaphysical principle . So, how do you stand on gun control? And on the Trump administration?
So when your friend, daughter or coworker is raped, it's their fault. When a young woman is knifed to death on public transportation, it's her fault. When a young man is assassinated for his opinions, it's his fault.
And what say you when they come for you?
I am a Constitutionalist. If I am going to have Freedom of speech, I have to have the Second as well. Which I am for. The Trump administration is doing a HELLA better job than Joe "what storm" Biden and company ever did. How many of the 350,000+ missing children from the Biden administration has the Trump administration found, 23,000?? 28,000?? I don't remember....
The greater tragedy is the language of hatred and war against democrats from your republican leaders. What do you think about that?And what about the republican outrage when democratic representatives were killed a couple of months ago. The hypocrisy is staggering. Only in a cult: MAGA in alliance with the evangelicals: a cognitive plague.