Friday, September 19, 2025

One Of Our Own: On Wonderful Americans Like Charlie



A young Tyler Robinson with one of his many guns
Family photo


Abby Zimet
Sep 17, 2025
FURTHER
COMMON DREAMS

The fiery shards from the murder of Charlie Kirk still ricochet in baleful ways, even as his shooter’s views and motives remain murky. Despite rabid calls by a regime eager for revenge to extinguish leftist “scum” who rendered their bigot hero “a martyr for truth and freedom,” the killer seems to be a muddled mix of gun freak, devout gamer and violent nihilist. In his bloody wake, many now beset by irrational vitriol are left to argue, “I don’t support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie supported what happened to Charlie.”

Political violence is, of course, as old as America: Federalists vs. anti-Federalists, indigenous genocide, slavery, lynching, war, Lincoln, the 1960s’ white and black assassinations, civil, women’s and gay rights struggles, Jan. 6 riots, police state troops, racist ICE raids and, in a country with perhaps 500 million guns, an estimated 125 Americans killed daily with guns - a rate 26 times higher than any other developed nation - and up to 800 children killed in school shootings impacting over 360,000 students. In 2023, the most recent year with full data, nearly 47,000 people died in gun violence. The first six months of this year saw an almost 40% surge in gun-related acts of terrorism and targeted violence over last year, with over 520 reported plots or acts of violence and, to date, 300 mass shootings, forty-seven at schools. In a nation awash in killing machines, an increasingly right-wing GOP and a mood of rage-fueled paranoia and polarization, each act of political violence makes the next more likely.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot and killed by an assassin’s bullet in the neck while speaking under a tent that read “Prove Me Wrong” on the campus of Utah Valley University on the first of a 15-stop “America Comeback Tour” by his right-wing Turning Point USA; he was struck just as he responded to a question about mass shootings by blaming gangs. It was the day before a historically freighted Sept. 11 symbolizing myriad acts of or against violence: It was the day when Gandhi launched the first nonviolent resistance in South Africa in 1906 to stunning political effect; when Chile’s democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende was assassinated; when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and Americans came together with such inspiring grace and strength the event came to represent “the ultimate failure of terrorism against the United States” - until a pernicious Bush Administration launched two bloody, pointless, illegal wars, which still haunt us, in its name.

Kirk was a vibrant, hateful, genial, incendiary mouthpiece for a MAGA worldview of bigotry and intolerance, a “loathsome human being (who) celebrated violence against people he didn’t like” and used his mocking, performative “debates” with students to effectively spread misinformation, inflame young, impressionable, vaguely discontent people, surreptitiously urge democracy be replaced by an emergent Christian Fascism, and make millions. “The language has been violent. The discord has been great,” wrote Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler. “There has been a consistent invitation to dine at the table of heated racist discussion posing as legitimate political speech,” in which Kirk “rhetorically violated” the safety of Blacks, Muslims, queers, immigrants and multiple ‘others’ in the name of a defaming, divisive “free speech.” “He (did) not care about the security of others. He did not show empathy,” said Hagler. “Charlie Kirk expanded hatred (and) marketed the vile speech of old racisms in new wineskins.”

Kirk claimed America was full of “prowling Blacks” who target white people “for fun.” He said “God’s perfect law” says gay people should be stoned to death, Black people were better off during Jim Crow, Democrats “stand for everything God hates,” the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, Islam is “the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” He put liberal academics on watch lists to be targeted and harassed, called Dems “maggots, vermin and swine,” mocked the death of George Floyd, “joked” a “patriot” should bail out Paul Pelosi’s attacker, urged “a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming doctor,” charged prominent Black women like Michelle Obama “don’t have the brain power” to succeed unless they “steal a white person’s slot.” A fierce critic of gun control, he argued we cannot allow mass shooting victims to “emotionally hijack the narrative,” and championed as “prudent” and “rational” the cost of gun deaths in exchange for having “the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Like much of the right, he practiced “eliminationist rhetoric,” wherein political opponents aren’t just wrong but evil, less than human. Still, when the 2nd Amendment came for Charlie Kirk, thoughtful opponents wrestled in a deeply human way with the complexities. “He was a vile human being,” said one, “but I do not want to live in a society where vile human beings are assassinated.” Again and again, people echoed that pivotal duality: “We can condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder while also condemning Kirk for the hate he fomented,” “Murder is bad, and sometimes bad people are murdered,” “Kirk said and did many despicable things, but he did not deserve to die,” “Kirk should not have been shot and killed for his beliefs, and nobody else” - Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, whose deaths Trump still refuses to acknowledge, no pol, no child - “should be either.” This was not vengeance-tinged schadenfreude, he said; it was a moral and political reckoning with America’s dissonant reality.

The right, obviously, ignored those subtleties, unable to recognize any space between “endorsing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence” and not endorsing that violence. Here, as usual, appeasement is in vain. “They are going to claim we (left/liberals/Democrats/non-white non-supremacists) said whatever is most convenient for them to say we said, no matter what we say,” wrote Rebecca Solnit. “They’ve already decided all of us were the shooter.” And they did. Within minutes, with zero information on the killer, Trump, elected on a platform of fomenting online rage against the “other,” seized the deadly moment to foment more. He raved against “a radical left group of lunatics” - “we just have to beat the hell out of them” - “the agitator,” “the scum,” who for years “have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis...This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country.” Elizabeth Warren, asked if Dems should “tone down” their rhetoric: “Oh, please.”

After he ordered the nation’s flags flown at half-mast - never once done for the hundreds of schoolchildren gunned down over the years - fellow brownshirts picked up the vengeful tiki torch and feverishly ran with it. Musk: “The Left is the party of murder...Our choice is to fight or die.” Libs of Tik Tok: “THIS IS WAR.” Matt Walsh: “We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell.” Seethed Paulina Luna, “EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS,” charging, “You were busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence...YOU ARE THE HATE you claim to fight.” Logically, they also vowed to use the power of the state to exact retribution against Dem pols, “libtard” pundits, anyone who may have viewed Kirk as anything but a flawless hero and martyr. Clay Higgins urged social media posts be banned, business licenses revoked, students or teachers be kicked out, non-citizens be banished: “Cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals.”

As usual, a spewing, psychotic Stephen Miller won the talking-evil-bullshit-out-of-your-Nazi-ass award, raving about “a wicked ideology” that “hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved,” an ideology that views “the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial criminal with tender warmth” as its adherents “tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul.” Say what the fuck? In a posthumous Kirk podcast in the White House hosted by J.D. Vance - who flew Kirk’s body home in Air Force Two and pledged to “go after” fictional leftist NGOs, including The Nation, that “foments violence” - a smitten Miller decried those “cheering the evil assassination that cruelly robbed this nation of one of its greatest men” and vowed to use his “righteous anger,” “as God is my witness,” to “use every resource” to destroy the left’s “vast domestic terror movement...in Charlie’s name.”

Experts say the first, vital violence the authoritarian right commits is against fact, truth, history, meaning, language - reality itself. And so, again, it comes to pass. There has been no “cheering” of an act everyone knows with “horror” will spiral into chaos and repression. Though Miller said his last message from Kirk “before he joined his creator in heaven” was “we have to dismantle radical left organizations...fomenting violence,” there is no such organization; nor is there a leftist “vast domestic terror movement.” But there is, well-documented, on the right. See here, here, and here: Far-right plots and attacks have “significantly outpaced terrorism by other types of perpetrators” since 1994, and 2024 was the third year in a row that all extremist-related killings in the U.S. were carried out by right-wingers.” A study by the DOJ itself likewise found, “The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism.” It was just scrubbed from its website.

But who needs facts. Not a desperate, unhinged right that increasingly views everyone else as an existential threat to the white, straight, Christian nationalist oligarchy they seek to create. And now, notes Chris Hedges, they have their martyr, “the lifeblood of violent movements”- albeit “a reprehensible human being and Christo-fascist who enacted his agenda by preying on weak minded people” - often critical to “turn the moral order upside down” en route to “full-scale social disintegration.” Inevitably, he predicts, the right’s new-found, giddy, sanctimonious “intoxication with violence will feed on itself like a firestorm.” In less than a week, it already is, with dozens of people across the country facing retribution - hounded, fired, threatened, arrested - in a GOP-sanctified ”witch-hunt” against anyone who dares to not mourn Kirk, or accurately, scathingly quote him, or decline “to be sad that a guy willing to sacrifice school children for the Second Amendment wound up getting shot at a school.”

MSNBC fired political analyst Matthew Dowd for musing, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which lead to hateful actions.” The Washington Post fired Karen Attiah, their sole Black columnist, for noting Kirk’s racist history, especially toward Black women. Dem Rep. Seth Moulton was flooded with threats - “Cute kids - be a shame if they didn’t have a father” - for arguing Trump should make it clear political differences can’t and shouldn’t be solved by violence. And in what Thaddeus Howze calls “deafening hypocrisy,” a populace who long (if selectively) quoted Scripture to make their pious points has abruptly banished their “live by the sword” tenet after “the gun culture (Kirk) championed did not exempt him.” “Here was a man who minimized other people’s agony, suddenly forced to taste the violence he once dismissed,” he writes. As a result, his “2nd Amendment justice” is neither celebration nor solution; it’s simply the fact that, “The logic he defended and normalized folded back on him.”

Enter Tyler Robinson, who on Tuesday appeared by video in court to be charged with aggravated murder and six other counts; prosecutors will seek the death penalty. After Kash Patel’s error-ridden, “amateur hour” clown show of an FBI search, Robinson was ultimately convinced by his father and a family friend to turn himself in. Described as a quiet, “squeaky clean” kid, he came from a Trump-voting, gun-loving family; his father was a sheriff turned evangelical pastor, online, his mother often posted (now-deleted) photos of Tyler and his brother grinning with guns, and they’d gifted him the rifle he killed Kirk with. Early reports suggested he was part of Nick Fuentes’ “Groypers,” a white-nationalist group from the “toxic underbelly of the MAGA ecosystem” who use Internet memes, ironic cultural references and racist dog whistles to spread hate, and who’d publicly harassed Kirk as not extremist or “pro-white” enough. Now, it’s only clear that Tyler, who friends describe as “terminally online,” was “a guy who plainly had Internet brain poisoning.”

As “experts” struggled to decipher reported markings on the killer’s ammunition - “Hey fascist, catch!” with a sequence of arrows etc - gamers quickly identified them as symbols from Helldivers 2, in which elite forces battle against aliens on behalf of a fascist state. Meanwhile, more facts emerged: Tyler, his politics shifting left, was in a romantic relationship with a roommate transitioning from male to female, and he’d told them and his father he killed Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.” All told, his views were so hazy he could be deemed a “nihilist violent extremist” (NVE), often alienated young men, desensitized to violence by gaming and right-wing subcultures, who lack a coherent political belief system but feel an inchoate rage - a reminder to a partisan world, wrote Ken Klippenstein, “of the actual diversity of the nation, and the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side.” The lack of “tidy narrative,” said Rep.Sean Casten, suggested this was merely the tale of “a young man who made a bad choice with a gun.”

Online, some declared MAGA’s civil war had been cancelled “due to shooter being demographically uncooperative.” But the regime, fired up, had no interest in leading us out of “this ugly toxic pit.” Ignoring facts, law, nuance and their ostensible mission to unite, they’ve used the shooting to launch “the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.” Pam Bondi, appearing on Goebbels’ wife Katie Miller’s malignant podcast, vowed the Justice Department would “go after” those engaging in “hate speech,” or “violent rhetoric designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals,” aka accurately quoting Charlie Kirk. “There’s free speech and there’s hate speech,” she said. “We will absolutely target you.” Heather Lyle on the “staggering irony” of selectively outraged, right-wing grievance politics “collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions...A movement that insists mass death is acceptable collateral in the name of liberty also demands national mourning when its own suffers.”

Trump, meanwhile, has helped stifle free speech by threatening an ABC News reporter who asked about it - “We’ll probably go after people like you. You treat me unfairly - you have hate in your heart” - an Australian reporter - “You are hurting Australia right now. Your leader is coming to see me soon, I’m going to tell him about you...Quiet” - and “the degenerate” New York Times with a bizarre, “hilarious,” $15 billion libel lawsuit packed with lies, boasts and juvenile praise for his “transcendent ability to defy wrongful conventions” and “greatest personal and political achievement in American history” despite a pernicious paper that “has engaged (in) decades-long lying about your Favorite President (ME!).” Like any eight-year-old sociopath, he has a notably short attention span: Asked how he’s doing after losing his “friend” Kirk, he said, “Very good. And by the way, right there, you see the trucks just started construction of the new Ballroom...It’s going to be a beauty...one of the best in the world, actually. Thank you very much.”

Elsewhere, everyone spoke of Kirk and the havoc his death has wrought. “Pay attention,” urged Sen. Chris Murphy of moves to crush dissent: “Something dark may be coming.” A somber Bernie warned of political violence that “threatens to hollow out our public life”; many followers, citing the “paradox of intolerance,” argued tolerance is a social contract the right has already ravaged: “Charlie Kirk is a self-inflicted gunshot statistic. Kirk’s widow Erika, 36, a glossy former Miss Arizona with a “Christian clothing company” and “devotional blessings” podcast, gave an ”address to the nation” at a lectern reading, “May Charlie be received into the merciful arms of Jesus, our loving savior”; she told “evil-doers” they have “no idea what you have unleashed,” and vowed the tour, mission and “wisdom” of Charlie, “wearing the glorious crown of a martyr,” “will endure.” At a shabby Kennedy Center vigil - bad music, red caps, USA chants, shrieking pastors - regime fans and officials proclaimed, “We are all Charlie Kirk now.”

Not quite. “Grief is not a performance,” offered a therapist to those struggling to respond. “When a public figure dies, you are not obligated to manufacture sorrow (to) honor a life (that) caused harm.” “You are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox told traumatized students. “Words are not violence. Violence is violence.” After the arrest, Cox said he’d been praying the shooter “wouldn’t be one of us” - a queer immigrant would be better? - “so I could say, ‘We don’t do that here.‘” But of course he was, and we do. “What the actual hell have we become?” asked Catholic writer Emily Zanotti. From another, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” White, male, home-grown, needy, beset by an inchoate animus and fury now wretchedly reflected in a regime whose leaders choose to use power only for hate. Compare and contrast with, say, Stephen Colbert, who this week spoke of love, and loss, and “desperately loving” a country now unrecognizable. Even Tyler Robinson decried hate, and, to his partner, voiced love.

The same day he shot Charlie Kirk, the “uniquely American cycle” was reprised one state over when a male student opened fire at a Colorado high school, wounding two before killing himself; so much blood was already flowing it barely made the news. Two days later, also under-reported, a police SWAT team arrested a 13-year-old boy near Seattle for “unlawful firearms possession.” Evidently fixated on school shootings, the boy had amassed an arsenal of 23 guns with accompanying ammunition, including tactical style rifles mounted on the walls of his room, handguns strewn through the house and, in a backpack beneath a turtle habitat, AR assault magazines; police also found drawings of school shooters and social media posts that said, “When I turn 21 I am going to kill people” and, “It’s over! My time is almost hear!” (sic). In an interview, his mother, who home-schooled him, said the posts were an attempt by her son to “be cool,” and he had no intention of harming anyone.
Conservatives Are Using Charlie Kirk’s Death to Enact Sweeping Speech Crackdown


The US has entered a new era of McCarthyism as the Trump administration equates leftist critique with “terrorism.”
September 17, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a forum dubbed the Generation Next Summit at the White House, on March 22, 2018, in Washington, D.C.Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Conservative politicians and activists are calling for retribution against a wide range of perceived opponents in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing on September 10, sparking fears about a sweeping crackdown on free expression.

Even as law enforcement officials sought to determine the motive behind Kirk’s fatal shooting and the ideological alignment of his alleged killer, prominent right-wing figures quickly began using the outrage sparked by his death to blame the political left, vowing to enact a broad range of measures that could clamp down on civic society.

On September 15, Vice President J.D. Vance said he would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country” and swore to “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.” Vance made the comments while hosting “The Charlie Kirk Show,” the daily podcast Kirk hosted before his killing. Although law enforcement officials have said they think Kirk’s shooter was acting alone, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who joined the podcast as a guest, also vowed to “uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.”

“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” Miller said. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

The remarks have sparked fear among civil rights leaders, free speech advocates, and extremism monitors who have been tracking the response to Kirk’s assassination. In the days since the shooting, right-wing figures have variably declared that a “war” with the left is occurring, decried the nation’s polarization, and promoted the Turning Point USA founder as a venerable defender of free speech. Now, Vance and other political leaders are encouraging people to call the employers of those whom they consider to be “celebrating” Kirk’s death.

Vice President J.D. Vance swore to “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.”

“It is 1952 in too much of America right now,” Ken Paulson, the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, told Truthout, comparing the modern political moment to the widespread repression and persecution that swept the country during McCarthyism. “We have not seen anything like this since and I never thought we would see it today.”

The calls to crack down on speech deemed undesirable have emanated from a wide cross-section of government personnel. As employees across a range of federal agencies have been disciplined for social media comments about Kirk, multiple cabinet secretaries have sworn to punish those who mock or condone his killing. Federal legislators including Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Rep. Nancy Mace have called for professors and other university employees to be fired. Florida Rep. Randy Fine asked people to report individuals celebrating Kirk’s death, and that he would “demand their firing, defunding, and license revocation.”

“Those celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk must be thrown out of civil society,” Fine wrote on social media.

Related Story

State Department Warns “Foreigners” Not to Mock Kirk’s Killing
A State Department official asked people to report “foreigners” who post on social media “making light of the event.” By Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg , Truthout September 12, 2025


Similar dynamics are also unfolding at the state level. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said that teachers reported to his office by the public would be included in a state government dashboard used to document “objectionable” political ideology in the classroom. Iowa state lawmakers signed a letter supporting the firing of university employees who they claimed “publicly celebrated [Kirk’s] killing online.”

While these government-endorsed calls for sanctions have provoked quick backlash from free speech advocates, employers have even more swiftly doled out punishments. Many of those fired have mocked Kirk or said they have no remorse for his death. Others have been censured for critically describing the activist’s work and statements.

Last week, MSNBC fired political analyst Matthew Dowd hours after he said on air that “I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” Karen Attiah, a former opinion columnist at The Washington Post, wrote in a Substack piece that she was fired by the paper after a series of posts condemning the country’s acceptance of political violence.

Her social media posts only directly referenced Kirk while referencing a time when, in speaking Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson and describing them as “affirmative-action picks,” Kirk said: “Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

Attiah’s Bluesky post shared an activist’s slight reworking of Kirk’s quote — “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”

The termination letter from The Washington Post said Attiah’s Bluesky posts “about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy.”

Fueled by the rhetoric of prominent politicians, social media platforms have turned into a staging ground for collecting names and orchestrating campaigns to call for firings. Conservative social media influencers have encouraged people to submit posts of coworkers or community members, and then have used their large platforms to amplify calls for punishment. Laura Loomer, for example, promoted a tip line to help get people who work for the federal government fired for “celebrating political violence.” Later, she posted: “So many people have been fired. I’m so proud of you guys.” An anonymous site called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” shared the names, employment information, locations, and social media accounts of people it claimed were “supporting political violence” and said it had received tens of thousands of submissions. Though the site has since reportedly been taken down via a hack, WIRED reported that many of the posts included did not glorify or promote violence.

“They’re definitely trying to destroy people’s lives,” Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told Truthout. “This is like a crusade for them at this point.”

One thread on X purporting to document people who have faced consequences due to comments about Charlie Kirk now includes at least 100 people. The crackdown has touched a wide array of sectors. The Carolina Panthers fired a communications worker. An employee of the Nashville Fire Department was placed on paid administrative leave for a social media post. Three major U.S. airlines said they suspended employees for posts about Kirk’s death.

In the rush to expose those who aren’t mourning Kirk appropriately, the online army has made some notable errors. User Mag reported 30-year-old IT technician Ali Nasrati was flummoxed when he began receiving a slew of threatening messages telling him to “get the fuck out of America.” A series of right-wing accounts had begun circulating the man’s personal information, claiming he’d been running an X account that cheered Kirk’s death. Back in May, someone had set up an account using photos from Nasrati’s real LinkedIn and Instagram accounts and has been impersonating him. By the time Nasrati figured out what was going on, his phone number and personal address had already spread widely and his job had suspended him.

Educators at all levels have been heavily swept up in the backlash. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that at least 11 faculty members at colleges and universities have been disciplined since Kirk’s shooting. The rapid doling out of punishment led PEN America to warn that “colleges and universities risk undermining free inquiry and academic freedom if they treat all online expression as grounds for termination.”

On many campuses, that chilling effect has already been playing out for years.


“It’s going to suppress free speech, political activity, and make people terrified to speak their mind.”

In the days since Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, conservatives — as well as some liberals — have effusively paid tribute to him by praising his dedication to free and open debate and willingness to speak with those he vehemently disagreed with. This depiction of a charismatic champion of civil discussion has contradicted the experiences of the university professors who have been targeted by Kirk’s organization.

In 2016, Kirk’s Turning Point USA launched the Professor Watchlist. Soliciting tips from the public, the project proclaims to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” Much like the social campaign unfolding now, educators whose names appeared on the list were subjected to threats. Many feared for their safety.

“I’ve seen faculty put on the professor blacklist and then have to get security to escort them around campus,” Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, told Truthout.

While Kirk’s watchlist helped foment an environment of fear among educators, so have Trump’s attacks on academic freedom and aggressive efforts to force universities to reshape their curricula. Widespread firings and censorship for pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses further instilled a chilling effect. The backlash to faculty who protested Israel’s conduct “was a testing ground for ‘Can you shut up the speech of students and faculty?’ And now we’re seeing that there could be a much broader attack on our speech,” Wolfson said. Those fears are even more amplified in the current moment, as conservative leaders from the president down encourage retribution.

“This terrain that has been created — where faculty are constantly a target of the right and a target in a way that’s getting escalated and escalated and escalated — scares the death out of my faculty,” Wolfson said. “They are worried about a paper they wrote five years ago. They’re worried about walking to campus.”

The impact of the widespread clampdown at universities and beyond will reverberate across the country, Beirich warned. “It’s going to suppress free speech, political activity, and make people terrified to speak their mind.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Daniel Moritz-Rabson is a New York-based researcher and investigative journalist whose work focuses on the criminal legal system. His reporting has appeared in outlets including ProPublica, The Intercept, and The Appeal.


There's much worse about to come than just silencing Jimmy Kimmel

Thom Hartmann
September 18, 2025 
RAW STORY


Donald Trump smiles as he attends an event in the Oval Office. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The FCC chairman just threatened to pull ABC’s license because of a comment Jimmy Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk, and ABC just indefinitely took him off the air. This is the sort of thing you’d expect in Russia, not America.

But let’s back up a minute.

First, those who use violence come for the politicians. Then they come after the pundits and reporters. And finally they encourage average people to turn their guns on each other.

The dark story we’re living — this rise of fascism and destruction of civil order — fits a pyramid, not a straight line. And it explains why the killing of Charlie Kirk, aside from the right’s incessant amplification of their outrage, actually is a big deal and very dangerous sign for today’s political moment.

At the apex of the pyramid of people first targeted for violence are politicians, people who choose to live in the blast radius of public power.

When the taboo against political bloodshed cracks, it often cracks there first, with, for example, the attempted assassinations of Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi by Trump’s mob, the murder of Minnesota State House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, the bombs Trump fanboy Cesar Sayoc send to President Obama and other elected Democrats, and our history of political assassinations.

The second tier down from the apex is the world of thought leaders, editors, and reporters, the people who interpret events for the rest of us. In healthy times they’re noisy, sometimes infuriating, and very much alive.

The brutal assassination of conservative activist and organizer Charlie Kirk in Utah wasn’t just another awful headline, it was America making the transition into that second tier on the way toward civil war or a police state. You don’t have to like Kirk's views to see that this is part of the transition from public debate to public violence.

I really wish we didn’t have to be having this conversation, to be considering the possibility that our politicians, our thought leaders, and eventually each one of us ourselves could be the victims of violence incited by political conflict. But that’s where we are.

And instead of trying to bring the nation together or heal it, Trump and those around him appear committed to turning the heat up.

When countries are sliding into fascism, after politicians are cowed, this middle level of the pyramid — the thought leaders and reporters — become targets.

We’re already tracking a surge of assaults on journalists in the United States this year, recorded by nonpartisan monitors, and the warnings from press freedom groups are growing louder as we head into another supercharged election cycle.

It’s why Trump threatening Jonathan Karl this week was such a big deal.

At the base of the pyramid is everyone else, the broad foundation of ordinary citizens who expect to disagree without fear of dying for it. In the last stage of democratic decay, the taboo collapses here too.

Conflict trackers that normally study civil wars abroad are now publishing monthly briefs on our own streets, and their July readout flagged spikes tied to political flashpoints and the growing risk of lone-wolf attacks.


That’s the tremor you feel underfoot; it’s a warning that a nation has been seized by authoritarians and could be on the verge of civil war.

This is not an abstract model that I just came up with this week: it’s American history.

In the 1850s the pattern first announced itself in Washington when rightwing Congressman Preston Brooks walked into the Senate chamber and nearly beat Senator Charles Sumner to death for denouncing slavery.


The attack wasn’t just an assault on a man, it was a public declaration that the rules had changed and that violence could now answer argument. The country was shocked, and then it was hardened. That moment signaled that the apex of the pyramid had been breached.

From there the target set widened into the second stage, the “killing pundits and reporters phase.” In Kansas, proslavery posses sacked the Free State stronghold of Lawrence, destroyed printing presses, and burned the Free State Hotel while waving banners that proclaimed “Southern Rights.”

Across the Deep South, meanwhile, newspaper publishers and editors who called out the Confederate oligarchs or opposed slavery were lynched, shot, or driven out of town.


The point was terror and silence. Smash the presses, you smash the story. The attack was part of the cycle we remember as Bleeding Kansas, when political dispute metastasized into raids and reprisals across towns and farms. Once the middle layer began to break, the base wasn’t far behind.

We can see the rhyme today.

Minnesota mourned Speaker Emerita Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, after a stalker hunted them down. Federal prosecutors have indicted the suspect. You don’t get a clearer sign that the apex is under fire than a state’s senior legislative leader and her spouse being killed.

We’re now seeing a loosening of the bolts on that middle tier with the Kirk assassination. Political leaders sneer at reporters and pundits, crowds chant for punishment of the press, and too many people decide that a camera and a notebook are acts of war.


And then comes the revenge. After our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, threatened to prosecute people for what she called “hate speech” (which is not a crime: remember the Nazis in Skokie, Illinois?), Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was blunt:
“Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed.”


The data points stack up, each incident small enough to shrug off, all together large enough to chill a newsroom and make a young journalist, podcaster, or influencer think twice about showing up. Which is exactly what the authoritarians want.

If we want to keep the base of the pyramid steady, we must keep that middle standing, because when people can’t trust that their words will be heard without violence or censorship, some will reach for other tools.


The lesson from the 1850s isn’t that violence always walks in a single file, but that it climbs down the side of the pyramid. Once elites normalize it, once opinion-makers are bullied or bloodied into silence, the next stop is the rest of us.

That’s why the response must be immediate and nonpartisan. Every decent official, left and right, should make it crystal clear that assassination is not politics, that stalking is not activism, that censorship or threatening a reporter or a comedian isn’t patriotic.

And that the worst response to violence is to blame an entire political party, the people who make up half of America, calling them “crazy,” “lunatics,” and “terrorists.”

Tragically, that’s exactly the path Trump and the GOP are following. They’re trying to turn Charlie Kirk into America’s Horst Wessel, the martyr that Hitler used to successfully rally people around the Nazis’ shared sense of victimhood.

We still have time to shore up the apex, protect the middle, and keep the base from cracking, if only Democratic leadership (talking about you, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries) would find the courage to speak out loudly every day against the explosion of blame and hate being promoted now by Trump and the rightwing media that brought him into power.

The few Republicans of good conscience left must reach out to the Trump administration and demand they dial down their own violent and provocative rhetoric. And stop throwing people off television for exercising their First Amendment rights.

We don’t have time to pretend the pyramid will hold itself together without our intervention and that of our political leadership.

Jimmy Kimmel wasn't suspended for what he said about Charlie Kirk

Ray Hartmann
September 18, 2025 
COMMON DREANS


Jimmy Kimmel delivers his opening monologue at the Oscars. REUTERS/Mike Blake

It is important to get this right.

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel was suspended indefinitely Wednesday by ABC and his late-night show appears to have come to an end. It has been widely misreported that the action was related to the Charlie Kirk murder and its aftermath.

It was not.

Virtually every story about the sacking carried a headline referencing Kirk. The implication was clear that Kimmel was dismissed for something he said about Kirk. That’s the first thing I thought when the news broke.

That did not happen.

Donald Trump had Kimmel taken off the air — as he has suggested would happen after a similar fate befell Stephen Colbert as CBS — because he wanted to.

And because he could.

No need to call in Sherlock Holmes. Trump has long despised Kimmel, along with the entire mainstream media, which he routinely describes — in the grand tradition of history’s worst authoritarians — as “the enemy of the people.”

It’s obvious that Trump dispatched Brendan Carr, his sycophantic chairman of the FCC to put out the hit on Kimmel. Carr, a co-author of Project 2025, apparently did just that, and Disney — pushed by Nexstar, owner of roughly 30 of its ABC affiliates — rolled over.

This is the same Disney that folded a poker hand with four aces in December 2024, to “settle” for $15 million in a sham defamation lawsuit filed by Trump. It seems that Disney had far more to lose than $15 million — exponentially more — by crossing the incoming president.

So, it’s just another footnote to the story that Nexstar also has much larger fish to fry with the Trump administration — needing approval from Carr’s FCC for a pending, controversial, $6.2 billion merger with Tegna. It’s an instant replay of CBS putting profits above principle when it paid off Trump to save a proposed Paramount mega-merger with Skydance from sleeping with the fishes.

Carr offers no pretense of serving as anything but a corrupt political hack. Hours before the Kimmel announcement, he visited the friendly confines of Benny Johnson’s prominent conservative podcast and said this:

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Sneering at the theoretical independence of the FCC, Carr made himself exclusively available to Sean Hannity and Fox News after the Kimmel sacking. It did appear, however, that lawyers had advised him by then to lose “easy way or hard way” gangsta rap.

As for Kimmel, he should have been the last one targeted for disrespecting Charlie Kirk. This is what Kimmel had posted on Instagram in the wake of Kirk’s tragic passing:
“Instead of the angry finger‑pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human? On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”

Kimmel has said nothing on air since to disparage Kirk or even revisit Kirk’s previous statements that were inflammatory and now seem ironic. I happen to agree with that, having taken the old-school view that Kirk’s murder be “deplored without qualification.”


If you want to view the Monday monologue from Kimmel that has been absurdly linked to his suspension, knock yourself out. You can view it here.

If you do, you’ll be shocked as I was to find that nothing Kimmel said even remotely approached mean-spiritedness about Kirk. Kimmel ridiculed Trump, and deservedly so, for the president’s pathetic response to a sympathetic reporter’s question about how he was “holding up” in the wake of Kirk’s death.

Trump said he was fine and immediately changed the subject to how exciting it was that he was building a big, fancy White House ballroom. It was a singular validation of the daily, brilliant reminders from Trump’s niece — psychologist Mary Trump — that this a man suffering severely from untreated narcissistic personality disorder.


Humiliating Trump can come at a grave price to any company needing anything from Trump’s corrupt FCC. But, as I’ve suggested, Kimmel’s monologue Monday was just a fig leaf for going after him.

It was only a matter of time.

Just remember this: When Trump exerts his will and power over media that depend upon the federal government for their licensing — and in the case of giant corporations, far more — he is not acting like a dictator.

He’s acting as a dictator.
Trump just opened another front in his all-out war on U.S. media

Robert Reich
September 18, 2025 





Donald Trump has sued the New York Times for, well, reporting on Donald Trump.


Rather than charging the Times with any specific libelous act, Trump’s lawsuit is just another of his angry bloviations.

The lawsuit says he’s moving against "one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.” And so on.

At least he sued the Wall Street Journal’s parent company for something specific — reporting Trump’s birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein (which Trump continues to deny even though it showed up in the Epstein files).

Last year, Trump sued ABC and its host George Stephanopoulos for having said that Trump was found liable for rape rather than "sexual abuse" in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. The network settled for $16 million.

Trump sued CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes to make her sound more coherent. CBS also agreed to pay $16 million.

Defamation lawsuits are a longstanding part of Trump’s repertoire, which he first learned at the feet of Roy Cohn, one of America’s most notorious legal bullies.

In the 1980s, Trump sued the Pulitzer-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Paul Gapp for $500 million, for criticizing Trump’s plan to build the world’s tallest building in Manhattan, a 150-story tower that Gapp called "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.”

Trump charged that Gapp had "virtually torpedoed" the project and subjected Trump to "public ridicule and contempt." A judge dismissed the suit as involving protected opinion.

But such lawsuits are far worse when a president sues. He’s no longer just an individual whose reputation can be harmed. He’s the head of the government of the United States. One of the cardinal responsibilities of the media in our democracy is to report on a president — and often criticize him.

The legal standard for defamation of a public figure, established in a 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires that public officials who bring such suits prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

That case arose from a libel suit filed by L.B. Sullivan, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, against the New York Times for an advertisement in the paper that, despite being mostly true, contained factual errors concerning the mistreatment of civil rights demonstrators.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, finding that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the higher standard of proof was necessary to protect robust debate on public affairs.

Under this standard, there’s no chance Trump will prevail in his latest lawsuits against the Times or Wall Street Journal. Nor would he have won his lawsuits against ABC and CBS, had they gone to trial.

But Trump hasn’t filed these lawsuits to win in court. He has sought wins in the court of public opinion. These lawsuits are aspects of his performative presidency.

ABC’s and CBS’s settlements are viewed by Trump as vindications of his gripes with the networks.

He’s likewise using his lawsuit against the New York Times to advertise his long standing grievances with the paper.

His lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is intended to send a message to the Journal’s publisher, Rupert Murdoch, that Trump doesn’t want Murdoch to muck around in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

These lawsuits also put the media on notice that Trump could mess up their businesses.

Not only is it costly to defend against them — requiring attorney’s fees, inordinate time of senior executives, and efforts to defend the media’s brand and reputation.

When a lawsuit comes from the president of the United States who also has the power to damage a business by imposing regulations and prosecuting the corporation for any alleged wrongdoings, the potential costs can be huge.

Which presumably is why CBS caved rather than litigated. Its parent company, Paramount, wanted to be able to sell it for some $8 billion to Skydance, whose CEO is David Ellison (scion of the second-richest person in America, Oracle’s Larry Ellison). But Paramount first needed the approval of Trump’s Federal Communications Commission — which held up the sale until the defamation lawsuit was settled.

Here we come to the central danger of Trump’s wanton use of personal defamation law. The mere possibility of its use — coupled with Trump’s other powers of retribution — have a potential chilling effect on media criticism of Trump.

We don’t know how much criticism has been stifled to date, but it’s suggestive that a CBS News president and the executive producer of 60 Minutes resigned over CBS’s handling of the lawsuit and settlement, presumably because they felt that management was limiting their ability to fairly and freely cover Trump.

It’s also indicative that CBS ended Stephen Colbert’s contract. Colbert’s show is the highest-rated late night comedy show on television. He’s also one of the most trenchant critics of Trump.

Among the capitulations CBS’s owners made to the Trump administration was to hire an “ombudsman” to police the network against so-called bias — and the person they hired was Kenneth R. Weinstein, the former president and chief executive of the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute think tank.

Note also that on Wednesday ABC pulled off the air another popular late-night critic of Trump — Jimmy Kimmel — because Kimmel in a monologue earlier this week charged that Trump’s “MAGA gang” was trying “to score political points” from Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

ABC announced the move after Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, appeared to threaten ABC, and its parent company Disney, for airing Kimmel’s monologue —ominously threatening: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and related businesses, has muzzled the editorial page of the Washington Post — prohibiting it from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and imposing a stringent set of criteria on all editorials and opinion columns, which has led to the resignations of its opinion page editor and a slew of its opinion writers.

Trump hasn’t sued the Washington Post for defamation, but Bezos presumably understands Trump’s potential for harming his range of businesses and wants to avoid Trump’s wrath.

Make no mistake. Trump’s efforts to silence media criticism of him and his administration constitute another of his attacks on democracy.

What can be done? Two important steps are warranted.

First, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard should be far stricter when a president of the United States seeks to use defamation law against a newspaper or media platform that criticizes him.

Instead of requiring that he prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, he should have to prove that the false statement materially impaired his ability to perform his official duties.

Better yet, a president should have no standing to bring defamation suits. He has no need to bring them. Through his office he already possesses sufficient — if not too much — power to suppress criticism.

Second, antitrust authorities should not allow large corporations or ultra-wealthy individuals with many other business interests to buy major newspapers or media platforms. They cannot be trusted to prioritize the public’s right to know over their financial interests in their range of businesses.

The richest person in the world was allowed to buy X, one of the most influential news platforms on earth, and has turned it into a cesspool of rightwing lies and conspiracy theories.

The family of the second-richest person in the world now owns CBS.

The third-richest person now owns the Washington Post.

The Disney corporation — with its wide range of business enterprises — owns ABC.

The problem isn’t concentrated wealth per se. It’s that these business empires are potentially more important to their owners than is the public’s right to know.

If Democrats win back control of Congress next year, they should encode these two initiatives in legislation.

Democracy depends on a fearless press. Trump and the media that have caved in to him are jeopardizing it and thereby undermining our democracy


Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org


'Pathetic' Trump's silencing of Kimmel by the 'woke right' will 'backfire': analysis


ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on May 29, 2025 
(Image: Screengrab via Jimmy Kimmel Live! / YouTube)

September 19, 2025 
ALTERNET


Joining the growing chorus of experts condemning the firing of late night host Jimmy Kimmel is New York Magazine political columnist Ross Barkan, who says the move by ABC was not only "disturbing," but a battle that President Donald Trump will lose.

Kimmel was abruptly terminated Wednesday after the FCC chairman threatened to pull ABC’s license because of a joke he made about President Donald Trump's tepid reaction to the death of slain conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk.

"Trump is not a popular president, Kirk was nowhere near as revered as conservatives seem to believe he was. They cannot force millions of people to suddenly pretend to think Kirk is a fallen martyr who should never be critiqued again," Barkan says.

And although, Barkan says, "The Trump administration longs to systematically silence dissent," their efforts, he says, are failing.

With experts calling Trump's latest defamation suit against The New York Times "a meritless publicity stunt" designed to intimidate the media, Barkan says that eventually, this will backfire.

"Trump himself is repeatedly suing news outlets that defy him, and he’s hoping a ludicrously specious $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times will force the newspaper to retract their tough reporting on his administration and career," Barkan says.

Those calling for Kimmel's—among other late night hosts who ruffle the president's feathers—head, are what Barkan has deemed "the woke right, a resurgent regime that is stifling free discourse and justifying it through the same logic that social justice activists and certain Democratic politicians employed in the 2010s and early 2020s."

The biggest difference between the "woke right" and their perceived enemies on the left, Barkan explains, is "the power of the state: if the Biden administration could pressure tech platforms over certain content about the pandemic, it never wielded the Federal Communications Commission to force a major news conglomerate to suspend a comedian who offended the president."

In fact, FCC Chair Brendan Carr doubled down on that move, telling Fox News, that Kimmel's ousting "is not the last shoe to drop." He also praised Trump for creating a “massive shift” in the media ecosystem.

"It’s remarkable to witness how fast conservatives have abandoned any pretense of caring about the First Amendment after years of decrying illiberalism on the left," Barkan says, adding, "Now it’s the right that is making speech taboo."

Barkan says Trump will lose this battle against free speech, pointing to open defiance as the war strategy.

"Artists, writers, intellectuals, politicians—anyone with a voice must use it now. Trump can bend America, damage America, but he cannot break it," Barkan says.



Khanna Moves to Subpoena FCC Chair Carr Over Effort to ‘Shred the First Amendment’

“We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment,” said Rep. Robert Garcia.



US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen in the US Capitol
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Sep 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Democratic lawmakers are vowing to investigate the Trump administration’s pressure campaign that may have led to ABC deciding to indefinitely suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that he filed a motion to subpoena Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr one day after he publicly warned ABC of negative consequences if the network kept Kimmel on the air.
RECOMMENDED...



Hiding Behind Kirk, Team Trump Launches ‘Biggest Assault on the First Amendment’ in Modern US History



Vowing to Fight Back, Senate Dems Decry Trump Attack on Liberal-Left Groups

“Enough of Congress sleepwalking while [President Donald] Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance shred the First Amendment and Constitution,” Khanna declared. “It is time for Congress to stand up for Article I.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also said on Thursday that he was opening an investigation into the potential financial aspects of Carr’s pressure campaign on ABC, including the involvement of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network’s largest affiliate and is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.

“The Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into ABC, Sinclair, and the FCC,” he said. “We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment.”

Progressive politicians weren’t the only ones launching an investigation into the Kimmel controversy, as legal organization Democracy Forward announced that it’s filed a a Freedom of Information Act request for records after January 20, 2025 related to any FCC efforts “to use the agency’s licensing and enforcement powers to police and limit speech and influence what the public can watch and hear.”

CNN's Erin Burnett shreds right-wing hypocrisy with devastating superclip of their remarks

Daniel Hampton
September 18, 2025
RAW STORY


(Screengrab via CNN)

CNN anchor Erin Burnett tore into MAGA hypocrisy Thursday night in the aftermath of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension from ABC by throwing their own remarks back at them.

After showing new images of the late-night comedian less than 24 hours after his show was suddenly pulled, she noted President Donald Trump has made it "clear he is not done."

"The president is now threatening more networks," she said, playing a clip of Trump suggesting networks could lose their licenses for negative coverage.

Burnett then played a devastating series of clips to make the point that Republicans used to defend free speech, telling viewers, "If you are surprised at what has happened, maybe it is because you took the president, the vice president and the chairman of the FCC at their word when Trump came into office."

"If you don't have free speech, you don't have a country," Trump said in a 2022 clip played by Burnett.

"Thank God we have a president now who believes in free speech," Vice President JD Vance says in a subsequent clip.


"Free speech, diversity of opinion — and those are the bedrocks of democracy," said Brendan Carr, Trump's head of the Federal Communications Commission.

Carr, she noted, was the "very same man who made this threat this week after Kimmel's comments regarding Charlie Kirk."

"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr tells far-right podcaster Benny Johnson. He later adds: "But frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Burnett slammed Carr over his abrupt 180, and hurled his own tweet back at him.

"Threats obviously don't get more clearer than that, and that threat is a real about-face from a man, Brendan Carr, who, in December of 2023, wrote — and I want to quote him — 'Free speech is the counterweight. It is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarians' dream.'"

After playing a clip of Kimmel's words that got him targeted, Burnett played a 2021 clip of Fox News host Jesse Watters making an inflammatory joke about Dr. Anthony Fauci.


"Now you go in for the kill shot. The kill shot with an ambush? Deadly. Because he doesn't see it coming. This is when you say, 'Dr. Fauci, you funded risky research at a sloppy Chinese lab, the same lab that sprung this pandemic on the world. You know why people don't trust you, don't you?' Boom, he is dead is done."

Watters was promoted a month after the comment.

Burnett also played remarks from other right-wing pundits making light of Paul Pelosi's hammer attack, in which he was hospitalized with a skull fracture.


"There was a lot of really ugly rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the right at the time," she noted.

"At 82 years old, and comes home to find out that her husband's playing hide the hammer with the Black Lives Matter guy!" exclaimed Jason Whitlock on Fox News in 2022.

"We can't confirm or deny your suggestion," a coy Tucker Carlson replies in a subsequent clip.

"It's MAGA extremists behind this, because they always attract illegal alien nudists who live in school buses, who think they're Jesus Christ," Greg Gutfeld yells at viewers.

Donald Trump Jr., Burnett noted, posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and underwear after Pelosi was attacked.

"Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready," he wrote.

Elon Musk chimed in, "There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye," linking to an article suggesting the attack stemmed from a drunken encounter with a male sex worker



MAGA podcaster calls for 'lawful violence' against the left: 'We are being hunted!'

Robert Davis
September 18, 2025
RAW STORY


Piers Morgan Uncensored screenshot


MAGA podcaster Steven Crowder defended the use of "defensive, lawful, ruthless" violence against the left during an interview about conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death last week.

Crowder appeared on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" on Thursday to discuss the impact of Kirk's death on the conservative movement. He claimed that Kirk's killing is an example of left-wing groups being more likely to commit political violence than right-wing groups.

"Every position that the right holds has been presented as violence," Crowder said, mentioning issues like abortion and gender expression. "And so people deal with the right with violence."

"We are being hunted, and I don't want to see any more dead friends," Crowder added. "Violence? Absolutely. Lawful, ruthless, defensive violence."

Crowder also argued that data showing right-wing groups are more likely to commit violence is flawed because some studies omitted acts of violence committed by the left.

"Nobody is saying there is no violence on the right," Crowder said. "All I am saying is that people on the right have to have armed security, flak jackets, and an entire strategy when they go out and those on the left don't!" Crowder said. "That is verifiably true."

"The left lies," Crowder said. "They label you a fascist. They label you a totalitarian. And how do you deal with those people? You don't do it at the ballot box. We all know that."


MAGA'S HORST WESSEL

Trump's Pentagon mulls recruiting Charlie Kirk fans: 'Awakened a generation of warriors'

Matthew Chapman
September 18, 2025 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: Founder and president of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo

Department of Defense higher-ups are considering a recruitment campaign to explicitly target fans of assassinated right-wing youth activist Charlie Kirk.

According to NBC News, "The idea would be to frame the recruiting campaign as a national call to service, the officials said. Possible slogans that Pentagon leaders have discussed include 'Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors,' according to the officials."

Kirk was shot and killed while engaging with students at a political event at Utah Valley University in Orem last Wednesday. His death has sent shockwaves through the right-wing media ecosystem, with many mourning his loss and some seeking to blame it on Democrats.\

These proposals also come amid reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is working to purge the military of individuals who posted on social media about Kirk's death.

This recruitment drive would potentially focus on partnering with chapters of Kirk's student political organization, Turning Point USA, running enlistment centers out of these student groups, according to the report: "That could include inviting recruiters to be present at events or advertising for the military at the chapters, one of them explained."

Turning Point USA, which has faced numerous controversies in recent years for promoting racism and Christian nationalism, formed a key part of President Donald Trump's voter canvassing operation in the 2024 presidential election, as the campaign had a negligible such operation in-house.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk's America PAC also carried out much of this work.

The plan is still up in the air, according to the report.

"The idea is facing resistance from some Pentagon leaders who have privately warned those working on the effort that such a campaign could be perceived as the military trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death ... two officials said. Kirk did not serve in the armed forces."

























Thursday, September 18, 2025

Canadian SMR project shortlisted for federal fast-track



Ontario Power Generation's Darlington New Nuclear project has been named as one of the first projects to be reviewed by a new office set up by the federal government to help fast-track major projects.
 
(Image: Lars Hagberg/PM of Canada)

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the launch of the Major Projects Office (MPO) in August, to fast-track "nation-building" projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and helping to structure financing, in close partnership with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, and private investors. Headquartered in Calgary, with offices in other major Canadian cities, the MPO's mandate is to serve as a single point of contact to get nation-building projects built faster. By creating a single set of conditions it will be possible to reduce the approval timeline for projects of national interest to a maximum of two years, the government claims, and the MPO will work with provinces and territories to achieve a "one project, one review" approach.

The Darlington New Nuclear project is one of five that have now been referred to the MPO for its consideration.

"This project will make Canada the first G7 country to have an operational small modular reactor (SMR), accelerating the commercialisation of a key technology that could support Canadian and global clean energy needs while driving CAD500 million annually into Ontario's nuclear supply chain. Once complete, Darlington's first of four planned SMR units will provide reliable, affordable, clean power to 300,000 homes, while sustaining 3,700 jobs annually, including 18,000 during construction, over the next 65 years. The project has the potential to position Canada as a global leader in the deployment of SMR technology for use across the country and worldwide," the government said. CAD500 million is about USD363 million.

Also referred to the Major Projects Office are a project to double LNG Canada's production of liquefied natural gas; a capacity expansion of the Port of Montréal; a copper and zinc mining project in Saskatchewan, that the government says will strengthen Canada's position as a global supplier of critical minerals for clean energy; and a major expansion of a copper mine in British Columbia.

"Together, these projects represent investments of more than CAD60 billion in our economy and will create thousands of well-paying jobs for Canadians," the government said.

These first projects have already achieved many regulatory milestones and have undertaken extensive engagement with Indigenous Peoples, provincial governments, local authorities, proponents, and other stakeholders, the government noted, so for these projects, "the work of the Major Projects Office will be to close final regulatory and permitting gaps, co-ordinate with provinces and territories, and ensure financing plans can be achieved. The MPO will recommend to the federal government the best course to complete each project approval quickly so proponents can make smart investment decisions".

“At this moment of transformative change, Canada's new government is focused on delivering major projects to connect our communities, empower Canadian workers, and build Canada's strength. With the first in a series of new projects, we will build big, build now, and build Canada strong," Carney said.

The Province of Ontario on 8 May announced its final investment decision to give the green light to Ontario Power Generation for construction of the first of four GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy BWRX-300 SMRs at the Darlington site. The total cost of the four-SMR project has been estimated at CAD20.9 billion.