Charlie Kirk Shot
- Thread starter ThereRoseaLamb
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
The Lord sees what is going on and He is coming to put things right.
The Lord sees what is going on and He is coming to put things right.
He gave mankind dominion, and it went downhill from the time of the fall in Genesis.
Resurfaced Clip of ‘The View’ Getting Legal Note On-Air Over Charlie Kirk Lies Goes Viral
The View likening Charlie Kirk to Goebbels and the third Reich. But this shows the lies that they were forced to admit spreading due to being notified by the lawyers. They claim that Turning Point USA welcomed Neo Nazi's into their event, but then admitted that Turning Point USA condemned publicly the Neo Nazis and that they were not welcomed into the event but were protesting outside the venue.
We now know that Biden's FBI was investigating Turning Point USA and that these other MSM outlets like the View were used to slander them.
Kash Patel: Discord Chat Shows More Than 20 Linked to Charlie Kirk Assassination Plot [WATCH]
By LifeZette News Staff
September 16, 2025
FBI Director Kash Patel testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, telling lawmakers that a large online network may have been involved in the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
https://www.lifezette.com/2025/09/k...irk-assassination-plot-watch/#google_vignette
By LifeZette News Staff
September 16, 2025
FBI Director Kash Patel testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, telling lawmakers that a large online network may have been involved in the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
https://www.lifezette.com/2025/09/k...irk-assassination-plot-watch/#google_vignette
Five NFL Teams Declined Moment of Silence for Charlie Kirk, Each Celebrated George Floyd
With Week 2 of the NFL winding down, five home teams refused to sponsor a moment of silence for murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk, even though each of them held memorials, made statements, and donated money in honor of convicted drug user George Floyd.
About half the teams playing over Week 2 did hold a moment of silence for Kirk, but five games were noticeably missing among that list.
By the time Sunday ended, five home teams had skipped the moment of silence that the NFL had authorized. Those teams included the Baltimore Ravens, who faced the Cleveland Browns at M&T Bank Stadium, the Cincinnati Bengals, who played the Jacksonville Jaguars at Paycor Stadium, the Detroit Lions, who took on the Chicago Bears, the Indianapolis Colts going up against the Denver Broncos at Lucas Oil Stadium, and the Minnesota Vikings who battled the Atlanta Falcons at U.S. Bank Stadium.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/20...or-charlie-kirk-each-celebrated-george-floyd/
God reveals the motives of the heart.
With Week 2 of the NFL winding down, five home teams refused to sponsor a moment of silence for murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk, even though each of them held memorials, made statements, and donated money in honor of convicted drug user George Floyd.
About half the teams playing over Week 2 did hold a moment of silence for Kirk, but five games were noticeably missing among that list.
By the time Sunday ended, five home teams had skipped the moment of silence that the NFL had authorized. Those teams included the Baltimore Ravens, who faced the Cleveland Browns at M&T Bank Stadium, the Cincinnati Bengals, who played the Jacksonville Jaguars at Paycor Stadium, the Detroit Lions, who took on the Chicago Bears, the Indianapolis Colts going up against the Denver Broncos at Lucas Oil Stadium, and the Minnesota Vikings who battled the Atlanta Falcons at U.S. Bank Stadium.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/20...or-charlie-kirk-each-celebrated-george-floyd/
God reveals the motives of the heart.
I realize there has been a debate about whether or not to post the following link.
On the one hand I would agree there is a risk of gloating and that is clearly condemned by the Bible.
On the other hand PennEd shared a really key verse
Psalm 58:10
New King James Version
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,
It is important for us to see this, similar to a verse that I shared where God is known when we see Him execute judgement.
So then Christians should not gloat over this, we should see God's judgment, we should use this to get to Know God better and we should rejoice, not in the individuals who are suffering but in the fact that this judgement being executed can cause many to turn to the Lord. I would warn any Christian to not get involved in this, we are not here to judge others, but to preach the good news that Jesus' blood redeems us from our sins. We do not want anyone harmed but are one with God in His desire that all men would be saved and come to the full knowledge of God. Also I think it is important to listen to these people, it will help us pray for them.
People Getting Fired For Mocking Charlie Kirk! #5
On the one hand I would agree there is a risk of gloating and that is clearly condemned by the Bible.
On the other hand PennEd shared a really key verse
Psalm 58:10
New King James Version
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,
It is important for us to see this, similar to a verse that I shared where God is known when we see Him execute judgement.
So then Christians should not gloat over this, we should see God's judgment, we should use this to get to Know God better and we should rejoice, not in the individuals who are suffering but in the fact that this judgement being executed can cause many to turn to the Lord. I would warn any Christian to not get involved in this, we are not here to judge others, but to preach the good news that Jesus' blood redeems us from our sins. We do not want anyone harmed but are one with God in His desire that all men would be saved and come to the full knowledge of God. Also I think it is important to listen to these people, it will help us pray for them.
People Getting Fired For Mocking Charlie Kirk! #5
I wasn't trying to get in the middle of a debate. I just had read your statement after reading I Samuel 13 in my devotion.
What stood out was the end of the chapter.
17And the spoilers came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned unto the way that leadeth to Ophrah, unto the land of Shual: ... 19Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: 20But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.
(They were required by the occupying army to get permission to just get farming tools sharpened.)
22So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.
There was a military occupation.
God's people were disarmed.
They were frequently attacked.
Their food and all belongings were stolen. Violence, killing and rape are assumed as with most situations like this.
Keeping this in mind, the next chapter, the King's son Jonathan, the only other man with a sword, gets motivated to challenge the garrison all by himself with his armor bearer. Upon faith in the Lord of Hosts/Armies, he leads a much needed victory as the Lord fought for Him as he did his part.
The American colonies did this too, when Great Britain was on their way to take away their weapons. They already had red coats move into their homes, take all their food, etc.
I asked myself, was it a wicked thing against the command of Jesus for those families to defend themselves?
When Indians attacked, should they have submitted to the tortures of rape and skinning alive as some tribes did to settlers?
When the three men tried to strangle me to death and kept trying to kill me, did the statement from Jesus apply to turn the other cheek?
I've asked myself as many times as attempts were made on my life.
According to many preachers we've heard, the only right response to violence is just that.
However, I have found myself disagreeing on this point with my Mennonite and Brethren friends.
When I read what Jesus says in Luke 6, I must compare it in context and with the rest of the Bible.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other...31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
I've been smitten in the face and know what that's like.
I also know what it's like to have a group of thugs try to kill me, have been attacked with all sorts of weapons by nefarious criminals who tried to murder me, yet failed by God's grace.
I noticed that there was a big difference between the sucker punch in the face and the other attacks.
I look at Jesus and noticed that He used force at times. He made the first sword and will use the last. He made a whip to use against the moneychangers in His Father's house.
Jesus was carried by violent force to be murdered by preachers who tried to throw Him off a cliff. Did Jesus comply and submit to that violence?
Then why would the interpretation of so many preachers be that Jesus' one statement,
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other,"
be a wholesale contradiction of every other example and command in the Bible on the subject?
What I believe is that denominations that teach this have taken it out of context.
A smite does not necessarily cause grave bodily injury or death. It can, but in context, it seems in the following verses, it's more like living your neighbor as yourself and treating them likewise in spite of offenses.
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
Is there a misunderstanding that I have with that reasoning?
Turning the other cheek does not refer to a violent life threatening attack.
The Cheek Slap in Jesus’ Day
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
When you hit someone in the cheek with the back of your hand it was a very strong insult saying you are superior and they are your inferior. Anyone who preaches the gospel or even those of us who post on this forum experience this when we say things that others dislike. They don't simply insult you, they insult you with the air of superiority. Jesus is not saying to curl up into a ball, He is saying "turn the other cheek" which means you are not backing down, they are not going to silence you, and you are making it clear that you have offered them the other cheek, but this time not with the back of the hand but with the palm. You are taking a stand that you are their equal.
I had an experience once when elders in a church tried to silence me by this public insult of a superior to an inferior. The word I got from the Lord was from Galatians where Paul said he did not give place to them for five minutes. The very next meeting I was the first one to stand up and share as soon as the meeting was open to testimonies. It was a very public act of defiance, saying "go ahead, if you want to take this to the next level, try it". Jesus did the same thing in the gospels when He spoke openly and they said "Is not this the one they are trying to kill?" In another example the leading elder in the state of Texas was sent to the church I was at to "reign me in". He spoke for an hour in his sermon, filled with innuendo accusing me of heinous sins without actually saying my name but painting a picture that could only refer to me. As soon as he finished I was the first to stand up and testify. I did not respond to anything he said but shared about the verses the message was supposed to be about. As soon as the meeting was over I was cornered by about five brothers asking me who he was talking about. I said "I don't know, ask him". The next week he doubled down with a whole new set of sins, and again I was the first one to stand up and testify about the verses the message was supposed to be about. Needless to say he was fully exposed in the lie, put to an open shame, and the reason he would never actually say my name is because he would then be liable to be sued, something that had happened in the past to this same group. Turn the other cheek means to call their bluff and don't let them shut you up.
That said you need to examine yourself that you are not proud, not arrogant, and see if this is the Lord speaking to you or not.
The first time this happened to me I was clueless, standing alone, shocked and confused. Then this ten year old kid came up to me who I knew and he quoted a song they sing in children's meetings: "you can talk about me just as much as you please, I'll talk about you down on my knees". That is the proper response. Take this to the Lord before you do anything. I learned a lot by going to the Lord. For example I learned that the Bible talks about the church of the saints, but never says the church of the elders. From that I learned I was on equal footing with the elders, they were not superior and I inferior. Yes, you need to treat them with respect, but you don't need to treat them as an inferior talking to a superior.
Let's talk about Jonathan. The OT is filled with warfare, it is a shadow of the spiritual warfare we are in now. Much of the doctrine in Christianity is designed to take your sword away from you. For example, Once Saved Always Saved focuses exclusively on you being washed and forgiven by the blood of Jesus as though that is the end all and be all of the Christian life. It is tied to Calvinism which discourages evangelism. Every Christian needs to go on from the elementary principles to the more mature principles like spiritual warfare. We are not wrestling against flesh and blood and that is hard for immature believers to understand, but the absolutely best way to bring down Satan's kingdom is for Saul of Tarsus to get saved, not for "the wrath of God to fall on Saul of Tarsus because he was one with those who stoned Stephen". But just because we are praying for Saul to get saved doesn't mean we aren't also wrestling with principalities and powers.
During my Christian life many, many people have rejected what I speak. They think that if they reject it you will stop speaking. But look, I can't tell you how many people rejected my blog about the rapture, but so what, I didn't stop speaking and now there are over 700,000 who have read it and I get more than 1,000 new visitors to that blog every day. I don't advertise so it must be by word of mouth. Jesus said if they reject you in this city, shake off the dust and go to the next city. I have been rejected by four platforms, I simply shake off the dust and move on. The worst thing you can do is to let unbelievers influence your ministry. We are not men pleasers, we are only interested in pleasing one person, Jesus Christ. Don't be arrogant, don't be proud, if someone makes a comment take it to the Lord. But to me it is funny when some person who tried to shut me down two years ago on the blog learns I didn't stop, I have posted every single day since then and I have gone from 100k people to 700k people in that time. They are not the Lord, only Jesus is the Lord. If He tells me to stop I stop, but if He tells me not to stop I don't stop.
So there is a key lesson in Jonathan. I once heard there are two kinds of dogs, those that bark and those that bite. This is what Jonathan is saying, if these people are the "barking dogs" we attack, if they are the "biting dogs" we don't.
Sorry I made a mistake earlier and meant to respond to your question.
I had a lot of questions that eventually made sense to me in my search for the answers when challenged by my pacifist friends over the years.
I was given the idea that turning the other cheek was a negation of the responses to life threatening circumstances described throughout the rest of the Bible and real life. Then they tried to convince me that Ephesians 6 was Paul's enunciation that there would no longer be physical threats to life or that all believers were to see life as an exclusive spiritual war. Yet Paul "fought with beasts at Ephesus."
He suffered a lot of brutality by the mobs of Jews. He even had a hit team that vowed to not eat until they kill him. So, there are times some of us do indeed fight against flesh and blood enemies. The devil's are often behind these as are the sin nature's of the criminals without their help.
Generally speaking, though believers in Christ typically are not fighting in physical warfare, but in spiritual.
The one that kept coming up was the passage previously posted.
36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Jesus told His disciples to buy the Roman sword. He would not tell them to do something sinful. Nor is this a negation of faith for force against harm as my preacher told me.
If they didn't have money for it, they were to sell something they needed, a garment, to buy one. This didn't mean they were to be naked. Most anyone traveling carries an extra set of clothes. The exception was when they started their ministry with Jesus, they went high speed low drag, not an extra pair of shoes and depend on other believers for good and water. Anyhow, why the sword?
Jesus explained in the following verses. He quoted a prophecy from Isaiah 53:12 about His end, His death .
Luke 22:36
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Jesus, the righteous Savior, was crucified between the two transgressors.
This was in fulfillment of His first Advent. The Jews sought a Messiah who would liberate them from Roman and rule from Jerusalem with a rod of iron.
At that time, there would be true peace and no need for a sword for self defense. They could be up-cycled into a garden tool, like a hoe at that time.
However, Jesus didn't come to bring peace on earth. Nor did He come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Until His Second Advent/ Return (of the King), there would continue to be violence, Romans 1, etc.
Jesus never forbade the defense of self or family from violent criminals. He told them to turn the cheek when insulted or to not react to the opponent as they expect and us typical.
I wrote another post I'll add about my search for answers in the next post since this would be too long.
This is my perspective after honestly having an open mind and being challenged umpteen times by friends, and circumstances, which I'll mention a couple next.
Does this make sense?
Do you have any further insights?
I won't judge if you don't because I asked a number of great preachers about this. One actually kept an automatic Uzi in his converted bus for travelling America.
Part 2
I wasn't trying to get in the middle of a debate. I just had read your statement after reading I Samuel 13 in my devotion.
What stood out was the end of the chapter.
17And the spoilers came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned unto the way that leadeth to Ophrah, unto the land of Shual: ... 19Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: 20But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.
(They were required by the occupying army to get permission to just get farming tools sharpened.)
22So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.
There was a military occupation.
God's people were disarmed.
They were frequently attacked.
Their food and belongings were stolen.
Keeping this in mind, the next chapter, the King's son Jonathan, the only other man with a sword, gets motivated to challenge the garrison all by himself with his armor bearer. Upon faith in the Lord of Hosts/Armies, he leads a much needed victory as the Lord fought for Him as he did his part.
I don't believe that believers today have a national entity like the Israel and Judah of the Old Testament.
We don't wrestle against flesh and blood in the many national conflicts with God's blessing for entering the promised land as they did.
However, the verses about.personal self defense certainly apply. We men are to provide for our families. I don't take that as a single monetary obligation. I think it applies to providing security.
When Mom's second husband abandoned her for another, women I took responsibility to protect her. She ran screaming into my bedroom when she was awoken by a criminal who broke in through the basement door.
I had to rescue my brother and do a house clearing to make sure it was safe to go back to bed. I don't see that as a violation of Bible doctrine, do you?
The American colonies did this too, when Great Britain was on their way to take away their weapons. They already had red coats move into their homes, take all their food, etc.
I asked myself, was it a wicked thing against the command of Jesus for those families to defend themselves?
When Indians attacked, should they have submitted to the tortures of rape and skinning alive as some tribes did to settlers?
When the three men tried to strangle me to death and kept trying to kill me in the middle of the night, did the statement from Jesus apply to turn the other cheek? I'd have died had it not been for Psalm 144:1.
I've asked myself about the less clear passages many times as attempts were made on my life and family.
According to many preachers we've heard, the only right response to violence is just that.
However, I have found myself disagreeing on this point with my pacifist friends.
When I read what Jesus says in Luke 6, I must compare it in context and with the rest of the Bible.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other...31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
I've been smitten in the face and know what that's like.
I also know what it's like to have a group of thugs try to kill me, have been attacked with all sorts of weapons by nefarious criminals who tried to murder me, yet failed by God's grace.
I noticed that there was a big difference between the sucker punch in the face and the other attacks.
I look at Jesus and noticed that He used force at times. He made the first sword and will use the last. He made a whip to use against the moneychangers in His Father's house.
Jesus was carried by violent force to be murdered by preachers who tried to throw Him off a cliff. Did Jesus comply and submit to that violence?
Then why would the interpretation of so many preachers be that Jesus' one statement,
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other,"
be a wholesale contradiction of every other example and command in the Bible on the subject?
What I believe is that denominations that teach this have taken it out of context.
A smite does not necessarily cause grave bodily injury or death. It can, but in context, it seems in the following verses, it's more like living your neighbor as yourself and treating them likewise in spite of offenses.
These apply to the common offenses, insults and such. I don't see it as Jesus forbidding the defense and escape from violent criminals as they would be harming the believer.
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
Is there a misunderstanding that I have with that reasoning?
"The problem's plain to see... Too much technology! Machines to rule our lives... Machines dehumanize!"
Does someone know which video this clip is from? I've been searching for a while but haven't been able to find it.
Charlie Kirk is not a racist https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rVcKySufn0w
Charlie Kirk is not a racist https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rVcKySufn0w
WATCH: Bannon Questions Lone Gunman Narrative in Charlie Kirk Assassination.
Former Trump chief strategist and WarRoom host Stephen K. Bannon is voicing skepticism over the authenticity of the text messages between Charlie Kirk‘s alleged assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and his transgender lover, Lance Twiggs, in which Robinson admits to murdering Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University last week. In the text exchange, Robinson claimed his motive was that he “had enough of [Kirk’s] hatred.”
“I’m particularly not buying those text messages, it just seems too stilted, too much like a script—actually, like a bad script,” Bannon said during WarRoom on Tuesday, adding: “You just murdered the most important young person in the conservative movement… and you’re telling me you’re texting, ‘Dad’s going to be very upset I lost grandpa’s rifle.’ Are you kidding me?”
The WarRoom host called for a deeper investigation into potential connections to groups like Antifa or other conspiracies, referencing the attempted assassination of President Donald J. Trump in Pennsylvania in 2024. Notably, a number of conservative commentators have called into question the nature of Robinson’s communications with Twiggs and members of a Discord server, with some suggesting the messages appear to be an attempt by the assassin to provide alibis for Twiggs and the others.
President Trump and other senior officials have blamed the “radical left” for Kirk’s assassination. Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) stated that Robinson was motivated by his “leftist ideology.”
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel has confirmed the agency is reviewing a Discord group chat where Robinson reportedly admitted to the crime, and all members of the chat are under investigation.
Bannon also revealed that the Trump administration is considering executive actions, including labeling Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. “The biggest thing is to broaden the assassination investigation from a single murder to the broader conspiracy,” he said, adding: “If we are going to go to war, let’s go to war.”
Robinson, who has been charged with Kirk’s murder, faces the death penalty, potentially by firing squad, if he is convicted.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2025/0...nman-narrative-in-charlie-kirk-assassination/
https://rumble.com/v6z1yz2-bannon-h...-am-absolutely-not-buyi.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
https://rumble.com/v6z1y8y-bannon-o...he-nose-its-too-scripte.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
Former Trump chief strategist and WarRoom host Stephen K. Bannon is voicing skepticism over the authenticity of the text messages between Charlie Kirk‘s alleged assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and his transgender lover, Lance Twiggs, in which Robinson admits to murdering Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University last week. In the text exchange, Robinson claimed his motive was that he “had enough of [Kirk’s] hatred.”
“I’m particularly not buying those text messages, it just seems too stilted, too much like a script—actually, like a bad script,” Bannon said during WarRoom on Tuesday, adding: “You just murdered the most important young person in the conservative movement… and you’re telling me you’re texting, ‘Dad’s going to be very upset I lost grandpa’s rifle.’ Are you kidding me?”
The WarRoom host called for a deeper investigation into potential connections to groups like Antifa or other conspiracies, referencing the attempted assassination of President Donald J. Trump in Pennsylvania in 2024. Notably, a number of conservative commentators have called into question the nature of Robinson’s communications with Twiggs and members of a Discord server, with some suggesting the messages appear to be an attempt by the assassin to provide alibis for Twiggs and the others.
President Trump and other senior officials have blamed the “radical left” for Kirk’s assassination. Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) stated that Robinson was motivated by his “leftist ideology.”
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel has confirmed the agency is reviewing a Discord group chat where Robinson reportedly admitted to the crime, and all members of the chat are under investigation.
Bannon also revealed that the Trump administration is considering executive actions, including labeling Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. “The biggest thing is to broaden the assassination investigation from a single murder to the broader conspiracy,” he said, adding: “If we are going to go to war, let’s go to war.”
Robinson, who has been charged with Kirk’s murder, faces the death penalty, potentially by firing squad, if he is convicted.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2025/0...nman-narrative-in-charlie-kirk-assassination/
https://rumble.com/v6z1yz2-bannon-h...-am-absolutely-not-buyi.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
https://rumble.com/v6z1y8y-bannon-o...he-nose-its-too-scripte.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
There's a clip of him talking about being on the phone with what he called a moronic black woman.
And then he said if an airline has a black pilot he's going to wonder if the pilot is qualified. Is if the airline is so woke they just found a random black person that said hey you do you want to come fly the plane?
I believe he was asked about DEI used in hiring. He pointed out that no one on an airplane cares about the color of the skin of a pilot but rather about their ability to flly an airplane, which makes sense since their lives depend on that. If an airline is hiring people solely based on merit then no one will wonder about a minorities skill set, but if airlines are required to follow DEI guidelines so that your status as a minority plays a pivotal role as to whether or not you are hired as a pilot, then people will wonder if the pilot who is a minority is flying the plane because they are the best qualified or if it is because they were hired to fulfill some racial quota. As a result minorities suffer because of DEI. You can claim you were fully qualified but the truth is that the color of your skin did play a key role in you getting the job and you never saw the resumes of those you beat out for the job so you have no proof you are the most qualified.
He was pointing out that DEI is a racist policy and has a negative impact that minorities should factor in before they support it.
It's 2025 and media is available everywhere. If you've seen a clip, there is no reason not to provide it in full context. No sound bites taken out of context, either.
P.S. I also seriously worry about the airline and other critical industries since they adopted DEI. Doesn't matter the gender or skin color. If someone isn't qualified, they should not there. DEI is what happens when lunatics are in power.
- Status