Charlie Kirk: Aiming At The Wrong Target
Let’s get one thing straight: the murder of far-right activist Charlie Kirk should not have happened, and is as egregious an act as any violent act committed against any individual, regardless of who they are or what they believe.
But let’s get something else straight: the socio-political-religious affinities of Kirk were not only highly controversial, they were extremist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, irreligious, and (dare we say) fascist in nature.
With Kirk’s death, the perpetrator actually hit the wrong target – he aimed at Kirk, when he should have been shooting an ideology, not a man.
The Badlands of the Internet
Much has crossed the wilds of the Internet and social media over the days since Kirk’s frankly untimely death that’s highly charged and polarized, both politically and socially. Unfortunately, too much of it is riddled with speculation, guesswork, and outright lies.
Both Chaim and myself (Vince, writing for both of us) have seen a few comments seeming to boil down to the feeling that Kirk was a demon who “deserved what he got” (to directly quote one commenter).
Many comments from those on the far-right claim (without real supportive evidence) that liberals (whom they perceive as their sociopolitical adversaries) are celebrating the murder. This same group also claim that Kirk was a “persecuted Christian”, and in practical terms, are treating him as a modern-day Christian martyr.
And just like the great deal of conversations that have taken place all over social media, neither of these extremes is entirely accurate.
Having It Out
I (Vince) had it out with a Facebook user the other day, who commented below another commenter who was being derided by others for posting what was clearly a copy-and-paste answer from ChatGPT to a question posed to the AI about Kirk’s controversial comments.
This user created what itself might be seen as a ChatGPT-esque reply, all of which was dripping with reverent praise for Kirk and practically daring anyone to prove him wrong (I didn’t know that “Truth Social” had its own AI chatbot).
Well, who are we to not take up that challenge?
Taking Up The Challenge
With that in mind, we’ve compiled a short-list of Charlie Kirk statements, many taken directly from his podcast show over the years, and others sourced from his public speaking engagements including events and rallies sponsored by his organization Turning Point USA.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, because frankly neither Chaim nor I feel that we need to “re-invent the wheel”, since many journalists all over the world have begun compiling much more comprehensive lists of Kirk’s the most hateful, bigoted, racist, and otherwise controversial statements.
Subjectively, these statements will be met with a cry of “yes, yes, he’s right!” – but only by those who also subscribe to Kirk’s brand of “Christian Nationalist” white supremacist fascism.
Objectively, these statements and the myriad of others that are already documented by reputable and authoritative sources, prove conclusively that Kirk wasn’t just another in a long string of controversial figures with lots of opinions.
He was a cold-blooded, calculating, fake-Christian, very-far-right extremist whose abhorrent and inhuman beliefs – though not the man himself – need to die just as much as far-left extremist beliefs deserve to be put out of the world’s misery.
Controversial Statements from Charlie Kirk
Race and Race Relations
The Statements
If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1/23/2024
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1/3/2024
You [referring to Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson] 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.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 7/13/2023
If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 12/8/2022
…happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more… More than six hundred white women a year are murdered by Black men. Six hundred white women a year. Did you know that? By Blacks. So six hundred white women are murdered by Blacks a year.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 5/19/2023
White privilege is a myth… a racist lie.
– TPUSA.com, 4/7/2021
Evidentiary Rebuttal
These and many other statements clearly show that Kirk wasn’t even attempting to hide his naked racism. He routinely exhibited a disdain of non-white people, and often ridiculed the intelligence and qualifications of black people.
While there is ample evidence to disprove his inferences that black people possess a lower intelligence or capacity for professional qualifications, I do want to point out that the comment about “white women” being “murdered by Black men” is wholly inaccurate.
His source is lacking, because just like most political extremists, he very rarely cited sources. Presumably, he would have obtained such figures from the FBI database.
However, a review of the FBI’s “Crime In The US” portal shows that (as of this writing) the latest publicly-available statistics are for 2019. Indeed, in “Expanded Homicide Table 6” for this year, the number of white female victims to black offenders is 694. However, the table does not appear to clearly delineate whether the 694 white females were victims of black males or black females. So, clearly Kirk was obfuscating in order to appeal to his audience.
Also, “white privilege” isn’t a lie, it’s a well-documented historical reality. There are more than enough historical facts to show how white Europeans subjugated non-white Europeans, and set up social and governmental systems that provided white people with privileges while denying them to non-whites.
If we tried to list all of these out here, this post would rival War and Peace for volume. Kirk was either maliciously lying or incredibly ignorant of history when he made such claims.
Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, and DEI
The Statements
MLK was awful. He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe.
We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s… [it] ushered in a permanent DEI-type bureaucracy.
– TPUSA “America Fest” rally, December 2023
The Civil Rights Act has superseded the Constitution.
– Interview with the New York Times
Evidentiary Rebuttal
It’s no secret that at one time, Kirk actually supported Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, and called him a “hero” and a “cultural icon.” This change in viewpoint from respect to attack is typical of Kirk – as he gained popularity, his sociopolitical views became much more extremist.
It’s also interesting to note that all of his statements on this topic aren’t just opinions, they’re deliberate lies.
From a legislative and legal standpoint, nothing can supersede the Constitution.
Now, it certainly can be argued that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has definitely been changed over the years from President Kennedy’s original concept of “affirmative action”, that is, equal consideration and treatment in business, education, and government circles without regard to one’s race, religion, sex, or national origin.
But Kirk’s opinion of a “DEI bureaucracy” is an oversimplification of the complex nature of how Kennedy’s concept of equal treatment, and the subsequent Civil Rights legislation confirming this, has evolved over the decades, not only in government and academia, but much more so in business.
Certainly the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion needs to be better managed, but it cannot be improved when one side of the political spectrum stubbornly demands its destruction. The far-right’s demand for a complete dismantling of DEI and the Civil Rights Acts would certainly lead to a return to wholesale segregation, discrimination and persecution of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual people. Thus, Kirk was in fact, promoting evil.
Guns and Gun Violence
The Statements
I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, 4/5/2023
Evidentiary Rebuttal
Kirk was actually endorsing gun violence, essentially minimizing the seriousness of preventable deaths as collateral damage for what he perceived as ideological purity.
His quote “to protect our OTHER (emphasis mine) G-d-given rights” cannot be seriously taken any other way than this: Charlie Kirk believed that the right to own and use guns was given to us by G-d Himself.
This is not only untrue, but it’s an absolute blasphemy. There is nothing in the Bible that specifies that G-d told us we had a right from Him to own guns.
So, let’s destroy the “Christian nationalist” concept of what’s given to us by G-d right here and now:
Some rights are given to us by G-d, our creator. Some rights are given to us by our society – that is, the system of government that we choose. Not all of them are the same.
G-d did not give us the right to vote, to drive a car, or to buy whatever kind of house we want or can afford. Those and many other rights and privileges given to us by the state and by society, not G-d.
Mic drop.
Immigration and Foreign Nationals
The Statements
America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/22/2025
The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3/20/2024
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3/1/2024
Evidentiary Rebuttal
These (and many other) statements show that the self-proclaimed Christian has no problem lying to his audience.
There is no legitimate evidence that the Democrat party “hates” America, or enjoys the concept of America becoming “less white”.
It cannot be over-stressed that the most opposition the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s received was from white Southern Democrats, while the majority of Republicans supported the measures. Thus, Kirk’s viewpoint has more in common with the old racist Southern Democrats of the 1960s, than with the group he had been trying to convince with his “Prove Me Wrong” campaigns.
Kirk exposed his white supremacist credentials when he consistently stated that the “Great Replacement” was happening.
The “Great Replacement” is a conspiracy theory adopted by white supremacists. Originally postulated by French white supremacist Renaud Camus, the conspiracy circles around a strategy to change the racial and ethnic makeup of a country in order to dis-empower (some variations claim “depopulate”) white people.
This conspiracy theory is just that – a theory. There has been no credible evidence ever, that any group of people or government is deliberately attempting to do this.
Furthermore, his calls for a total halt to immigration is a consequence of his belief in this conspiracy theory. It also shows that he had a stunning lack of understanding of what America was and what it stood for in the first place.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
- Inscription on Statue Of Liberty base
This nation was literally built on and by immigrants. Even the Bible calls believers to care for the destitute, the refugee, the widow and the orphan. One of Yeshua’s parables was about how to properly treat foreigners. Kirk obviously didn’t like those parts of the Bible.
The plain fact is this: the only people in this country who can legitimately claim that they are descended from non-immigrants, are the Native Americans. Every single other person in America, including Kirk himself, can trace their family history back to a person who was not born in this country.
Now, certainly our legal immigration system needs overhaul. There are too many obstacles and not enough staff, budget cuts and procedural changes aplenty – all thanks to successive presidents, including Trump, bypassing the problem and throwing it onto the next guy.
It’s no wonder then, that there are always a number of people who attempt to enter the US illegally in order to bypass the legal system of immigration for whatever reason.
But there is no legitimate evidence that illegal immigrants are being deliberately brought into this country to make America “less white.” This is nothing but a stupid racist/white supremacist trope with no actual substance.
Kirk was calling for the total elimination of all immigration. Donald Trump loved this concept so much that he is spending many millions of our taxpayer dollars to detain, imprison, and deport all “illegals.”
That money would be better spent overhauling the immigration system to make it smoother for people to enter legally, while at the same time doing what other countries do: vetting potential immigrants by what they can do for themselves and American society once they are here.
Religion
The Statements
America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 4/30/2025
We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 6/24/2025
Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.
– Charlie Kirk social media post, 9/8/2025
There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 7/6/2022
Evidentiary Rebuttal
We could be here all day debunking all of the lies that Kirk has had to say about religion, particularly about non-Christian religions and those affiliated with them.
Kirk claimed to be a Christian, but his words about other religions openly deny what Yeshua Himself claimed, by His examples.
The Samaritan “woman at the well” is a prime (but not the only) example of this, in which Yeshua did not insult or demean the woman for her beliefs, but rather drew the “nonbeliever” into faith by reasonable discourse.
Yeshua’s apostles followed this example, and expected all Christian believers to do the same.
Thus, even if you personally disagree with a particular religion, does not give you the right to insult and beat down another person’s religion. Even Yeshua would say this should not be done. But every so-called “Christian” who believes as Kirk did, defies the example of Christ (more about this below).
Kirk’s claim that “separation of church and state” is not Constitutional is also provably false. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides this, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
US Constitution, Bill of Rights
The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. Thomas Jefferson made the concept very clear in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (from the Library of Congress):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Given everything that’s occurred in this country since Trump returned to power, including all of the rhetoric echoed by Kirk and those who believe as he did, one thing is clear. The current Trump government would love nothing more than to placate to its extremist base, abolish all other religions in America, and make their version of Christianity the only official religion in the US. As we’ve written previously, and will explore below, the religion that “Christian nationalists” endorse is absolutely not true Christianity.
Gender, Feminism, Reproductive Rights
The Statements
Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025 (discussion about Taylor Swift’s engagement).
The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
– “Surrounded”, 9/8/2024 (a debate show), Kirk’s response to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 4/1/2024
This is one of the reasons why we are seeing a fertility collapse in the West.
– Laura Ingraham Show, 9/8/2025, discussing his view that young women do not value having children.
Evidentiary Rebuttal
Kirk’s viewpoint on women’s rights would accurately be summed up with the old cliche that women should be “barefoot and pregnant.”
Kirk’s viewpoints on abortion, homosexuality and associated issues, while technically consistent with biblical teaching, completely miss the point on approach and fall far short of practical Christianity.
Christians are called to love the sinner, and lead them to salvation (with the presumptive change in belief, lifestyle, and behavior). But Kirk’s approach is consistent with “Christian nationalism”: beat the sinner into submission, hate them and what/who they claim they are, until they either submit to G-d, or die (and yes, Chaim has actually read that comment from a known Christian nationalist who we’ll keep anonymous).
Kirk endorsed strict interpretations of abortion concepts; for example, even opposing certain legitimate medical rationales for aborting a pregnancy.
It’s interesting to note his insistence that a 10-year-old version of his daughter, if found pregnant as a result of rape, would still have to deliver the baby. It’s extremely rare for a 10-year-old female to conceive (it effectively relies on puberty age) and extremely dangerous at any rate, as a 10-year-old body is in no way developed enough to support a child, let alone deliver. Kirk was basically telling everyone he would let his own child die in order to make a point.
Antisemitism
The Statements
Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 11/7/2023
Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits… And it’s not just the colleges. It’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 10/26/2023
Evidentiary Rebuttal
While Kirk has always claimed to be a supporter of Israel, he certainly was not a fan of Jews. He has long been a promoter of the debunked “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory, a tired old antisemitic trope used by “Christian nationalists” that claims that the ideology is a Jewish conspiracy meant to undermine American Christians and their values. It is false.
But this is not surprising, since one of the hallmarks of white supremacy and its “Christian nationalist” offspring is a rabid hatred of Jews. Kirk did his antisemitism with duplicity.
He spewed vitriol against Jews, minimized their sufferings (he was recorded claiming that abortion was worse than the Holocaust) and condemned them as the bank-rollers of “anti-white” politics (despite the fact that some of his donors, including Bernie Marcus, are Jewish).
At the same time, he consistently maintained that he supported Israel.
It’s clear that the fact that Israel is a nation created by Jews, meant nothing to him. Apparently he believed that he could love the land and hate its people.
Empathy vs Sympathy
The Statements
I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 10/12/2022
Evidentiary Rebuttal
Shortly after saying that, Kirk stated that he preferred sympathy to empathy.
Sympathy is defined as the emotion of pity, or concern for someone else’s troubles. Empathy involves understanding and sharing in another person’s emotional experiences. Essentially, sympathy creates a distance between people, whereas empathy fosters a deeper connection between people.
Kirk’s belief that empathy is a just a manufactured term, is a clear indicator (along with other references) that Kirk may have actually suffered from a form of Antisocial Personality Disorder. People with ASPD have a markedly reduced capacity for understanding and feeling empathy, and may not feel remorse for their actions.
And, that explains a whole LOT.
There’s A Lot More, But…
As we’ve said earlier, we can literally go on all day pointing out all of the controversial, racist, misogynist, antisemitic, white supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic, and hateful statements that Kirk made during his troubled life.
But it’s not enough to just list all of these things, even with the source references so no one can claim “oh, he never said that.”
Making these lists is relatively easy, and a great number of news outlets literally all over the world have already done so, some with far greater completeness than we’ve done here.
Why?
But we still need to answer two questions.
The first is “why is what Charlie Kirk said/stood for/believed, so wrong?” Our evidentiary rebuttals to his statements supply the answer to this question.
The second question is “how can Charlie Kirk be a Christian and not follow the Bible?”
This requires more exposition, beyond the bit that we detailed above.
Living The Life?
The entire premise goes back to one of our earlier posts, “Food for Thought for the Trump-Supporting Christian.“
If you’re a Christian, you’re supposed to live the life of a Christian. That means following Yeshua’s teaching and example every day, and striving not to stray from that path. Obviously we will (we’re human), but a Christian will recognize the error, feel remorse, ask forgiveness, and return to the path.
Charlie Kirk hasn’t done that.
We judge the effectiveness of an employee by what they do on the job, not by what they say they did.
We can judge the Christian by determining if on the whole, what he/she says and does aligns with Scripture and the true Christian doctrine as laid out by Yeshua Himself and his apostles.
Disabusing The Unfaithful
Now, it’s not just “Christian nationalists”, but practically anyone who feels the heat from a convicted spirit, will quickly argue that Christians don’t have the authority to speak for G-d, to rebuke fellow Christians, or to judge other people.
But the Bible puts the lie to those arguments:
Regarding one Christian rebuking another, Sha’ul (the apostle Paul) said:
“Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Timothy 4:2) (emphasis mine)
Regarding one person judging another, Sha’ul said:
“…you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Thus, the Bible is plain: if you claim to be a Christian, you are subject to rebuke by others in the church if you don’t follow biblical doctrine. Likewise, if you’re not a Christian, we are not to judge you – but if you claim to be a Christian, we have every right to judge your actions and words.
What Would Jesus Do?
So, would Yeshua agree with abortion? No.
But neither is He heartless – if the mother’s life were at stake or some other dire situation was at play, it would be a very uncaring G-d who would say, “so what, go ahead and die, just so long as the baby lives.”
I (Vince) have already written an entire treatise on this subject replete with what many consider an appropriate compromise on the whole abortion issue.
So, would Yeshua agree with homosexuality? No.
But neither would he insist that His followers insult, demean, denigrate, and persecute those who practice a homosexual or transgender lifestyle, just because it happens to be considered sinful. Both the Old and New Testaments make clear G-d’s consideration of the practice as a sin. Likewise, G-d considers adultery to be a sin, yet many in this country celebrate and boast about it, including Kirk’s own pal Donald Trump.
However, G-d has already spoken on the appropriate way to treat those of the LGBTQ community: with gentleness and patience (the following is just one of a number of similar instructions to the Christian):
“Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Timothy 4:2) (emphasis mine)
We’ve already mentioned how Yeshua treated people who were considered “nonbelievers.”
But Yeshua also treated the foreigner, the outcast, the leper, the prostitute, the unclean person with the same gentleness and respect: your sins are forgiven, come and follow Me. He offers this to all people, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, belief system, or place of origin.
Yeshua clearly expects His followers (Christians) to do the same. Preach the word, show by example why Christianity is the true way of G-d, so that all will look and see, and will want what Yeshua offers.
What Charlie Kirk and Christian Nationalists Do
But this is absolutely NOT what Charlie Kirk and the other Christian nationalists do. We’ve already seen what they believe and what they do. Charlie Kirk was all over it.
They believe white people are the only legitimate inhabitants of this land. They believe no one from other countries should be allowed to come to live in America. They want people who came here from another country to be forced out.
They consider women unequal to men. They believe that women should be forced to bear children even if it could kill them to do it. They believe that non-white people don’t possess the same intelligence as white people.
They insult, discriminate and persecute anyone they feel doesn’t meet their standard – including blacks and other minorities, women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people.
They believe that all other religions except theirs should be destroyed.
They believe that government should be structured by what they believe and want, not by a consensus of all of the country’s inhabitants. They believe that other political parties are evil and should be subjugated.
They believe Jews are conspiring against them to control the world.
They believe that pity is better than empathy.
And with all of this, they still believe they are following Christ. How wrong they are.
The Verdict
We laid all of the above out to prove the answer to the second question. And it is this:
Charlie Kirk was absolutely not a genuine Christian. This is proven conclusively by his own words and actions.
You cannot preach the concepts of Satan, and also serve Yeshua. It is literally impossible.
Likewise the whole concept of “Christian nationalism” is apostasy. It steals general phrases and concepts from true Christianity, but bastardizes it with so many inhuman evils that the end product – “Christian nationalism” – bears absolutely no resemblance to the faith that Yeshua Himself established. Thus:
Christian nationalists are absolutely NOT genuine Christians, proven conclusively by their words and actions.
So Why Does This Matter?
As we mentioned earlier, the murder of Charlie Kirk was stupid and should never have happened. We don’t have to agree with someone’s social or political position to feel that sense of humanity that says that murder is wrong.
But there’s another reason why the murder was stupid. The perpetrator killed a man, but didn’t kill the ideology he stood for. Those who subscribe to the “Christian nationalist”, fascist MAGA ideology have already stated that they think they’re being “hunted” with some on social media calling for an effective war on liberals, because they’re still blaming liberals for the murder.
As it stands now, Tyler Robinson is the main suspect, but as of this writing, there is no credible evidence that he is or was politically motivated, had any specific political affiliations, is associated with or had contact with any group targeted by Kirk’s ideology.
That doesn’t stop the Internet from spreading all kinds of misinformation.
Aiming At The Right Target
As someone once said, you can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea.
Somehow though, if America is to survive without getting into a social “civil war”, we need to try to kill the far-right and far-left ideologies that have poisoned our society, and learn to live together in peace, even if we initially may not agree with everything the others believe.
For those who claim to be Christians, the first step toward this goal would be:
START ACTING LIKE REAL CHRISTIANS.
