It was the week from hell, an unmistakable confirmation that we’ve slipped even deeper into the dark abyss of violence.
First, there was the savage murder of Iryna Zarytska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant building a new life in this country, her throat slashed for no reason by the passenger sitting behind her on a Charlotte, North Carolina, light rail commuter train. Passengers in nearby seats looked the other way (we’re learning not to get involved) as she slumped into a pool of her own blood.
Then on Wednesday, September 10 — eerily, one day before the 24th anniversary of the infamous 9/11 terrorist attack — we were confronted by the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, the well-known and widely admired 31-year-old devout Christian, husband, and father of two. Kirk was a fervent advocate of free and open public discourse on controversial matters; he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet while engaged in exactly that, before an audience of several thousand at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
Video recordings of both grisly killings have been replayed endlessly on TV, the internet, and social media. Every viewing revives the sickening impact of these heinous acts.
I’m guessing that I speak for many when I say that Wednesday evening’s nonstop media coverage of Kirk’s murder was an emotional gut-punch. It aroused a jumble of reactions — shock, astonishment, sadness, concern about our own and our nation’s future, awareness of the unimaginable pain heartlessly inflicted on his young family — along with, for me, a cold, bottomless fury unlike any I can remember in my 80-plus years. What we kept seeing that night never should have happened. Never.
Days later, I still can’t shake the anger. But at this point, we know more; the assassin (with near certainty) has been apprehended, and the picture is clearing. Perhaps now we can cut through the shock and anger and begin to dissect this horrific event more objectively.
First, it’s heartening to see the remarkable extent and nature of the public reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing — thousands of vigils and memorials coast-to-coast and in many other countries — somber, emotional, and prayerful, and with no riots, protests, or violence of any kind (at least perpetrated by those mourning for Charlie).
On the other hand, media coverage from both sides has been biased along usual lines, cynical in some quarters. And while it is no surprise, it is wholly disgusting to see on social media that there are some who gleefully celebrate Charlie’s murder.
Most disappointing are the statements of many political leaders on the Left who claim to abhor political violence but refuse to accept any accountability for it. That brings us directly to the central question: What prompted this 22-year-old young man, Tyler Robinson, to plan and then execute this horrendous act?
There’s still much to be learned, but Robinson left a clue — the engravings on bullet casings found in his weapon, and especially the one with the words “Hey fascist! Catch!” It’s entirely reasonable to presume that the “fascist” to whom he is referring is his pre-selected target, Charlie Kirk, and that he wants Charlie to catch the bullet that he fires, preferably in his head or neck.
Where in the world did that come from? Why is the word “fascist” even in today’s vocabulary? The answer, of course, is that it is firmly rooted in standard Democrat rhetoric, the Hitler-Nazi-fascist-dictator invective with which they have been tarring Donald Trump and his supporters for more than a decade (and generations of Republicans since Barry Goldwater). That invective is stupid, illogical, historically nonsensical — and extraordinarily dangerous.
Adolf Hitler was arguably the most heinous political figure in modern history. He persecuted and murdered millions; he actively sought world domination; he personally incited the world war that took 75 million lives and scarred humanity forever. He was also a national socialist.
For years, Democrat leadership has tried to convince the American electorate that Trump is a modern-day embodiment of Hitler and that he and his supporters are fascists. That was the centerpiece of their 2024 presidential campaign — and even though that tactic flopped miserably, they’ve kept it up, post-election, without missing a beat.
Can we imagine a more reckless or dangerous political rhetoric? Who can blame an impressionable, self-appointed patriot for acting to protect our beloved country from an Adolf Hitler? In that twisted context, some might consider the assassination of Trump or a key associate to be a noble act.
In my view, the Left’s visceral, pervasive hatred of one man has turned our nation’s usual robust political competition into a death march. It may well have inspired at least two would-be assassins to attempt — with one nearly succeeding — to kill the man who would soon be reelected to the presidency. Quite possibly, it put a high-powered rifle in the hands of Tyler Robinson and gave him permission to murder Charlie Kirk.
In all the platitudes about “lowering the temperature,” we’ve yet to hear any Democrat political leader or left-leaning media pundit suggest that it might be a good idea to knock off the Hitler/fascist BS.
Am I blaming political violence on a few undesirable words in Democrat political lexicon? Of course not. Am I suggesting that Republican rhetoric — even that of our president — is as pure as the driven snow? No. But I am asserting, as I have in numerous columns on this page, that the relentless Democrat insistence that our president is inimically evil is unwarranted, dangerous, and thus wholly unacceptable. It just got someone killed.
What now? Along with whatever bipartisan actions are agreed upon to reduce political violence, my appeal to Democrat political leadership is: (1) just STOP the poisonous Hitler/fascist invective leveled at our president and his supporters. It’s hate speech, nothing less, and a green light for crazies to open fire. And (2), please just STOP telling us that you abhor the violence that’s tearing our nation apart, but then continue to spew the dangerous rhetoric that stokes it.
One final observation: Let’s not underestimate the significance of what happened this week. It may be a harbinger of a sea change in American politics. Through Turning Point USA, the organization Charlie Kirk founded as an 18-year-old in 2012, he became an extraordinarily influential advocate for free and open exchange of political thought, particularly among young Americans.
Will Charlie’s assassination prove to be a turning point in American political discourse? Could be. Stay tuned.
