567 Comments
User's avatar
ALLYSONRT's avatar

I had to watch this through tears. I am devastated by his murder. But even more devastated by the attacks on him by ignorant, hateful liars. This man was a husband. Father, son, brother and in many ways, my friend. I never met him. I watched him evolve. I learned from him.

I am a Jew and his teaching me about the Lord Jesus who he loved, helped educate me. His love of scripture brought me closer to my Judaism. I could extrapolate the beauty of his love and apply it to my life.

I grieve for his family and for our country. Its a bad nightmare . He was martyred just like Jesus.

This Rosh a Shana, he will be remembered at my table. He will be named as well as the hostages being held by Hamas .

May his memory be a blessing.

.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I am also Jewish and the New Year is on our doorstep. Maybe it is appropriate that like Jesus was crucified (martyred) on Passover that Charlie should be martyred on the eve of the New Year. I always remind my Jewish friends that Jesus was a Jew and knew nothing different. Christianity came 100 years later as Greeks and Romans embraced Judaism cloaked in their own pagan religions. And that is fine. If it helps God get his word to humanity, then martyrdom on behalf of God and his message of peace and love is the best thing anyone can achieve in life.

Expand full comment
Carl L. McWilliams's avatar

Hello Brian, my name is Carl L. McWilliams. I am a 77 year old "blood-bought-Christian" and my best friend is a Jew named Les Aaron. The Church of Jesus of Nazareth has been under siege since Jesus Himself walked amongst us and the "Renewed Covenant of Christianity" began when Jesus spoke from the Cross - "it is finished" and gave up His Spirit. The "Christianity" you refer to, (from the Greeks and Romans), is man-made-pagan-religion and is for political expediency only. Not unlike many so-called Christians of today or the Holy Roman empire of the dark ages.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I don't disagree with what you say. But many "gentiles" find God through Christianity. And if Christians worship a Jew who was nearly perfect as a human, I have no argument with that. I grew up Christian and it is a powerful religion that can bring people close to God. That is the Christianity that Charlie Kirk would teach and debate (much like Jesus, he never really preached). Of course, it can also be abused.

Expand full comment
Aussiegrandma/Aussie Grandma's avatar

Hi Carl, when you mention your friend who is a Jew do you mean “Les Aaron” of the Biblical Research Institute/International Messianic Community of Faith (BRI/IMCF)? He is a Messianic Jew teaching what he calls “Jewish thoughtform” of the day and of the Book because to understand what Yeshua taught & his disciples including Rav Shaul (Paul) one must understand the thinking behind the story and its end.

I don’t know another of that name. Just wondering because if it is that man, I am his wife.

Expand full comment
Carl L. McWilliams's avatar

Actually, my best friend is also a Messianic Jew and he lives in Southern California. The last time I saw Les, it was inside a McDonald's dining room and Les had his Bible open and he was preaching Jesus to a stranger. When Les and I would get together to study Holy Scripture Les would say, "iron sharpening iron".

Expand full comment
Aussiegrandma/Aussie Grandma's avatar

That’s amazing. And this Les Aron (sorry, his is one “a”) often says that exact same phrase often, “iron sharpens iron”, it’s so true and isn’t that what Charlie Kirk was doing as well, challenging us all to think beyond the rhetoric?

Reminds me of an old song I believe may come from the SDA’s, we had an album with it on it, for the children about letting your light shine:

“You in your small corner and I in mine.”

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

But Charlie wasn’t a true Christian. Christ did not preach hate. Charlie was a hateful racist. That’s his legacy. Fact.

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

No. He was not racist. No, he did not preach hate or violence.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Listen to his words. He was a hateful pig. Now look at his wife, acting like the fake grieving widow. She ran some kind of sketchy orphanage in Romania that was investigated for trafficking. All these Republicans are turning out to be fucking pedophiles.

Expand full comment
Bessie Scrivner's avatar

Unlike those chaste Libs.

Expand full comment
HBDuncan's avatar

Such terrible lies! Shameful! He was always open to criticism & debate ! Hate speech would never be tolerated by any college or university! He debated all over America but also the world ! Vigils - were held worldwide to this wonderful lover of mankind ! Sad for you & your unhappiness! 🙌🏽❤️‍🩹🙏🏼🌎🇺🇸🕊.

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

Well we aren’t going to agree so goodbye

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

Yes he was, yes he did

Expand full comment
TimInVA's avatar

Why do you say such things about a person you so obviously did not know, even in passing?

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Did you know him in person? Probably not. You are just gullible.

Expand full comment
TimInVA's avatar

I did not claim to know him in any particular way. But to the extent one can know a person from what they have said many times over many years, I can say "I knew him." Whereas I think you can't make a claim similar to mine, and besmirched him in your ignorance.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

I am not ignorant and neither are the millions of people who saw Kirk for what he was. He was a racist, misogynistic hateful person. His words defined him and no amount of wishing can change it or make him into a martyr.

Expand full comment
KEVIN PEARSON's avatar

I have to disagree.

IF Jesus existed - and I am not convinced that he actually did - he was a Jewish Rabbi who introduced Buddhism to the Hebrews.

I would argue that Jesus was a yogi and a Buddha. He knew much more than just Judaism.

And quite possibly an avatar of Vishnu

Expand full comment
Aussiegrandma/Aussie Grandma's avatar

Kevin, what many don’t understand is that Judaism has some very close ties in some areas with the teachings of the Buddha. If people only understood where Abraham and Sarah came from, where Abraham sent his children from his 2nd wife Katura “into the east”, back to where they originated and also, where the prophet Jeremiah went in his travels spreading the Word & creating that incredible time of an axial age not repeated since, except perhaps only now. It WAS Jeremiah, but don’t ask the athiestic historians who know diddly squat about these things.

Anyway, it’s a fascinating story of a time long gone but which has some rich heritage that can explain much of what we don’t understand if we just accept the church’s ideas & teachings that impregnated (under superior fire power that is) the ekklesia after the totalitarian Constantine and that horror of a hung up pervert, Augustin (sorry to all who worship him, he screwed with our brains for centuries, still does in the citadels of non-think) gave us all a “new” gospel. We have to get back to the original meaning or we superimpose the lies that our churches have inherited as truth.

There was much about Yeshua’s day that was not “of God” shall we say, hence His rebuke of the leaders who put a “hedge” around the Law. That takes some understanding. It’s deep. But yeah, you have reasoned in some way, correctly.

Expand full comment
Chas's avatar

Doesn’t this stuff belong on another thread? Please take your debate to another forum.

Expand full comment
HBDuncan's avatar

If you read the word of God you’d know Jesus never introduced Buddhism ! HE who was born without sin came to live & die for mankind’s sins! He’s not in his grave because there is none! Thus the resurrection, the truth & the life- no man can come to the Father but through the SON ! According to the Ten Commandments & classical Jewish law- it is forbidden for Jews to worship any deity other than the God of Israel -most Buddhists do not consider Buddha to have been a god ! Buddha himself did not want to be worshiped as a god ! Why not ask GOD re - the Son of God Jesus who gave HIS life for you if HE IS who HE said he is? Prove Him. Ask HIM to show you ? HE is the way, the truth & the life , no man can come to the Father but through the Son! 🙌🏽❤️‍🩹🙏🏼🌎🇺🇸🕊

Expand full comment
HBDuncan's avatar

🤔🫣😂

Expand full comment
AMY ROZEN's avatar

🙏♥️

Expand full comment
PapaGolf's avatar

Y’all are bought! 😂🥴

Watch this episode where Charlie calls for public executions that children should watch. He also mentions they could be sponsored by Coca Cola…

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO1e3VUEp0t/

Expand full comment
Tomas Pajaros's avatar

Kirk did discuss public executions during an episode of THOUGHTCRIME, a panel discussion show that he hosted before he died. During that show, Kirk said executions should be "public," "quick" and "televised," and that, "at a certain age it's an initiation,"

.

The panel had different opinions on what age would be appropriate for children to see executions, and Kirk himself did not cite a specific age nor suggest that children should watch.

.

source: Yahoo News Canada

Expand full comment
ALLYSONRT's avatar

I agree with him. And no. I am not bought. I am a Jew and Qatar only pays kapos.

Expand full comment
PapaGolf's avatar

A Jew that approves of public executions sponsored by corporations? Strange times we live in…

Expand full comment
John's avatar

Beautifully written. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Leah Crement's avatar

I cried all the way through also. I’m so grateful for this beautiful montage.

Expand full comment
Nikki Richard's avatar

God bless you! We are all so heart broke.

Expand full comment
Dave M's avatar

That is a beautiful post. Thank you. 💔😢🙏

Expand full comment
HBDuncan's avatar

God Bless you! Praying for America! United we Stand - divided we fall ❣️. 🙌🏽❤️‍🩹🙏🏼🌎🇺🇸🕊

Expand full comment
HBDuncan's avatar

Amen 🙌🏽❤️‍🩹🙏🏼🌎🇺🇸🕊

Expand full comment
Sue Kelley's avatar

Thank you. Erika Kirk should sue her for defamation and make her show the world she cannot defend her characterization of Charlie. She should bankrupt that idiot. AOC would have to settle to prevent the entire US from seeing Charlie's videos in context.

Like Nick Sandman, the Catholic school boy the MSM defamed as a racist when he respectfully stood there as adult leftists assaulted him. Or Kyle Rittenhouse who's life was destroyed by the MSM. He was found innocent and sued the pants off them..

These people, especially the government, need to be exposed for the liars they are and punished for it. Charlie's kids will see this one day. It is incumbent on all of us to make we "prove them wrong" and preserve the truth of who Charlie Kirk REALLY was.

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

AOC is shielded from lawsuits for anything she says from the floor of Congress.

But Erika Kirk could sue her for comments she makes from other venues or via media.

Expand full comment
Donna C's avatar

I knew who Charlie Kirk was from tv and other venues. What I didn’t know is how popular and loved he was internationally! AOC is ignorant and cruel. She should never be president of our great country.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Erika does not need to sue. The TPUSA will get all the financial resources it needs. I even donated $100 this week and will continue donating to its efforts to save our children and our nation from the evils promoted by the Left. We all can donate. Their mission is directly to the hearts and souls of young people whose minds and hearts can still be changed.

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

It’s not about Erika’s financial need. It’s about rebuke for slander.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Spoken and written Truth is the most effective rebuke

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

Some people only understand the lesson, if it hits them in the wallet

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

There as no slander. AOC was correct. Deal with it.

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

You are a moron, who only listened to sound bites and never bothered to watch an entire discussion video. You have no idea how much context you willfully remained ignorant of. Go bleat elsewhere, with your fellow sheep.

Expand full comment
Bessie Scrivner's avatar

AOC has never been correct about anything including her own name. She’s dumber than a box of rocks.

Expand full comment
Oakley's avatar

Yes, I agree, but we must never take our own revenge, but leave room for the wrath of God. He will repay.

These people are exposing their dark hearts and minds and pushing people with common decency and common sense far from their rhetoric.

Expand full comment
SueB's avatar

I’m donating on a monthly basis all year. However I feel there is no sum of money big enough to make right the utterly horrific words said daily by our left politicians and media. Their hate has no end.

Expand full comment
Ratoll's avatar

Re: cannot sue for things said on the floors of Congress.

Just curious, but AOC's comments on the floor of Congress are but one example of our elected leaders being allowed to lie, knowingly, without any repercussions. Those lies are then spread by major media, who seems to have forgotten what the principles of journalism are. And definitely do not seem concerned over defamation suits, or any repercussions for lying.

As our elected leaders they are certainly free to express their opinions. However, to knowingly spread lies, and present those lies as fact, while standing in the seat of our government, should in fact be another matter.

So if a citizen is not allowed to sue for defamation of character at the very least, or for the disinformation/lies, what are we as a public to do with this garbage the left spread while on the floor of Congress?

The Republican Party--conservatives that are part of it--have long fought for freedom of speech while being slapped down, and more recently canceled, for its efforts. And it has largely taken the high road, by not partaking in the same blasphemous rhetoric, resorting to violence, or even pursuing any form of justice.

And I think that we most certainly should continue to stay away from violent acts, or slipping to the low level of the left has with lies and disinformation.

But to think that; seeking justice, insisting that the media do its job via due diligence and truth, and rid ourselves of the socialist Marxist ideology that has been allowed to grow in this country, would be sinking to a lower level is a concept and thought process that we should all get over.

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

Chuck Schumer did this when he claimed Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes.

A lot of politicians abuse the protections they have for speech and debate when in Congress.

If you want to see if they really believe what they say, check and see if they will make the claim in an unprotected venue.

Even then, they could be lying, but they know they are vulnerable.

ETA: JBell is correct, that was the previous Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

My error. Principle still applies.

Expand full comment
JBell's avatar

That was that POS Nevada Senator Harry Reid ... he even admitted that he lied .... his quote was "It worked, didn't it?"

Expand full comment
Ratoll's avatar

Ah yes! I do remember Reid doing that, doubling down on it and when the truth was so definite he couldn’t push it more--he said “yeah, but it worked didn’t it.” (Or words to that effect) No punishment what so ever.

And conservatives “trusted” the system to set things right. Easier to believe the Tooth Fairy just married Jack Frost.

Wonder what we need to do to enact a law so that congress cant keep doing this. Sad. Congress has so little honesty, credibility, integrity---and they wonder why their ratings or so low.

Two words: Term limits!

Expand full comment
Michael Hlavacek's avatar

Won't work.

The principle that ANYTHING said during "debate" in a House of Parliament or Congress is immune from legal challenge comes down to us from the common law of England and is replicated here.

The only exception to this rule is that a Member cannot say anything libelous or defamatory about another member of Parliament or Congress during debate without being subject to House disciplinary action.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Erika could never win because he said what he said and we all heard it.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I forgot about the Sandman episode. Yes, in many small ways this defamation of faith in God has been underway for decades. God had to send one of his best apostles to die for us to spread the word. As humans we are weak in spirit and we need to be boosted up by an example of how great men and women can be in life. Charlie was that example (can anyone find any real faults in his life?) and Erika will continue carrying his torch, just like the Apostles did for Jesus

Expand full comment
Steenroid's avatar

Unfortunately anything said on the House and Senate floor can’t be sued for liable. And she knew it. She is just an evil person like many others.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Just like trump and his band of criminals and pedophiles? AOC is moral, intelligent woman and we need more like her in government.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

She's a moron

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

She's brilliant

Expand full comment
Steenroid's avatar

She’s an attention whore always playing for the photo op or video.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Your overlord is an attention seeking perverted pedophile who is leading the country into fascism. Open your eyes. Jasmine Crockett and Alexandria are the best of this country.

Expand full comment
Bessie Scrivner's avatar

If you mean “ best” as being dumb.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Your racism is showing.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

Please tell us one single thing either of them has ever accomplished for their constituents, besides going on talk shows and making social media videos and tweeting nonsense.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

AOC is more than the widow could ever hope to be. AOC’s characterization of kirk is spot on. He said these things and they can’t be erased no matter how much you wish it. There is no defamation of character since it was his character.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

AOC is brilliant, a troglodyte like you couldn't possibly understand

Expand full comment
Bessie Scrivner's avatar

Did you read her tarot cards for her?

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

Would that be YOUR business?

Expand full comment
Bessie Scrivner's avatar

Since you believe in superstitions, yes. I can read your tiny mind.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

AOC is a waste of oxygen

Expand full comment
Morgan Leake's avatar

Go waste oxygen elsewhere, Pat h.

Expand full comment
Steenroid's avatar

Like you Pat she’s a c••t.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

You are a cunt. Not me. I can see the character or lack there of.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

Nonsense

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

Why don’t you tell me about the widow sketchy orphanage that she had in Romania that was investigated for child trafficking.

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

You are what you read/watch. As true of her as it is of anyone else. Way too many people spend their days in ever-thickening bubbles. One of the things Charlie was about was popping those bubbles and trying to make people actually think. He did it in person and in Bubble Central. That took more courage than I think I could summon. A most uncommon man, may he be the start of something.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Well said, Richard.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

He's starting to burn in hell

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

Speaking of living in bubbles

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

At least they're not in me brain, lol

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

In me brain?

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

He's starting to burn in hell

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I think more than just a man, as we will see in hindsight

Expand full comment
Kurt's avatar

Sasha, thank you so much for posting this. Just yesterday, a liberal progressive friend -- who did not know Charlie a week before -- made some ridiculous statement. We had a discussion that revealed her view of him was flat out wrong, but that was all she knew from her leftie sources. She asked me for info. I didn’t have a collection of Charlie videos, or much time. (I’m working seven days a week these days.) I was hoping to find this video, but didn’t know where to look or have time to weed through many searching. Thank you for depositing this in my inbox this morning. You are the best.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Sasha has the conviction of conversion. Those of us who have been conservative our entire lives cannot know what it takes to change sides and feel the wrath of those who saw us as one of theirs

Expand full comment
Kate Cahill's avatar

Seriously Kurt, well said- Yes, Sasha is the BEST!

Expand full comment
SueB's avatar

Just go to Charlie Kirk on YouTube.

Expand full comment
EwokPathfinder's avatar

Kirk had to debate freshman college students because when he debated adults his age he couldn’t use pathetic arguments and deflection 😂 fucking weirdo was 31 hanging out at colleges

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

Who did you debate at 20 years old?

Expand full comment
mtman2's avatar

Here’s the real deal on unborn baby’s being within and nourished by the mother = the clear Law on parents is you MUST feed, nourish and protect your child or be arrested, charged and jailed for it being a crime against another person whether your child or not,

So nothing has changed from inside the mom to outside = baby’s MUST be properly nourished snd properly cared for by her or the child in or out of her will be harmed;

Certainly killing and chopping up children and selling their body parts like a poultry operation is not just wrong and a Dark-Evil it is the Criminal Premeditated Capital Offence WE call Cold Blooded Murder…!

In fact better = just bring an aborted (murdered) dead baby out on a platter on the table and have these dimwits argue with that = SILENCE,

Except for the puking and wretching by the viewers = it’s time people SEE what’s really being discussed in all its discusting reality as Thee WakeUp call needed to jolt their slumber as to what WE are really looking at one way or another…?!!

Expand full comment
mtman2's avatar

lol…likely ones parents…lol

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

If a man and woman cannot control their desires long enough to take easily available precautions….

Expand full comment
mtman2's avatar

Actually was answering the question above as to whom would these "young skulls full of mush" argue with = likely mom n dad...lol

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

I debated with my professors, other students, classmates. Universities are supposed to be about learning new ideas and exploring them…pros and cons. Testing.

Expand full comment
mtman2's avatar

Best to actually know enuff 1st before blathering off and be a fool like most young people whom truly are clueless about the real world, let alone experience in it as an accomplished self reliant proven entity that understands and walks in that level of respect for others and self…!

Expand full comment
EwokPathfinder's avatar

Other sophomores in college

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

At 20 Kirk was already busy building an organization that soon had national impact.

Expand full comment
EwokPathfinder's avatar

He was a beginning propagandist who did fuck all for the country. I buried better men in Afghanistan

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

He won the election for Trump, bringing almost 50% of 18-29 year olds to vote for him, saving the country from Hillary, Biden and Kamala.

Expand full comment
EwokPathfinder's avatar

Saving the country from what? The economy is now worse, unemployment is higher, inflation is higher, grocery prices are higher… explain what ‘saved us’

Expand full comment
A.M.'s avatar

Actually, he was debating with voters who will shape the future of this country. But, whatever.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar
Sep 26Edited

And that weirdo has been made an immortal martyr by a crazy Transtifa shooter and his movement has become more massive than it ever was while he was alive. People are leaving the Democrat party in droves after discovering they're a bunch of murder-celebrating ghouls.

Good work, lefties.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

And he undoubtedly accomplished more with his life than you did by then

Why are leftists such miserable and angry people? It's like a mental defect. Thanks for continuing to show us who you are, all the time.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

You are beneath the other people in this conversation, but I’ll waste a bit of time on you anyway and point out that he died at 31 after doing this for years. He was younger than many of the people he debated.

Expand full comment
hutteto's avatar

Your full of hate. The indoctrination is happening in colleges. Your just like this idiot who rejects the truth and then mocks. What a pathetic lowlife.

Expand full comment
Colby Wang's avatar

Another stream of consciousness negative rant. Why so angry?

Expand full comment
EwokPathfinder's avatar

You’re* literally fucked it up twice in a comment trying to call someone ignorant 😂

Expand full comment
weedom1's avatar

When should people be allowed to vote? 21? 25? 31?

What should be the age of consent? Higher than 18 ?

Expand full comment
Colby Wang's avatar

I would ask a different set of questions. Why don’t the children of the wealthiest 10% go to fight in the military? Why don’t we set quotas on the number of lawyers or wealthy people in elected positions? Why does China only allow the brightest to hold political positions but the US allows any millionaire who makes widgets for MacDonald’s Children’s meals to become self appointed experts on defense, ethics, railroads, healthcare, telecommunications, etc. Basically we have bone fide morons, people who worship money, and cruel people in all positions of power in the US.

Expand full comment
weedom1's avatar

1) Because they have an option not to, and to avoid being jabbed with hot vaccines. Do you want to return to the draft?

2) I agree we need less lawyers. How do you define wealthy? I’m up for politicians to be jailed for insider trading.

3) The U.S. allows people to vote for their representatives. Do you want to stop that process? As for hiring cabinet members, that’s the purview of each elected president. Very few HHS secretaries were physicians in the past. Suddenly people want that qualification, even though most of what they do is human services other than health. The prior Secretary of Transportation had zero expertise in the area. Suddenly people seem to be more particular about the appointees.

4) Commenting on cruelty, what did you think of China’s 1 child policy, which seems to have become a 2 child policy, and the ways in which it was enforced.

Expand full comment
Colby Wang's avatar

I know these vaccines are much much safer with extremely less side-effects than the attenuated (weakened) live virus that the Chinese used 1000s of years ago and at least one other culture, and Jonas Salk’s similar vaccine. Later fragments of dead virus improved results.

The swine flu vaccine was the only vaccine with some terrible results that I know of. I passed a full bird colonel in the hallway and had to ask somebody what was wrong with him. He contracted Gillian-Barre Syndrome.That vaccine was hastily concocted.

The mRNA vaccines are easy to design and to manufacture. They don’t really need much filtering and purification.

A Hungarian-American biochemist, Katlin Karikó, discovered/conceptualized the nano-technology and quantum process used by cells to elaborate immune responses. Dr Karikó invented the mRNA procedure. Her was not accepted by the prestigious first tier journals in 2005. The pharmaceutical companies were uninterested. Little follow-up by immunologists in academia and commercial interests resulted in death by the “publish-or-perish” dogma and rigidity of academia. Katlin Karikó initially choose a demotion but finally went to a private company. She said that the company was more concerned about her science than her accent.

Well, the pandemic forced a reckoning in her research. In 2023 she and colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize. Dr Karikóis back in academia, a full professor at the University of Szeged (why do Hungarians like ‘z’ in their words so much? ) in Hungary.

Expand full comment
weedom1's avatar

There are complex stories regarding the development of methods of delivering foreign RNA and DNA past the protective immunity and into the cells . In about 20 years you'll hear the rest of the story. It's being pried out now. At this time I would not want a Nobel Prize for developing such a system.

There was a reason that Pfizer wanted release of their records to be delayed for 75 years.

Hopefully sooner, you will be learning about the contaminant DNA that naturally has to accompany the mRNA, and was helped into the cells by lipid nanoparticle delivery system which made all prior standards of "safe levels" of foriegn genetic material obsolete. As of this time, genetic material corresponding to that found in the jabs appears to have been found integrated into the DNA of tumor cells found in a human patient. As this result is further replicated, it will firmly establish the concept that the jabs are capable of integrating into the human genome.

And don't forget that the Pfizer plasmid used for making the mRNA of their jab contained all sorts of garbage that we really don't want inside our genome, for example the SV50 promoter sequence.

I think people can accept and forgive a fair amount of tumor formation and metastatic cancer, but might get more upset about permanent genetic alterations within the germ line that will be passed down forever.

Expand full comment
Colby Wang's avatar

Ifinally can’t pass up the impulse to reveal your falsities. If you’re going to play expert which I know that you are not it’s not promoter. The promoter-enhancer is SV40 not sV50. The mRNA can’t pass back into the nucleus to “contaminate” the DNA, haha. Neither can the plasmid material. There are actually so many tell-tale ignorances about your claims which are related to MAGA, RFK and Qanon trade-marks in general not just vaccine blah blah, that it’s stupefying.

Expand full comment
Colby Wang's avatar

That’s rubbish. I’m aware of the words you use without making any historical or scientific sense.

Expand full comment
Scott C. Rowe's avatar

Apparently, you have to debate dead people.

Expand full comment
Brenda VanWeezel's avatar

I can't watch AOC. It would be time I'll never get back and just frustrate me.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

Why does AOC always have that blank look on her face? Because she has a blank brain behind it.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

If you believe in evil, AOC is exactly what you would expect evil to deliver: an attractive woman with a good back-story (poor Puerto Rican immigrant, though not really), a woman who is shameless and will say anything that advances the cause of evil.

Expand full comment
TWC's avatar

She personifies those who will launder any narrative at the expense of Truth.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

There is certainly evil. Every Lefty arguments ends with "Therefore, we are justified in harming those we hate". That is the whole point.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

She's completely vacuous

Expand full comment
R H's avatar

I would call AOC a "braying jackass", but I don't want to insult donkeys. They are useful hard working mammals.

Expand full comment
Pat h's avatar

That is exactly how Kirk used to sound. A braying jackass. Good description.

Expand full comment
Mike Chalmers's avatar

AOC who called Elon stupid…..irony!

Expand full comment
Sally DiMartino's avatar

If she is working up to running for president as some think, the thought of her debating JD Vance is kind of hilarious.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I look forward to it. If anyone approaches the level of Charlie Kirk for strength of character and ability to voice that conviction it is JD Vance.

Expand full comment
C4SSSSS's avatar

I’d pay to see AOC dismantle the couch-fucker 🤣

That’s an objectively dumb wanker.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

Vance would wipe the floor with Sandy Cortez from Westchester

Expand full comment
Gordzilla's avatar

🤡🤡🤡

Expand full comment
C4SSSSS's avatar

What a cogent response 😆

tRump loves the poorly educated 🤣

Expand full comment
Gordzilla's avatar

You have no idea what my education level is. As for my response, your dumb, vulgar, childish comment doesn't deserve anything more.

Expand full comment
C4SSSSS's avatar

I’ll take “what is liberty university “ for $1000 Alex 🤣

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Sep 22
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

How so? She's brainless. If he left Tim Walz on the debate floor, how much better would he do with Sandy Cortez?

Expand full comment
NothingButNet's avatar

Indeed - AOC is Alexandria Occasionally Coherent. She doesn’t realize that the only reason people listen to her is because she has great boobs.

Expand full comment
ScottyG's avatar

Thank you for this Sasha!

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

A little cognitive dissonance is going on here, Sasha.

We know that, regardless of what's actually been said or done, Democrats will warp it to fit their narrative and make things up whole cloth when they don't have enough to work with.

So why is there ANY hesitation to use every tool at our disposal to shut them down and drive them out?

People keep saying, "Ooooo, you'll regret letting the Trump administration go after them like that. When they're back in power, they will..blah blah blah." There are several flaws in that argument. First and foremost, it's bold to assume that the Democrat party as it currently exists ever gets control of the government again. If the midterms don't deliver for them and they remain a minority in Congress, their donors will start deserting them in droves. People don't spend big money to support politicians who can't do anything for them.

Secondly, the left does not need the thin fig leaf of precedent to justify turning the government on their enemies. If they don't have one to work with, they'll just make one up. Or they'll find a different justification. Or they won't offer any explanation at all for siccing federal agencies on red states and right-of-center public figures and candidates. They'll just do it.

So I say let's start prosecuting people like AOC and Jasmine Crockett on whatever pretense can be found. Convict Pelosi of insider trading. Jail Schumer for threatening officials. Arrest Newsom for interfering with federal officers. Give up the fantasy that our side has to "be better than them" and do unto them what they would, and have, done unto us. We have, literally, nothing to lose because even if we show forbearance and "play nice", we'll be vilified and demonized anyway. If the left is going to hang us if it gets the opportunity regardless of what we say or do, well, I'd rather the blood in my mouth be from fighting than biting my tongue.

Expand full comment
la chevalerie vit's avatar

I see we disagree on this. IMO we don’t prosecute people on any pretense that can be found because that reactionary behavior leads rapidly to a dysfnctional low-trust society that throws morals out the window and replaces it with tyranny of a tribe. The counter to bad speech is more speech, which is happenng in the post above and here https://substack.com/@thatskaizen/note/c-158148222 and in other places, I’m sure.

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

They're going to do exactly what you just said noone should do if they get the chance. My evidence for this assertion is that *they already did it when they had the chance. Twice.*

Think about this like a combat sport. When they pulled their dirty tricks during the Obama (IRS targeting) and disastrous Biden presidencies (Facebook and Twitter censorship), we checked with the ref and were informed that while their conduct was frowned upon, it wasn't technically against the rules. No penalties were called that got anyone kicked off the field.

Playing by a different set of rules than your opposition is a good way to lose. We should not handicap ourselves by turning our principles into a suicide pact.

Expand full comment
la chevalerie vit's avatar

Modeling the society we want not the society we have is fighting back not a suicide pact. I take your point but disagree with the part about destroying our principles. The American experiment is over at that point.

Expand full comment
Roberta L's avatar

la chevalerie vit: I know Matthew J Florio said “on whatever pretense can be found.” But the truth is, no “pretense” need be found.

All of these people have broken laws - most quite openly - with no fear of consequence. How does demanding laws be followed and justice be meted, regardless of power or affiliation, destroy our principles?

I thought achieving equal justice was an integral part of this experiment from the onset.

Expand full comment
la chevalerie vit's avatar

Agreed. Nowhere in the above am I excusing lawbreakers.

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Then why have we NOT prosecuted someone? The case for insider trading against Nancy Pelosi and her husband is airtight.

We havent prosecuted because it would be labeled as political revenge. And we should stop caring about that and put the hag in jail.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

Matthew, please consult your Bible and stop spreading a different Gospel. We do not need to be like them to this degree. In Jesus I trust, and not what you are selling. Cheers.

Expand full comment
Roberta L's avatar

Matt L: Yes, Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness. But he also counciled justice, and that, while we are here on earth, we should, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”

In this case, our Caesar (the Constitution, which governs our law) demands equal justice. It is Christian of us to see it done.

Expand full comment
Roger Beal's avatar

Thank you, Roberta. Few people make that connection, or understand the righteousness involved.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Well said. I had never thought about that phrase in that way

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

Agreed. As long as justice is equally applied. Otherwise we are the devil’s playthings.

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

I'm sure you're accumulating treasure in Heaven. You'll excuse those of us who think this world is important, too.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

This world is only temporary, that is true. While we are in it, pursue non-hevel moments as they make this world all the more bearable. You are what you think and do. And remember the 1st commandment comes before all others. Who then is your idol?

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

I'll make you a deal. Let's jail some Democrats and then see if we feel like we need absolution of any kind.

Betting we won't. There's a line where forbearance crosses into cowardice, and that line can be seen from where we currently are.

Expand full comment
Roger Beal's avatar

Thanks to 60 years of progressives in positions of power throughout government, education, and the corporate world, we already have a "disfunctional low-trust society/"

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

“ IMO we don’t prosecute people on any pretense that can be found…”

Which is exactly what the Democrats and the MSM has done to Trump and his supporters the last ten years.

Expand full comment
la chevalerie vit's avatar

Yes they did and it was wrong. That’s un-American, the point I was making.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

There need to be regulations about who and how speech is delivered. If one side controls the media and the only way a message gets out is through that media, then speech becomes propaganda (lies and mistruths as in words cherry-picked out of context). Propaganda must be defeated by any means possible. We have laws in America to prevent it (public monopoly networks have standards). Those laws should be exercised as appropriate.

Expand full comment
la chevalerie vit's avatar

The LAST thing we need is the government regulating speech. Specifically this is the exact purpose of 1A. Hello!

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Speech that incites violence requires regulation and / or prosecution. There is no place for that in a civil society. It only throws fuel on the fire of hate. Speech on government sponsored networks is as if the speech comes from the government itself and so it must be factual / truthful. That is the law. Otherwise, people are free to say / post whatever they want on "democratic" unregulated internet channels like FB, X, Bluesky, Truth, and here on Sasha's blog

Expand full comment
Damaris's avatar

How do we determine what is factual and what rises to the level of incitement?

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

First by firing someone and then in the courts if there is some question requiring judgement. The call to violence is not subtle

Expand full comment
Michael Hlavacek's avatar

When it comes to fighting the Left, we must forsake the "high road".

If they go low, we must go lower.

Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth.

It's existential, people-and we must not shrink from the task before us.

Expand full comment
DavidH's avatar

Events have demonstrated that they want us dead. We must act in the spirit of self defense.

Expand full comment
Damaris's avatar

If you do immoral things for what you believe is a greater good, what makes you any better than them?

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

By whose standard should I be "better"? Yours? Some book? One of the over 3000 deities that humanity has worshipped? Who the hell should we be trying to impress in an existential fight for our individual liberties? What audience is watching and what does their approval mean?

Principles are not a suicide pact. This is not a game. They want us dead. Behave accordingly.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Totally agree, but follow the law (and the narrow spirit of the law), otherwise, we are no better than them.

Expand full comment
Dollyboy's avatar

If there was something growing in me that I didn’t want there I’d get rid of it.

Expand full comment
Franciscan Poet's avatar

“something”? It’s a human. You are using dehumanizing language to hide what you are advocating.

Expand full comment
Dollyboy's avatar

That's your issue, not mine.

Expand full comment
Sherry-Ann's avatar

No human - cells or otherwise- has the right to use someone else's body with out ongoing consent.

Expand full comment
Franciscan Poet's avatar

In almost all cases, the child is only there because of a choice the woman made. In seeking to avoid accepting responsibility for the choice she made - and an adult should always accept responsibility for his or her choices and actions - a woman aborting a child is killing a human being. No one has the right to kill an innocent human being.

Expand full comment
Sherry-Ann's avatar

Nope. Consent to sex is just that, for sex. Not for using body for 9 months. If the birth control fails, abortion care can be sought. Maybe the sperm donor should be more careful and not leave sperm inside a person who doesn't want to be pregnant.

Expand full comment
Franciscan Poet's avatar

When we consent to an activity we consent to the possible outcomes.

Expand full comment
Sherry-Ann's avatar

And the possible outcome of an unplanned pregnancy can be an abortion.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

Why should the sperm donor do that when the woman can just get an abortion? You're giving him every excuse in the book not to be careful. I think he'd be more careful if he knew there were real consequences of not being so.

Expand full comment
Sherry-Ann's avatar

And abortion can be the responsible choice

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

There is absolutely nothing responsible about abortion, unless there is some medical or addiction-related issue involved. It's the ultimate in self-centeredness and selfishness, in my opinion. Sure, let it be legal, but don't tell me it's something virtuous.

You failed to take responsibility and prevent an unwanted pregnancy, then got rid of the result for your own convenience, choosing your own personal wants and needs over your child. You don't get a citizenship trophy for that. You may have the right, but I also have the right to tell you you suck.

Expand full comment
Sherry-Ann's avatar

You do know all birth control has a failure rate right? I am pretty sure I mentioned that little fact.

Inconvenience is missing your bus and being late for work. Pregnancy, child birth and parenting is s life changing event. Way to minimize what a pregnant person goes thru.

Expand full comment
Franciscan Poet's avatar

Killing an innocent human is never a responsible choice. Saying it is is psychopathic.

Expand full comment
Kate's avatar

The Left to which she/they belong is a death cult.

Expand full comment
Ed From Jersey's avatar

There are many on the left who suffer from seeing only "what they wish to see,” but AOC is NOT one of them. Her speech is a prime example of the left still being able to get away with almost anything they want to-with the help of the mainstream media and other institutions-including the denigration of husband and father who’s been murdered for speaking his truth, a man with as much wisdom, integrity, and kindness as Charlie Kirk possessed.

Expand full comment
quarkdetector's avatar

...the left will use any avenue to manipulate public opinion ... the hard questions of why Charlie Kirk was assassinated is removed from the front pages to Kimmel being the poster child for free speech ...

Expand full comment
Kathleen Hofstadter's avatar

If it’s in MY body it is none of YOUR business 🖕🏻

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

It also means that men should never have to take responsibility for your contraception, conception, or pay for an abortion. Your body, it’s all ON YOU!

If a man has no say or responsibility for his DNA contributions or deposits, no rights of any kind, then reproductive power is fully in the choice of women, and they should bear fully financial responsibility alone, and have to reimburse government assistance, if they choose to have children…right?

Expand full comment
Bluevanda's avatar

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Trying to get out of paying your child support dirt bag!

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

This is a discussion about contributed DNA, a woman’s right to choose to be a mother( or not) and the impact of choices if we assert MY BODY MY CHOICE as women.

Is it fair to exclude the male partner or hold them accountable if their choice would be abortion and the woman chooses not to go that route. The converse is the man wants the baby but the woman does not/or does not wish to remain pregnant. This is simply a discussion

Expand full comment
MissMacInTX's avatar

If that’s true, then men should NEVER have to pay child support ever again!

Expand full comment
bridget palmer's avatar

O come on….you are forgetting a quite important stage with this response.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

What manipulation of young people

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

Obama manipulated young people.

Expand full comment
Lee Gunter's avatar

If that wasn’t so pathetic, it’d be funny.

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

They had elementary school age children singing songs of praise for Obama.

Expand full comment
Lee Gunter's avatar

Who is “they”?

Expand full comment
Jim I's avatar

The same “they” who think they have the right to have secret chit-chats about gender and sex with 11 year olds at public elementary schools.

Expand full comment
Lee Gunter's avatar

You should take your head out of the Kool-Aid pitcher.

Expand full comment
Lee Gunter's avatar

If that wasn’t so pathetic it would be funny.

Expand full comment
Sally DiMartino's avatar

The Democrats have really put their pettiness on display by not being able to vote for the remembrance day for Charlie, who was tragically murdered, yet they'll travel all over for the Maryland Man. Oh, and try to break into ICE facilities to make sure everyone is comfy and well fed.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

If Democrats, as a party, are anything, it is petty. That is because they miss no opportunity, no matter how small, to use words against their political rivals. There is no grace amongst Democrats

Expand full comment
Francis Turner's avatar

I feel like you could have skipped the last three words of the title.... but yes, she certainly showed it in her comments about Charlie Kirk

Expand full comment
vader's avatar

Understanding the American left

The left used to be the left of the old - a mix of socialism and nationalism aka class above all else. But in time, they started to invite fringe groups that, in return, changed the left's focus from class to identity. We can say that this actually fractured the left because all those identity groups fight among each other for the supremacy within the left.

Now, the thing with fringe groups is that there is a reason why they are fringe. You can't un-fringe them aka mainstream them because they don't want to be like the majority. They want to be the opposite. So what happened is that, in order to normalize the fringe groups, the left, now under the influence of the fringe groups, started to de-normalize mainstream. Fringe is called progressive/normal, mainstream or what we call normal is called extreme/weird. Examples:

Progressive: Trans women are women and as such they have the right to compete in women sports and inhabit women spaces. There are many genders. Male and female are only a social construct. Misgendering should be a crime.

Extremism: There are only 2 genders. Men should not compete in women sports nor inhabit women spaces. People with gender disphoria should receive mental help. What misgendering? That's a dude so I call him a dude.

Progressive: We won't have children because it's irresponsible to bring children to the world that will be destroyed by climate change. Abortion should be unlimited up to the due date cause my body my choice. Abortion pill should be the primary means of birth control.

Extremism: We want to have children. Aboriton should be limited. Contraception should be the primary means of birth control.

Progressive: DEI is the only way forward because it corrects the old wrongs.

Extremism: DEI destroys academia and workplaces and is essentially punitive.

Progressive: Defund the police to protect criminals of color (emphasis on color)

Extremism: Back the blue cause crime hurts everyone (emphasis on crime)

Progressive: Open boarders to let in everyone

Extremism: Close borders, let in only legal immigrants (since they are vetted and registered)

Normal: Blue, pink, etc hair color, obesity is beautiful, crossdressing

Weird: natural hair color, healthy weight, gendered dressing

Normal: cheering the assassination of an opponent

Weird: being appalled that a young father of 2 young children, who never committed any crime, was assassinated for having a different opinion

So when the left leaders launch into unbecoming tirades, it's because of their skewed view of what normal is.

As for AOC running for president in 2028, it's a long way. I think she'll run for Senate because a) she is much more likely to oust Shumer (who needs to go with all other remnants of the Clinton-Obama-Biden era), b) Senate would give her a better launching pad than Congress (state vs district), c) she's be 43 in 2032 and while still very young by POTUS standards age would give her gravitas, d) going a step up from The Squad would also distance her from that group and allow her to moderate herself (which she tries on occasion already though not this one).

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

I was so looking forward to her debating Vance.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

good observation. That is why I could still be part of the old Democrat party, ala JFK, but want nothing to do with it now. Sasha and others seem also to have made that transition whether or not they analyzed the reasons why

Expand full comment
tara's avatar

Thanks for the beautiful video, Sasha. I’m a devout Buddhist and it almost made me want to convert. I didn’t know much about Charlie until this, and now I know all I need to know. So sorry I missed him….

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Buddhism and Christianity can co-exist. Most of Japan practices both Buddhism and Shintoism simultaneously. They see no problem with that. I practice Judaism and Christianity at the same time. Judaism is our family religion and Christianity is my personal religion

Expand full comment
tara's avatar

I don’t practice other religions but often find Christian scripture and sayings helpful—and beautiful.

Expand full comment
Oakley's avatar

Keep reading Tara.

Expand full comment