The Intent of the Charlie Kirk Assassination Continues With the Media's Reaction: They Demand Our Silence

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

As the news broke on Wednesday that Charlie Kirk was shot - prior to the official word of his demise - I was struck by a quote from the novel “A Clash of Kings,” by author George R. R. Martin.

Advertisement

When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar -- you are only telling the world that you fear what he might say.

That passage was not only applicable to the ultimate removal of Kirk’s voice, but it has been on display in these hours following his death. There is no surprise at all that figures on the left, from Democrats and the press, would find ways to act in disgraceful fashion following the grave result. As conservatives, we need to recognize what is at stake and prepare ourselves accordingly.

Some Democrats, knowing full well this act is entirely indefensible, have decided to instead go on the offensive…and behave offensively in the process. We’ll start with Fred Flintstone himself, Governor JB Pritzker, who decided he needed to turn political and blame President Trump for this killing.

Next up was Elizabeth Warren, taking a break from stealing baseballs from children. (Allegedly.) When asked if there is a need to tone down the political rhetoric, she instantly became intemperate. “Oh please!” she said testily, before launching into a lecture on how President Trump has been at the forefront of this language.

Advertisement

The press has managed to behave even worse, as they sense that their narratives have been fueling the discord in the country. Their solution? Defend that aggressive stance at all costs. MSNBC fixture Matthew Dowd infamously blamed Kirk’s “hate” for this shooting, and it appropriately earned him an exit from the network, in a rare dose of recognition by the executives there that lines of propriety do exist that should not be crossed.

Yet, also on the air at the network were others leaning into the call to have voices tamped down. Katie Tur, in the immediate moments of the shooting, implied that Donald Trump would aggressively use this event. Jen Psaki has been especially acerbic in her commentary on the shooting. Later, during the nighttime broadcast, she condemned the words used by the president in his address on Wednesday evening.

She was literally condemning the president for daring to mention that the press drumbeat of “Trump is a Nazi” and “Republicans are fascists” could be a contributing factor to the intolerance in the national discourse.

Advertisement

Then we had David Corn, riding in with his condescension by citing unnamed “voices” on the right allegedly saying improper things, and folding in an attempt at deflection by invoking the recent shootings in Minnesota of state politicians.

The difference there, as needs to be pointed out to Mr. Corn, is that nobody of prominence was coming out at the time to say the Minnesota politicians brought on the violence with what they had said, as has been the case in the aftermath of the Kirk shooting. His stunted commentary is echoed by the genius behind the leftist "Meidas Touch" account. The summary: The right needs to shut up, or something bad might happen!

Jumping in with this same censoring sensibility was “CBS Mornings” wizard Nate Burleson. While speaking to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the former football player felt the need to lecture the Republican that conservatives need to watch what they say. “Is this a moment for your party to reflect on political violence?” This is the third assassination attempt on conservatives in just over a year, this time leading to a successful murder, and this alleged journalist wants to condemn the targets as being responsible.

Advertisement

All of these examples, and the numerous others spilling out, tell us the same thing: They want to keep our side caged and muted. Bringing down Charlie Kirk was the silencing of an effective voice, and it was a case of being incapable of combating him in the arena of ideas, so he had to be stricken from outside the field of play. But notice the conflicting messages we are getting from the press today.

We are being handed two constructs at the same time: We need to avoid violence and express our differences with words, but also, the people on the right need to pipe down and keep their differences to themselves. Look at the fractured prism they employ. One side needs to rein in its commentary out of concern that it will spark violence from the other side.

Here is the entirely disqualifying detail in this flawed messaging. Charlie Kirk was among the most willing voices on the right to engage in earnest and thoughtful debate. He welcomed healthy discourse and ventured into the unwelcome wilderness of upper-level universities. He embodied the very thing being insisted upon today, and they erased him. They will not like what is to follow.

Advertisement

His passing is by no means a call for conservatives to climb into our shells and hope to keep the peace. This murder is a result of one side of the debate being incapable of supporting its viewpoints. As they now posture that the right needs to modulate their rhetoric, this very message is unwound by the simple truth that they killed off the primary voice that was following that path. 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination shows the left does not want peaceful discourse; they want silence. They tried ripping out the tongue of the right on Wednesday. They should fear what will be expressed as a result of this violent act. 

Recommended

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos