My Charlie Kirk Moment and the Indelible Impression He Left
I only met Charlie Kirk once. We had a brief but memorable exchange. He was the featured speaker for the annual Lincoln Day Dinner Gala of the Kootenai County Republican Party in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. It was 2019 and Kirk, then 25 years old, was a rising star. Turning Point USA, which he had founded in 2012, had already become a force to be reckoned with, but was not nearly the massive organization it is today. I arrived at the venue early to meet with friends. The ballroom where the dinner would be held was practically empty at the time. I spotted Charlie speaking to a couple of Turning Point USAstudents. As I approached, he held out his hand to shake mine and asked, “Are you the pastor giving the invocation?” What prompted his question? Well, I was visibly wearing a St. Benedict crucifix that stood out against my dark tie. I had worn it for years under my shirt, but as the militant Christophobic tide became more virulent, with satanic, occult, and communist symbols becoming normalized in popular culture and anti-Christian attacks becoming more prevalent, I decided it was time to more openly and boldly show my colors. After all, those on the Left have no problem displaying their rainbow “Pride” symbols, pentagrams, Red Stars, Che Guevara shirts, Baphomet, Muslim crescent, or Hamas/PLO keffiyehs. So, I decided to personally, but quietly, do something daily to publicly claim space for Christ. “No,” I answered Charlie, “I’m just a believer who loves Jesus.” “That’s the pastor over there,” I said, pointing across the room to the minister who would be giving the invocation. He said he was pleased to see my cross and I said I was pleased to see him taking the cross and the Gospel message into the pagan and Marxist strongholds, i.e., college campuses.
I especially appreciated Charlie Kirk’s forays into these enemy-occupied territories because I had tried, on a much smaller scale, to make similar efforts in the 1970s and 1980s at UCLA, USC, Cal State LA, and a dozen other colleges and universities in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and Sacramento counties. I frequently gave talks and engaged in debates on campuses. The radical Left already dominated academe at that time, but I didn’t face the vehemence and violence so typical today. However, as journalism duties and the responsibilities involved in raising a family took up more of my time, my visits to campuses dropped dramatically. The state colleges and universities, and even high schools (and even many private and Christian colleges that had once been conservative) seemed lost beyond redemption. I was always disheartened that this important battlefield had been largely abandoned to enemy forces that hated God, family, and country. Then, along came Charlie Kirk and Turning Point. They have not been able to change the fact that faculties and administrations of our colleges are still dominated by the far Left, but they have given voice and encouragement to students and faculty who are still standing for sanity and morality.
Charlie gave a wonderful, inspirational speech that night, full of humor, passion, and hope. You can access the text of it here. He probably never expected that he would have the worldwide impact that he had. The full extent of that impact only became evident following his assassination. The response to that tragic and hateful event has been amazing to behold — not only all across the United States, but across the world. Massive vigils and rallies in his honor have been held across Europe (London, Madrid, Paris, etc.), across Canada (Calgary, Winnepeg), and across Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth), as well as in South Korea, South Africa, and elsewhere. Yes, there have been many examples of hateful “progressives” gloating over and celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death, but the overwhelming reaction has been one of heartbreak that such an exemplary model of courage, faith, and decency had been so brutally struck down. This loving young father, husband, and patriot was an inspiration to so many. The lines from O’Shaughnessy’s “Ode” fittingly apply to him:
But on one man’s soul it hath broken,
A light that doth not depart;
And his look, or a word he hath spoken,
Wrought flame in another man’s heart.
Fortunately for all of us, his young widow, Erika, is continuing to spread that flame. In her incredibly poignant, tender, passionate, and defiant tribute to her murdered husband, she let it be known his voice has not been silenced. To those who think it has been silenced, she says, “You have no idea what you have unleashed!” Her video has been viewed by tens of millions across many platforms. Thank you, Charlie and Erika Kirk, for your heroic stands for righteousness, for the unborn, and for God, family, and country. — William F. Jasper
I Met Charlie Kirk When I Was 17. Here’s How He Changed My Life
Last week, Charlie Kirk, an American Christian martyr, went to his eternal reward in paradise with his Savior, Jesus Christ. While his shoes cannot be filled, his death has birthed a turning point in the hearts of Americans everywhere, committing to talking more, shouting less, and boldly defending Truth.
As a 24-year-old, I see Charlie’s assassination as my generation’s 9/11 moment. For most of Gen-Z (born 1997-2012), recollection of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, is faint, if not nonexistent.
Soon after Charlie was shot, my phone blew up with calls and messages from peers expressing concern, fear, anger, confusion, and grief. Friends of mine who are politically disengaged began to express interest in not only what Charlie Kirk said but also how they could make an impact like he did.
I met Charlie Kirk when I was 17 years old. At the time, I was the student president of the late, great, Phyllis Schlafly’s Teen Eagle program, and Charlie was speaking at Phyllis’ Eagle Forum conference.
Having followed his work since 2015, I was excited to finally meet Charlie in person.
I touched him on the shoulder, introduced myself, and explained that I led a couple dozen high-school students locally and that we were trying to educate youth on biblical morality and the U.S. Constitution while cultivating leadership skills. He was so gracious, encouraging, and kind. Charlie told me to keep fighting and reminded me that we were brothers in arms.
Though Charlie would most likely not remember our brief visit, his death felt as though I lost a close friend. After years of listening to The Charlie Kirk Show, watching his campus tours routinely, and always reading his Tweets, my worldview was shaped by his teachings.
Charlie Kirk taught me that behind every political debate was an individual — a person who could be reached with the Truth. He taught me that the only way our nation can heal is through open, free, and honest dialogue. He taught me that when we stop talking, our nation becomes volatile. He taught me to be a happy warrior and approach our adversaries with kindness.
Charlie Kirk taught me that bringing a person to Christ was more important than defeating them in a political debate.
Days before he passed, Charlie posted to social media seven words: “Jesus defeated death so you can live.”
Charlie Kirk also defeated death through Jesus Christ, and that is his ultimate legacy. He died as he lived, boldly sharing the gospel, defending freedom, and working to save America for the next generation.
It is necessary to recognize that Charlie Kirk cannot be replaced. He was one of a kind. But we all can be, and must be, Charlie Kirk in our own way. We must commit to taking action and having honest dialogue with those we disagree with, while never surrendering or compromising the Truth.
We must all be Charlie Kirk now.
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.”
— 1 Timothy 4:7-8.
The above is part of an article by Andrew Muller. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.
Trump Elevates Push for “Charlie Kirk Act” That Would Let Government Police Speech
On Sunday, President Trump’s Truth Social account promoted a video that has since gone viral. In it, a supporter pleads for a new law called the “Charlie Kirk Act.” Her pitch is blunt: Punish “news corporations” and online creators for “lies” and “propaganda.” She urges Congress to impose fines so severe they would “damn near bankrupt” outlets that cross the line.
On Sunday, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) announced on social media he would introduce the legislation, which would “restore Smith-Mundt,” “in the coming days.”
The Smith-Mundt Act is a Cold War law, passed in 1948, that authorized the State Department and broadcasters such as Voice of America (VOA) to share U.S. policies and culture with foreign audiences. But it drew a firm line: Material created for overseas propaganda was not to be disseminated inside the United States. That wall stood for decades until 2012, when the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act softened it.
What the law never did, however, was regulate private voices. It did not fine newspapers, radio stations, educators, or citizen journalists. Its entire structure was about limiting what the government itself could say to its own people.
The question is not whether media lie — they do, often.
Yet the solution being offered for the media’s lies is not accountability through debate, correction, or competition. It is to hand Washington the job of national fact-checker in chief. The plan assumes that the same government most accused of lying will suddenly become the final arbiter of truth.
Here lies the trap. Once government holds that power, dissent can be branded propaganda. It is not hard to imagine officials declaring it “false” to report civilian deaths from drone strikes. Or “misinformation” to say the government-cleared vaccine causes harm. Or “propaganda” to argue that the government engages in unwarranted surveillance. Each of these positions could be shut down — not because they lack evidence, but because they clash with the official “truth.”
Only three years ago, the Biden administration attempted to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It claimed the board would coordinate responses to online falsehoods. Conservatives immediately — and rightfully! — blasted it as a “Ministry of Truth.” The backlash was so fierce that the board was abandoned within months.
Now, amid grief and fury after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a similar proposal has emerged from the right. The same idea that conservatives decried under Biden has returned, only rebranded in their own partisan colors.
American law already draws a hard line on what speech government can police. The First Amendment protects even commentary that is biased, sloppy, or offensive.
To hand Washington the authority to declare disputed narratives “propaganda” is not reform. It is an assault on the very thing the First Amendment was written to defend.
The above is part of an article by Veronika Kyrylenko. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.
JBS Concludes Successful Leadership Conference
The John Birch Society has concluded its 2025 Leadership Conference, which happened last weekend in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Held in the leadup to the United States’ 250th anniversary — and near Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were drafted, and Valley Forge, where the fledgling Continental Army courageously encamped during the harsh winter of 1777-78 — the conference brought together more than 350 patriots from across the country, including several state legislators.
Speakers at the conference included General Michael Flynn, on what is at stake in our nation today; Catherine Austin Fitts, on threats to financial freedom; Pastor Matt Trewhella, on the doctrine of the lesser magistrates; and Alex Newman, on the UN’s efforts to control children’s education. JBS CEO Wayne Morrow concluded the conference by highlighting the JBS’s latest updates and accomplishments.
Attendees left excited and energized. The JBS gained 50 new members, attendees flocked to our literature tables to purchase materials, and we made strategic connections.
Although the Leadership Conference has ended, our work to restore adherence to the Constitution and America’s founding principles continues. Only through informed citizens taking organized, focused action can we successfully protect our constitutional Republic. Will you answer the call? Get started at JBS.org/join.
— Peter Rykowski
Trump Mobilizes National Guard in Memphis, Declares Crime “Dire”
President Donald Trump continues to expand the use of military resources for domestic law enforcement. On Monday, he signed a presidential memorandum titled “Restoring Law and Order in Memphis.” The order establishes a sweeping federal task force and directs the mobilization of the National Guard in Tennessee.
The president declared,
The city of Memphis, Tennessee, is suffering from tremendous levels of violent crime that have overwhelmed its local government’s ability to respond effectively.
Trump called the situation “dire in one of our Nation’s most historic cities.”
Trump’s directive goes further than creating a task force:
The Secretary of War shall request that the Governor of Tennessee, under section 502 of title 32, United States Code, make available National Guard units of Tennessee to support public safety and law enforcement operations in Memphis, in such numbers and for such duration as the Governor may deem necessary and appropriate to assist with the activities of the Task Force.
Republican Governor Bill Lee is almost certain to accept the request. He confirmed on Friday, September 12 that he was in “constant communication” with the Trump administration.
Trump’s move in Memphis reflects a change in strategy forced by the courts. In Los Angeles, a federal judge ruled that his unilateral deployment of the National Guard during the summer immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The law bars the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement without proper authorization.
Local officials facing Trump’s threats of direct intervention posture as defenders of democracy. Democrats put on a show of various degrees of worry and outrage, warning of overreach and the specter of military occupation. That performance may fool a few who don’t recognize them as the same soft-Marxist managers whose policies fuel the very decay that now drives crime. And if there is anything Marxists reliably generate and seek beyond crime and poverty, it is ever-tighter control over citizens.
The record suggests that in practice, like authoritarians everywhere, they quietly welcome federal muscle when it shores up their authority, calculating how best to harness the Guard and federal resources for their own ends. Their objections are theater, meant to appease their base while allowing militarization to advance. Republicans, by contrast, dispense with the theater altogether and embrace the show of force as an appropriate policy.
Together, both parties converge on the same instinct: to normalize soldiers on American streets and condition citizens to accept it as “public safety.” The rhetoric may differ, but the result is the same — a creeping police state wrapped in the language of law and order.
The above is part of an article by Veronika Kyrylenko. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.
“Global Governance”: Latest Plans from Xi Jinping, the UN, and Globalist Elites
In our September 5 Insider Report we provided important news about developments at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China. A highly significant issue that we did not cover was the unveiling of Xi Jinping’s proposed Global Governance Initiative (GGI). Central to the Beijing plan is the expanding and enhancing of the powers of the United Nations and escalating the adoption of UN schemes such as Agenda 2030 and the Pact for the Future. A “Concept Paper on the Global Governance Initiative” put out by Communist China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains:
We will leverage the platforms provided by the U.N., relevant international organizations, and regional and subregional multilateral institutions to take active actions with all parties and contribute our thoughts and energy to reforming and improving global governance. Priority will be given to areas where governance is in urgent need and scant supply, such as the reform of the international financial architecture, AI, cyberspace, climate change, trade, and outer space, and to firmly upholding the authority and central role of the U.N. and supporting the U.N. in implementing the Pact for the Future. We would like to increase communication and cooperation in these areas to build consensus, identify deliverables, and bring about early harvests. [Emphasis added.]
The same Concept Paper says:
The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Eighty years ago, upon deep reflection on the bitter lessons of the two world wars, the international community decided to establish the United Nations, commencing a brand new practice in global governance. Over the past 80 years, the visions and practice of global governance, i.e. the international system with the U.N. at its core, the international order underpinned by international law, and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter have made historic contributions to maintaining world peace and development.
The current international landscape is undergoing changes and turbulence. The U.N. and multilateralism are being challenged. The deficit in global governance continues to grow. The existing international institutions have shown three deficiencies. First, serious underrepresentation of the Global South. The collective rise of emerging markets and developing countries necessitates boosting the representation of the Global South and redressing historical injustice. Second, erosion of authoritativeness. The purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter have not been effectively observed. Resolutions of the Security Council have been challenged. Unilateral sanctions, among other practices, have violated international law and disrupted the international order. Third, urgent need for greater effectiveness. The implementation of the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is seriously lagging behind. Issues such as climate change and the digital divide are becoming more salient. Governance gaps exist in new frontiers such as artificial intelligence (AI), cyberspace and outer space.
In pushing the “global governance” theme, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party are completely in step with the globalist World Economic Forum and Council on Foreign Relations. As we have pointed out for decades in The New American (as well as in Global Tyranny and The United Nations Exposed), “global governance” is merely a euphemism for world government, a softer sounding label for a communist-style global regime. It has its origins in 1992, with the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. We expose that in great detail in our 1996 article “Target: World Government.”
Xi Jinping’s reveal of his GGI at the SCO summit portends major new efforts in this global subversive agenda. Stay tuned for future reports.
— William F. Jasper
Kash Patel’s Medal of Dishonor: Rewarding Murderers of LaVoy Finicum
LaVoy Finicum’s crime, if one can call it that, was his unyielding love of liberty and his refusal to bow before the unconstitutional dictates of a federal Leviathan that has long since burst the bounds placed upon it by the Founders. He stood with the Constitution, with property rights, and with the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people and the states — not to Washington, D.C.’s bureaucratic mandarins with badges and rifles. For this fidelity to first principles, he was executed on an Oregon roadside in January 2016 by trigger-happy agents acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
On that snowy highway in Harney County, Oregon, Finicum lifted his arms to heaven in surrender. He cried out that he was going to see his Maker. Seconds later, he was riddled with bullets by government agents whose own lies about that night have since been exposed. It was not law enforcement. It was an ambush. It was not justice. It was vengeance.
The Constitution does not vest FBI agents with the authority to dispense roadside executions. It does not empower federal police to entrap, ensnare, and eradicate citizens who dare to resist federal encroachments. Finicum’s killing was a message to the rest of us: “Challenge us, and we will kill you.”
That Patel would choose this band of butchers as the recipients of medals of “honor” tells us everything about where his loyalties lie. Not with the Constitution. Not with the people. Not with liberty. His loyalty is with the very Praetorian Guard of the Deep State he once pretended to oppose. (For those whose memories concerning the murder of LaVoy Finicum may be somewhat foggy, the following articles may serve as helpful reminders: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Medals are meant to symbolize courage, sacrifice, and fidelity to noble causes. What Patel has done is invert that sacred order. He has transformed medals into decorations for dishonor, rewards for tyranny, trophies for murder.
Think of it: Would any sane republic award medals to the men who shot down Crispus Attucks on Boston’s streets? Would we drape ribbons on the Redcoats who cut down Colonial farmers at Lexington Green? Of course not. Yet Patel has performed the modern equivalent — he has garlanded the crown’s enforcers, not the patriots they slaughtered.
This betrayal cuts deeper because it comes cloaked in conservative clothing. When the Left rewards its stormtroopers, we expect it. But when a supposed ally of liberty joins in that mockery, it is more insidious. It is the kiss of Judas.
Let no man be deceived. The message sent by Patel’s actions is that the regime will not only exonerate its assassins, but exalt them. The lesson is clear: Anyone who dares to defy federal tyranny may expect not only bullets but also a posthumous insult when their murderers are paraded as heroes.
This must steel our resolve. Patriots must learn from Finicum’s fate. He did not die in vain. He stands as a martyr whose blood cries out against the injustice of our times. His life was a testimony to the enduring principle that the federal government is the servant of the states and the people — not their master. His death was a testament to the lengths the tyrants will go to silence dissent.
History will not absolve Patel. His sycophants may cheer today, but the truth cannot be buried. Just as the memory of Finicum’s execution is carved into the conscience of freedom-loving Americans, so too will Patel’s perfidy be remembered as a stain. He has aligned himself with the assassins, not the patriots. He has placed the bayonet in the hands of tyranny and called it justice.
This is not the act of a statesman. It is not the act of a conservative. It is the act of a quisling — one who betrays his own side for a place at the table of power.
The Founders warned us that liberty requires eternal vigilance. This is what they meant. When those who claim to be our allies openly honor the enemies of freedom, it is time to cast off illusions. Patel’s medals do not bestow honor — they expose dishonor. They do not consecrate heroes — they canonize villains.
Let us honor LaVoy Finicum not by mourning as slaves but by resisting as free men. Let us declare, with Patrick Henry, that “the distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.” And let us add: not an American of Kash Patel’s cowardice, but an American of LaVoy Finicum’s courage.
The day will come when medals are restored to their true meaning, when liberty’s defenders are honored, and when tyrants and their enablers are remembered for what they were — cowards, traitors, and murderers. Until then, we must remember LaVoy, denounce Patel, and redouble our commitment to liberty.
— Joe Wolverton II, J.D.
Biden-era “Arctic Frost” FBI Probe Targeted Almost 100 GOP/Conservative Groups
On Tuesday, September 16, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) released files related to a Biden-era FBI operation code-named “Arctic Frost.”
According to an FBI document dated January 23, 2023, Arctic Frost was launched to investigate “the multifaceted conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election…. This conspiracy involved subjects from the private sector, in numerous battleground states … the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the White House.” The document claimed that this conspiracy propagated “false election fraud allegations” about the 2020 presidential election results, despite the mountain of evidence showing massive vote fraud; schemed “to have a false slate of electors” submitted; and filed “numerous unsubstantiated fraud lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election.”
Jointly working with the FBI in this probe were the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and National Archives and Records Administration. The investigation was opened in April 2022 and assigned to Special Counsel Jack Smith in November 2022.
The newly released documents show that the Arctic Frost probe was much broader than previously assumed, targeting not just President Trump but 92 Republican/conservative organizations. Appearing on the Fox News program “America Reports” after the documents were released, Grassley stated, “It all started with Special Agent Thibault, Timothy Thibault, [who] violated every FBI protocol to set up for the Jack Smith electoral charges against President Trump. Until now, we thought that all it was about was going after President Trump, but it was going after 92 conservative groups, Republican groups and Republican individuals, and Charlie Kirk’s organization, Turning Point was one of those.”
Grassley also said, “I think it ought to remind us that it’s a continuation of what happened in the Obama administration with the Lois Lerner attack through the IRS of investigating conservative nonprofits. It’s something that shouldn’t happen in our political system and it’s an example of FBI political weaponization.”
— Gary Benoit
Brits Turn Out for Massive Patriotic, Anti-elite Protest
A throng of Brits turned out in London last weekend for one of the largest protests in U.K. history. Their grievance was that they were losing their country to the Third World because of mass-migration policies the elites shoved down their throats.
Brits waved the Union Jack and St. George’s red-and-white flag of England. They chanted “we want our country back.” They held signs that said “stop the boats,” “send them home,” and “enough is enough, save our children.” Some also carried American flags and signs in support of Charlie Kirk.
“Far-right” activist Tommy Robinson organized the “Unite the Kingdom” rally,” according to mainstream reports. Mainstream media did its best to play up what violent kerfuffles erupted. There were a few clashes with law enforcement “as a small group of his supporters clashed with police officers who were separating them from counterprotesters.”
Robinson also piped in via video the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who offered a stark warning to people in “the reasonable middle,” as he referred to them, who harbor the mistaken impression that the violent consequences of unfettered mass migration may never touch their lives.
Mainstream-media mouthpieces uniformly used the term “far-right” to describe the rally. They said the protest drew about 110,000 people. Reports say that at one point the crowd stretched from Big Ben across the River Thames and around the corner beyond Waterloo train station, which is about three-quarters of a mile. But that version about the size of the rally has been disputed by some, Robinson included, who believe many more people turned out. Nevertheless, the protest was massive, and the message was clear: Britain is first and foremost for Brits.
In his address, Robinson told the sea of people before him that they were part of a “tidal wave of patriotism” that is sweeping the nation. He delivered a passionate speech centered on nationalistic values. “This is your community. These are your brothers and sisters. We today are united!” he bellowed. “Today is the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain.”
Robinson also took shots at the U.K.’s leadership class. Said Robinson:
The traitors in Westminister are watching right now. They are cowering, they are trembling. [Prime Minister] Keir Starmer, the Labour Party, the revolution has started. They managed to silence us for 20 years with labels. Racist! Islamophobe! Far-right! They don’t work anymore.… The silent majority will be silent no longer. Today we are sending shockwaves through the corridors of power of the elite like a bloody earthquake.
The U.K., like other European nations and like the United States, is under assault from globalist elites. It has been targeted for destruction via, among other means, rapid cultural change. British people have known for some time now that globalism is destroying their country, which is why they voted to exit the European Union in 2016. Even their “traitorous” head of state, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has acknowledged that mass migration isn’t benefiting the once-mighty nation. “The experiment is over,” the prime minister said back in May. “We will deliver what you have asked for — time and again — and we will take back control of our borders. I believe we need to reduce immigration significantly.”Â
Starmer’s promise to implement changes addressing the migration problem has fallen flat. What few policies his government has implemented have had little impact. The boats are still coming to the island in record numbers, while the government behaves as if it’s powerless to stop Third-Worlders from crashing onto the U.K. shores with inflatable rafts. — Paul Dragu
[END]