Debunking Charlie Kirk Quotes

Probably many people (like me) did not follow Charlie Kirk so after his death there are a lot of people saying what they believe he believed, what they heard he believed, and taking partial quotes, misconstruing the context, and even outright fake quotes to support their own beliefs and biases.

Is the so called left the only one to do it? Not by a long shot.

I doubt we will learn but it would be helpful to accurately represent what someone says, the context, and intended meaning. Rather than paraphrase in a way helpful to my point or simply use a lot of adjectives without facts (which all sides of the political spectrum seem to enjoy doing).

Even an NPR reporter (being interviewed) casually used one of these this morning.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/16/debunking-the-top-5-lies-the-left-is-spreading-about-charlie-kirk-after-his-death/

 

If only we used all this energy to protect children from school shooting.

 

I assume enough time has past for my response.

First, I say that killing is wrong and it should not happen. Charlie Kirk did not deserve this. I'm especially sad that his two young kids lost their father.

Finally I'm not making any comments on this specific article by The Federalist. I never listened to any Charlie Kirk and was not even aware of his existence prior to his horrible murder. I just want to say that The Federalist is a questionable source for news with extreme bias. Which is an especially bad rating for printed material. Lots of failed fact checks, for example.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

 

How one died does not atone for how one lived.

 

At least his final moments were spent doing what he loved: blaming black and trans people for mass shootings.

 

That is because to make the argument you just did exhibits a poor understanding of theology (specifically the New Testament). That is not an issue for Christians and is a category error.

 

No I think his final moments were engaging in dialogue. He generally seemed to do that respectfully and with precision. Usually, in the few reels I have seen the people getting upset were his debate opponents because they couldn't put together a counter argument and emoted. Often happens in the reels I have seen of Ben Shapiro.

Kirk seemed (as with Shapiro) better armed with facts. Opponents armed with emotionally laden cultural talking points.

 

That is a most excellent point. The four women were Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson. So according Charlie Kirk, MSNBC news show host is a white person slot. First Lady is a white person slot. Congressman is a white person slot. Jurist on the Supreme Court is a white person slot. The funny thing about that list to me is that Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson are three very smart people in public life, IMHO.

 

What NotJoeBiden was saying was correct. Or at least when he was shot he was answering a question about Transgender people committing mass shootings.

What Charlie Kirk was saying moments before he was shot
quote:
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience member asked. Kirk responded: “Too many.”
https://www.al.com/news/2025/09/what-charlie-kirk-was-saying-moments-before-he-was-shot.html

 

This, of course, is nonsense. The guy was rude to people and said heinous things.

 

He visited my al mater to preach how black and brown students were only there because of affirmative actions.

My University had not used affirmative action for a quarter of a century by then.

 

I've seen many quotes of Charlie Kirk that make him appear racist. I suspect that is one of the things about him that Trump really liked.

 

Steve, clearly the church catholic, upon the basis of the Bible and the historic Christian tradition, gets to judge who is and is not a Christian. The NT teaches that such a judgment must be rendered (e.g., Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 1 John 2:19). The concepts of church membership and church discipline within orthodoxy depend on that judgment. Furthermore, your appeal to shellfish and the blending of fabrics depends on your failure to recognize the distinctions between Israelite civil and ceremonial law and the transcendent moral law. Dietary laws and the like are specific to that ancient nation ("They are unclean to you") as ceremonial law is directly related to the system of priest, temple, and sacrifice. By contrast, moral laws have ongoing validity and relevance to all persons. God didn't judge the Canaanites for eating shellfish, but he did judge them for their detestable sexual immorality. Maybe, doing a little reading of what Christians have said about these things for the last two thousand years might clear up some confusion.

 

What would the Mormons say about being Christian? Yes Mormons are real Christians that believe in the Bible. But they have more up to date information because Joseph Smith did his prophecy stuff in the early 1800's. He learned through prophecy and reading the golden tablets that the after life is lots of different planets. Good people go to the good people planets. Bad people go to the bad people planets. In between good and bad people go to in between good and bad people planets. That's because they had just discovered planets when Joseph Smith was getting his messages from God about all this stuff. So Mormons are more modern. Oh also the Holy Ghost is a separate individual named Holy Ghost.

The point is that Christians are a very big tent and being in one little corner of the tent and ignoring everyone else is okay but that's ignoring many other different beliefs that are still Christian.