Posted originally on CTH on September 19, 2025 | Sundance

A House resolution [HR.719 – HERE] was offered today recognizing the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk and honoring his legacy. Forty-two members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the resolution [Roll Call Here], 4 CBC members voted present, 4 CBC members didn’t vote, once again affirming their intent to divide the country based on race.

WASHINGTON – […] In a statement following the House’s approval of the resolution, which received support from more than 90 Democrats, the caucus denounced political violence and the killing of Kirk, but said individuals must condemn violence “without abandoning our right to speak out against ideas that are inconsistent with our values as Americans.”

[…] The caucus outlined some of Kirk’s past comments that they said they “strongly” disagreed with, listing “his belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended racial segregation, was a mistake; his denial that systemic racism exists; his promotion of the Great Replacement theory; and his offensive claims about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee lacking adequate cognitive ability.”

Forty-two members of the CBC voted against the resolution, according to a POLITICO analysis of Friday morning’s roll call vote, making up 72 percent of the 58 Democrats who opposed the measure. Five members of the caucus voted yes on the resolution, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Another four members of the caucus voted present, and four members didn’t vote at all. (read more)

The final vote was 310-58 (42 nays from CBC), with 95 Democrats supporting the resolution, which was brought forward by Speaker Mike Johnson.

Posted originally on CTH on September 19, 2025 | Sundance

There is no Charlie Kirk equivalent on the left.

There is no leftist individual willing to enter the intellectual or philosophical gauntlet of debate and challenge a conservative audience to “come to the front of the line” and convince the audience of their viewpoint.

There is no person of leftist ideology capable of advocating their man-made construct against the natural laws that underpin the conservative worldview of a Charlie Kirk audience.  Because the only place their ideology can survive is in an arena without challenge.

Consider the example of the ‘Law of the Farm’ vs. the ‘Law of the School’. Natural principles vs. those made by man.

A student can skip class, take few notes, pay only half attention, then stay up all night cramming for a test and manage a decent grade. It depends on the student’s goal: grades or learning.

The student can choose to manipulate the education, by avoiding the learning and capturing the grade.

This is possible in the ‘Law of the School’. However, a farmer cannot take short cuts. A farmer cannot avoid tending to the soil, preparing the seed, fertilizing and nurturing the crop, and still gain benefit of an abundant harvest.

The farmer must necessarily do all of the appropriate work in order to benefit from it. Such is the ‘Law of the Farm’, the natural law. This is the position from which Charlie Kirk effectively advanced his beliefs.

Stay elevated, and you will notice there is considerable panic visible amid the professional Marxists.

The comments and quick responsive appearance of Barack Obama; the jaw-agape leftist reactions to backlash upon Jimmy Kimmel; corporate media entities trying to cope with the reemergence of shame; the fallback to tribalism and the need for reassurance from their echo chamber, and many other visible similarities are all akin to an abuser being confronted by the family of the abused.

The constant drumbeat of leftism has battered the minds of Americans for so long, the perpetrators took it for granted they would always hold the strongest position – even if in the minority.  However, something has radically changed.

A martyr is defined as a person who suffers death as a penalty for refusing to renounce their religion or beliefs. More broadly, a martyr is someone who sacrifices their life, well-being, or freedom to support a principle, belief, or ideology that they hold dear. In the attack posture to defend themselves from the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the left is proving they just created a martyr.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  The panic amid the collective left is so extreme, every mechanism within their arsenal is being deployed to gain control of the narrative.  Some of these efforts are so over-the-top they have become absurd.

[SOURCE]

Politico identifies the global response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination as the result of international manipulation. Their assertion is absurd in all contexts.

Their claims are created within the hive of those who previously constructed the false reality around COVID-19 and subsequent vaccination protocols.  People like security analysts at the Center for Internet Security and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, as well as voices within the control mechanisms of NewsGuard, the private sector information police.

“Mentions of Charlie Kirk appeared more than 6,000 times across official media in China, Russia and Iran between Sept. 10-17, according to misinformation tracker NewsGuard.”

I’m sure the mention of Charlie Kirk appeared at least that many times in China, Russia and Iran, because what Charlie Kirk embodied is something much larger than the geopolitical constructs their government boundaries represent.

A conservative estimate on Google searches alone is around 2.8 million. Multiply that number by every social media and internet communication platform, then consider the ‘mentions‘ found in news feeds and other tech systems.  The result is beyond billions.

God is universal. God is truth.  Trying to manipulate the natural world is the professional skillset of all these various NGOs and influence agents who operate in a realm they ultimately do not control.

Two days ago, a 40-year-old Taiwanese woman was riding the escalator halfway around the world from where Charlie Kirk was killed.  What was she watching on her phone as she stood descending, a Charlie Kirk speech video with close-captioning translation.

The next evening, two middle-age Chinese men were having drinks in an Asian restaurant speaking concerningly in Mandarin.  What were they discussing? Charlie Kirk’s assassination.  I stand as silent witness to these events.

We have never witnessed anything even remotely similar to what is unfolding in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder.

For the first time in the history of social media, the influence of a person is expanding more in their death than it was during their life.  That expansion is seemingly exponential, and substantively spiritual.

I have no idea what the future of this story will entail, yet I am absolutely certain of the author who controls it.