There’s a big difference between firing a teacher for believing children shouldn’t undergo transgender surgery and firing a teacher for publicly dancing on the grave of a beloved family man like Charlie Kirk.

And Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck knows why.

“Is every speech controversy the same?” Glenn asks, before answering himself.

“The answer to that is clearly no. I mean, we’ve seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their jobs now just for saying they don’t believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries,” he says.

“Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And we’ve seen teachers and professors go online and celebrate, not criticize, not argue policy, but celebrate that someone was murdered,” he says, noting that some of them have even said it’s “not a tragedy, it’s a victory.”

And this, Glenn argues, is far different than just debating whether or not children should be given transgender surgeries before they turn 18.

“To say Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a good thing, that’s not debate. That’s not even an idea. That’s rejoicing in violence. It’s glorifying death. There’s no place in civil society for that kind of stuff. There’s not. And it’s a difference that actually matters,” Glenn says.

“When a teacher says, ‘I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead.’ Is that cancel culture if they’re fired? Or is that just society saying, you know, ‘I don’t think I can trust my kid to that guy or that woman. That’s not an enlightening mind. Somebody who delights in political murder, I don’t want them around my children,’” he continues.

“Scripture weighs in here, too,” he says, quoting, “‘Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.’”

“Matthew,” he asks, “What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Upload, Video phone, Free, Video, Sharing, Camera phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Cancel culture, Free speech, Scripture, Religion, Religious freedom 

A New Jersey nurse has been cleared of any wrongdoing after reportedly being previously suspended for an incident involving a doctor allegedly celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Lexi Kuenzle, a 33-year-old nurse at Englewood Hospital, claimed she was near the nurses’ station when news broke that Kirk was shot in the neck at a college event in Utah.

‘It’s mind-blowing to me. I was so angry and upset.’

According to the New York Post, a shocked Kuenzle exclaimed, “Oh my God! That’s terrible! I love him!”

However, surgeon Dr. Matthew Jung allegedly cheered on the fatal shooting of Kirk in front of multiple nurses and a patient.

“I hate Charlie Kirk. He had it coming. He deserved it,” Jung reportedly proclaimed.

On Monday, Kuenzle appeared on “Fox & Friends” with her attorney, John-Paul Deol of the Dhillon Law Group.

“He was standing there, celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, saying how ‘he deserved it,’ he hated Charlie Kirk, and ‘he had it coming to him,'” Kuenzle said.

Kuenzle told the New York Post, “It’s mind-blowing to me. I was so angry and upset.”

After Jung realized he had offended his co-workers, he reportedly offered to buy lunch for the department.

Kuenzle wrote on Instagram, “You are sick and I’m not [gonna] sit back and hear it.”

She also lambasted the surgeon as a “disgrace.”

RELATED: Teacher suspended for allegedly showing Charlie Kirk assassination video to young students, saying he deserved to be murdered

Kuenzle reported Jung’s alleged concerning remarks to the hospital’s management. She claimed that she was suspended for blowing the whistle on the doctor. However, Kuenzle was later vindicated after an investigation by the hospital. Meanwhile, Jung reportedly resigned.

Englewood Health told Blaze News, “Consistent with protocol and best practices, Englewood Health diligently investigated the Sept. 10 incident that occurred between a doctor and a nurse in a patient care area.”

Englewood Health noted that Jung resigned and that Kuenzle is “expected to work her scheduled shifts.”

“The nurse was never fired; was never told she would be fired by Englewood Hospital; and will not miss any pay as part of our review of this matter,” the spokesperson said.

“Englewood Health is committed to providing a safe and respectful environment for all,” the statement concluded.

Jung is no longer listed on the Englewood Health website. A LinkedIn profile with the surgeon’s name has been deleted.

The Post reported that Kuenzle filed a lawsuit in Bergen County Superior Court against the hospital, Jung, and others. The lawsuit argued that Kuenzle was wrongfully suspended.

“[Kuenzle] had the audacity to question how Dr. Jung can comply with the Hippocratic Oath’s and the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics while celebrating the murder of a non-violent Christian speaker who was on a college campus,” the lawsuit states.

Kuenzle did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

As Blaze News reported on Monday, Vice President JD Vance urged conservatives to call out those who celebrate Kirk’s assassination.

“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer,” Vance said on the “Charlie Kirk Show.” “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”

RELATED: Stephen King forced to apologize for Charlie Kirk remarks, threatened with lawsuit, ripped as ‘evil, twisted liar’

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Charlie kirk reactions, New jersey, Lexi kuenzle, Matthew jung, News 

Beyond the products that it sells, Apple has curated a certain Californian ambience: clean, controlled, and intuitive. For two decades, to hold an iPhone was to hold the prevailing narrative, a polished glass and aluminum talisman that felt like the future. Now, in the era of generative AI, that carefully crafted image has begun to fray. The decline of a giant comes as a quiet, gathering irrelevance, a sense that the story is being written somewhere else.

The new story is one of chaotic, emergent intelligence, of conversations with digital ghosts. It is the story of ChatGPT, of Google Gemini, of AI agents that can write code, book vacations, and provide customer support. This is a software and cloud revolution, a paradigm built on the messy, probabilistic, data-hungry working of neural networks, everything Apple’s walled garden was designed to keep out. The company that perfected the closed system now finds itself outside the conversation. Its legacy, a fortress of seamless hardware integration and a loudly proclaimed commitment to user privacy, has become a gilded cage.

‘You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now,’ Apple’s own services chief admitted.

History offers its cautionary tales, filed away like old Polaroids. We remember Nokia, the Finnish titan that mistook its dominance in feature phones for permanence, only to be washed away by the touch-screen tide. We remember BlackBerry, clinging to its physical keyboards while the world learned to type on glass. These were not failures of engineering so much as failures of imagination. They missed the turn.

Apple, having once been the disruptive force, now stands at a similar junction, haunted by the specter of becoming the Nokia of the AI age. The iPhone, the very vessel through which millions first touched the future, is now a device whose smartest component is often a third-party app.

To understand this deficit, one need only speak to Siri, Apple’s voice assistant, now 14 years old and trapped in a kind of digital adolescence. Introduced in 2011, Siri was a marvel of command-and-control. It could set a timer, call your mother, check the weather. It operated on a vast, brittle architecture of predefined rules, a meticulously scripted performance. But the world moved on. Generative AI models like GPT-5 do not follow a script; they improvise, generating answers word by word from the patterns of a vast ocean of data. They are flexible, conversational, and sometimes creatively untethered from fact.

This very unpredictability is anathema to Apple. The company built its empire on products that just work, on a promise of flawless, deterministic quality. To release an AI that might confidently invent a historical date or fabricate a legal precedent runs counter to its ethos. The innovator’s dilemma has struck Apple hard. The principles that guarantee quality also breed caution. While competitors were launching public betas and letting users witness the strange, sometimes unnerving, birth of a new intelligence, Apple was caught flat-footed, debating internally whether to build on-device models for privacy or powerful cloud services for performance.

The company chose to wait, to perfect, and in so doing, it ceded the narrative. Soon after “Apple Intelligence” was announced, its most ambitious features were revealed to be mock-ups, delayed until 2026. The future had been postponed.

RELATED: ‘Transhumanist goals’: Sen. Josh Hawley reveals shocking statistic about LLM data scraping

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

The locus of “magic” is no longer the device itself but the intelligence that flows through it. Younger users, professionals, and creatives have integrated AI into their workflows, delegating tasks not to their operating system but to a chatbot. The interaction model is changing from direct manipulation, the taps and swipes Apple perfected, to dialogue. We no longer just command the machine; we converse with it.

In this theater of interaction, Siri has become a punch line, a relic of a simpler time, asked to perform basic tasks with the low expectations one might have for an unclever child. The perception is corrosive, undermining the very image of technological supremacy upon which Apple’s brand is built.

Steve Jobs envisioned technology as a tool to augment human creativity, to serve the user with elegant invisibility. Generative AI presents a different proposition: an active collaborator that anticipates and acts. It blurs the line between tool and agent, a line Apple has policed with rigor. The company’s laudable defense of privacy becomes a handicap in a world where AI models are fed on colossal streams of data. Apple is attempting to build a private, secure, and responsible AI, to get it “right” rather than “first.” It’s an admirable goal, but one that assumes time is a resource Apple still possesses.

The deeper question, whispered in the offices of Cupertino and now openly debated, is whether the smartphone itself is nearing obsolescence as a primary device. If cloud-based AI agents become the new tool, accessible from any screen or speaker, then what is the purpose of a meticulously crafted piece of hardware? “You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now,” Apple’s own services chief admitted, a startling concession to the tectonic plates shifting beneath Apple. The company that defined personal computing for a generation must now contemplate a future where the experience matters more than the device. It must learn to write a new story, one in which it is not the primary author. The silence from its devices is not a sign of failure, not yet, but of a frightened hesitation. The world is humming with a new kind of intelligence, and for the first time in a while, Apple does not seem to know the tune.

​Tech, Culture, Iphone, Apple 

America once taught kids to brush off insults with resilience. But calling words “violence” opened the door to real bloodshed in Orem, Utah.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

If we let this moment harden us into bitterness, we’ve lost. But if we let it challenge us to live with purpose, we’ve won.

Every kid in America grew up hearing that line. On the playground, it was more than just a rhyme — it was a shield. It taught us to brush off insults instead of escalating them. It taught us that words, while sometimes harsh, don’t have to define us. But somewhere along the way, our culture flipped the script.

We stopped teaching resilience and started preaching fragility. Words became “violence.” Disagreement became “hate.” And once you convince people that words themselves create wounds, it’s only a matter of time before someone decides that the “logical” response is actual violence.

That’s how we ended up mourning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Charlie’s death is not just an atrocity — it is a symptom of a deeper sickness. For years, our media, politicians, and institutions have peddled the idea that political opponents aren’t just wrong; they’re dangerous. That rhetoric doesn’t stay on the page or the teleprompter. It seeps into unstable minds. While most of us shrug it off, a few always take it literally — lone wolves who believe the time for words has ended and the time for blood has begun.

Not every politician gets that. But Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) did. In the wake of Charlie’s assassination, Cox’s response stood out. He didn’t rush to score cheap political points. He spoke about tone, about rhetoric, about responsibility. He reminded us that in a moment when it feels easiest to shout, the real work is to listen. That’s rare. And it’s exactly the kind of leadership this country needs right now.

Charlie built something that words alone couldn’t destroy. Turning Point USA is the greatest grassroots movement for conservative values in modern history. There have been 32,000 inquiries about starting a chapter. That may be 32,000 schools filled with young people who are hungry for truth, direction, and the courage to stand up for their values in a culture that tries to drown them out.

That doesn’t happen by accident. That happens because Charlie gave people permission not just to speak, but to stand. And he did it with a resilience that the “sticks and stones” generation would recognize.

He never accepted the idea that free speech is harm. He never believed that disagreement is hate. He spoke the truth boldly, and he trusted the next generation to be strong enough to hear it. That was his gift, and it’s why his death hit us so hard.

We often ask, “Would you be willing to die for something?” It’s the ultimate test of conviction. Soldiers die for freedom. Martyrs die for faith. Heroes die for country. Charlie Kirk, like so many before him, paid that price. But maybe it’s time to flip that question. Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves, “Are you willing to live for something?”

That’s the lesson of Christ himself. Yes, Jesus laid down His life on the cross. But before that, He lived every breath in service of the Father’s will. Every parable, every act of compassion, every miracle was part of a life lived for truth. His death mattered because His life had meaning.

Charlie Kirk’s death matters because his life had meaning. But now, it’s our turn.

Living for something is harder than dying for it.

Living means staying in the fight when you’re exhausted, showing up for your family even when the world says it’s easier to check out, and defending free speech — even speech you don’t like — because you know truth only rises when all voices are heard.

Living means lowering your voice when everyone else is screaming, and lifting up your neighbor when everyone else is tearing them down.

And living means refusing to paint every political opponent as an enemy. We all have friends across the aisle who would never condone violence. But we also know certain ideologies, media narratives, and political leaders pour gasoline on division. Some are complicit by commission, others by cowardice. Yes, they need to be called out, but we must also refuse to let hatred dictate our response.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk sparks viral Christian revival: ‘I’m going to go take his seat for him’

Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images

That’s where Cox’s restraint matters. That’s where Charlie’s grassroots legacy matters. That’s where the “sticks and stones” lesson matters. Because if we let this moment harden us into bitterness, we’ve lost. But if we let it challenge us to live with purpose, we’ve won.

Neither the government nor the media will solve this. Only we the people can solve this. The overwhelming majority of Americans — Republican, Democrat, independent — are not violent. They want to raise their kids, go to church, coach Little League, and live in peace. It’s time for that majority to set the tone again, to prove that dialogue beats demagoguery. That sympathy beats rage. That faith beats fear.

Charlie Kirk showed us how to fight with courage. Now it’s our job to fight with character, to show the next generation that “sticks and stones” is still wisdom, not weakness, and to remember that while one man’s death can shock a nation, it’s the way millions of us live that will heal it.

Charlie’s life was a challenge. His death is a charge. Let’s take it up. We must not only be ready to die for something — we must be ready to live for something.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assasination, Charlie, Politics, Media, Social media, Spencer cox, Hate speech 

In light of Charlie Kirk’s horrific assassination, congressional Republicans are looking to uproot “militant organizations” that have sown discord in our country.

Neville Roy Singham, a wealthy businessman and political activist, has bankrolled left-wing NGOs like Code Pink that some say are responsible for indoctrinating young Americans and heightening political polarization. Notably, Code Pink was founded by Singham’s wife, Jodie Evans.

‘We will no longer allow billionaires to bankroll anti-American political movements.’

“Neville Singham has spent millions funding militant organizations that have orchestrated violent riots and launched targeted hate campaigns against Americans with different beliefs,” Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida said in a post on X.

Given Singham’s role in propping up many of these organizations, Luna and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) are pressuring Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to freeze his assets.

RELATED: FBI unveils damning new evidence against accused Charlie Kirk assassin

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“We will no longer allow billionaires to bankroll anti-American political movements on behalf of foreign governments,” Luna said.

Singham is most recently being investigated for his ties to CCP-influence operations that fall under the purview of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Because he appears to fund many of these influence operations, Luna and Comer have called on Bessent to enforce penalties, including freezing Singham’s assets, to curb any “malign activities” executed by these organizations.

“It is imperative that we expeditiously halt the continued flow of funds and material support for malign activities conducted at the behest of the CCP,” the letter reads.

RELATED: Trump ready again to label Antifa as terrorists: ‘I would do that 100%’

Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images for V-Day

The House Oversight Committee also investigated Singham in June for allegedly funding “various extremist entities,” such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, on behalf of the CCP.

The committee called on Singham to overturn all relevant financial and communications documents pertaining to these far-left organizations. Unsurprisingly, Singham has not provided these documents to the committee.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Jodie evans, Neville roy singham, Code pink, Left-wing ngos, Anna paulina luna, Cap funding, Ccp influence, James comer, House oversight committee, Scott bessent, Polarization, Fara, Party for socialism and liberation, Politics 

In the wake of two successful defamation suits brought against the legacy media over the past year, President Trump is seeking justice against a longtime detractor. His current target: the New York Times.

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!’

Trump added. “The ‘Times’ has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected ‘rag’ responsible.”

Specifically, Trump is suing over the “defamatory, malicious, and false” publication of a book and three articles that he claims were intended to “kill three birds with one stone”: “damage President Trump’s hard-earned and world-renowned reputation for business success,” “sabotage his 2024 candidacy for President of the United States,” and “prejudice judges and juries in the unlawful cases brought against President Trump, his family, and his businesses by his political opponents for purposes of election interference.”

The book, “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” and the article “The Star-Making Machine That Created ‘Donald Trump’” were written by Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner. Another article mentioned in the suit is “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Peter Baker. The third article, written by Michael S. Schmidt, is entitled “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”

The authors are named as defendants alongside the New York Times and Penguin Random House LLC.

RELATED: NPR sues Trump admin, calls funding cuts unconstitutional

Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A spokesperson for the New York Times responded on Tuesday morning: “This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.”

The president cited his successful record of litigation “against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely ‘smearing’ me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts.”

Trump won a defamation case against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos, who agreed to pay $15 million to Trump’s organization in addition to $1 million in Trump’s legal fees. The case concerned claims made by Stephanopoulos on the network that Trump was found liable for the rape of E. Jean Carroll.

Likewise, Paramount Global and CBS News agreed to pay $16 million for Trump’s future presidential library in a settlement of a suit regarding the infamous “60 Minutes” interview with 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” he added.

The lawsuit has been brought in Florida.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, President trump, Trump organization, Defamation suit, Libel suits, Cbs, New york times, Legacy media, Abc news 

President Donald Trump signaled on Monday that Antifa militants might soon find themselves designated as domestic terrorists.

When asked about such a designation in the wake of his friend Charlie Kirk’s assassination by a coward whose ammunition was reportedly engraved with Antifa slogans, the president said, “It’s something I would do, yeah.”

“I would do that 100% — and others also, by the way,” continued Trump. “But Antifa is terrible.”

Trump indicated that Attorney General Pam Bondi would likely need to get the ball rolling on the designation and noted that they have been discussing possibly bringing racketeering charges against liberal groups that back similar stripes of leftist extremists.

Blaze News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller made clear in his Monday conversation with Vice President JD Vance on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that “we are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.”

RELATED: Antifa, gay furries, and bomb codes? What the engravings on the Kirk assassination bullets may mean

MELISSA MAJCHRZAK/AFP via Getty Images

“We are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” added Miller.

‘You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.’

While Democrats have downplayed Antifa violence and in some cases even denied the group’s existence, the president has long understood the real threat posed by the largely decentralized yet deadly revolutionary anarcho-communist group.

After all, they haven’t exactly hidden themselves or their intentions.

A Baltimore Antifa militant provided a good insight into the radicals’ thinking when he told historian Mark Bray, the author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” that when it comes to fighting so-called fascists, which appears to be a catch-all term for individuals standing in communists’ way, “You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.”

Evidently, Antifa militants have decided to skip letters and phone calls.

Amid the bloody 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, which inflicted billions of dollars in damage, left thousands of police injured, and claimed the lives of at least 25 Americans, Trump stated, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.”

‘Now you could argue, and I think it would legitimate, for a single terrorism designation against Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization.’

Then-Attorney General Bill Barr noted, “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

While the State Department has been granted the authority under the law to designate foreign groups as terrorist organizations, America does not similarly have an overarching domestic terrorism statute. As a result, the government tends to investigate and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism on an individual basis.

Various Republican lawmakers have unsuccessfully attempted in recent years to create an official domestic terrorism organization list — and to put Antifa on it.

Kyle Shideler, a senior analyst at the Center for Security Policy, told “Blaze News: The Mandate” on Monday that the Trump administration should instead “induct a number of designations against Antifa-linked groups, primarily in Europe but across the world.”

“Now you could argue, and I think it would be legitimate, for a single terrorism designation against Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization,” continued Shideler. “If you try to designate Antifa just as a single movement, what I suspect you’ll find is that the bureaucrats will say, ‘We don’t know what that is. That’s not a thing that exists.'”

Shideler suggested an optimal approach would be to find a number of foreign Antifa groups, tie them back to an international Antifa network such as the the International Anti-Fascist Defense Fund, “then you go after U.S.-based groups that are also tied to that international network, and so you build a series of designations that way.”

The Trump White House appears keen on making sure that Antifa militants are held accountable this time around.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Antifa, Terrorism, Leftist, Terrorist, Anti-fascist, Fascist, Leftism, Marxism, Communist, Anarcho, Justice, Justice department, Donald trump, Trump, Charlie kirk, Politics 

Pastor Howard-John Wesley, a black minister, has used the atrocious assassination of Charlie Kirk to rack up millions of views for preaching about the late Turning Point USA founder as being a “weapon of the enemy.”

“Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be assassinated. But I’m overwhelmed, seeing the flags of the United States of America at half-staff, calling this nation to honor and venerate a man who was an unapologetic racist and spent all of his life sowing seeds of division and hate into this land,” Wesley said.

“And hearing people with selective rage, who were mad about Charlie Kirk but didn’t give a damn about Melissa Hortman and her husband when they were shot down in their home, tell me I ought to have compassion for the death of a man who had no respect for my own life,” he continued.

“I am sorry, but there’s nowhere in Bible where we are taught to honor evil. And how you die does not redeem how you lived. You do not become a hero in your death when you are a weapon of the enemy in your life. I can abhor the violence that took your life, but I don’t have to celebrate how you chose to live,” he concluded.

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock is disgusted — and can’t help but recall the not-so-distant past when the left martyred an actual criminal.

“I would ask this minister … explain to me George Floyd. And let’s compare George Floyd to Charlie Kirk. And so when we talk about how Charlie Kirk lived, he went to church, he evangelized for Christ, he got married, he honored his wife, he had two kids, as far as I know, never accused of a crime,” Whitlock says.

“I think it’s difficult to say Charlie Kirk lived a life of racism. You know, he was a political activist. He was an evangelist for Christianity. He was a husband, a father of two kids,” he continues.

George Floyd, on the other hand, Whitlock says, died in a way equal to how he lived.

“George Floyd lived doing drugs and committing crimes,” he says. “But how he died, which was a drug overdose while four police officers were on the scene and Derek Chauvin was restraining him, that changed everything about George Floyd.”

“Charlie Kirk was assassinated not for resisting arrest, not for throwing a punch at anybody,” he continues, adding that it was “for debating people.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Fearless, Jason whitlock, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Black minister, Charlie kirk, Pastor howard john-wesley, Turning point usa, Racism, Charlie kirk assassination