I thought it was time to set the record straight. I am one person, with a very small blog. Anytime I get over 100 views a day, I rejoice. But truth has be proclaimed whether it’s from a mountain top, or in a desert where only the sand hears it.
I am here to set the record straight about Charlie Kirk. Was Charlie a man of violence? Did he really make these outrageous statements? Did he really believe in killing people who disagreed with him? Let’s find the Truth.
I have no agenda whatsoever. I’m not planning on doing anything but warning people about the soon return of Jesus Christ and trying to win as many people as possible before time runs out. But at the same time, like millions of people all over this world, I was unexpectedly hit hard by Charlie’s death.
The United States was hit so hard, in fact that Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, and Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., are planning to introduce a bill that will memorialize Charlie’s legacy in a $1 coin.
The coin will be a limited edition, set for only 400,000 which most likely will sell out in a matter of days. The coins will be legal tender, with his face on one side along with his full name, Charles James Kirk and the year 2026. The back would have the words, “well done, good and faithful servant”, a quote from Jesus.
“He tirelessly sacrificed his time, energy, and money to save this nation for future generations. Ultimately, at the hands of a radical leftist, he sacrificed his life,” Hamadeh said. “His life must be commemorated, and this coin will allow us to pass a reminder of his remarkable life on to generations to come.”
The Legacy of Charles Kirk
I was sitting right here, where I am now, when I heard the news. My first reaction was to pray that God would keep him alive as a witness to the world. Instead, God had a much better idea. An earthquake in Utah was a sign, not to the world, but to the Christians that this was a turning point, (no pun intended), in the world. And wow, how this world has been turned upside down. To read my article about the Utah earthquake click Utah’s Very Strange Earthquake. That God would choose me, of all people to help bring this news to the world, was humbling beyond measure. So far, my article has been read over 3,000 times.
The death of Charlie Kirk prompted millions of people to attend church the following Sunday. While many major outlets have remained silent, CBN News has documented a remarkable surge in church attendance—up to 70% in some states, surpassing even Easter Sunday. This isn’t just a statistic. It’s a signal.
People have pledged their loyalty to their country, to God, and to following Charlie’s example by bringing the truth to the youth, rather than expecting the youth to seek it out. In London, over 1 million took to the streets; although legacy media did everything they could to minimize Charlie’s death as part of this protest, you couldn’t help but hear the crowd chanting “Charlie” in the background. As mid-term elections approach, the political landscape is shifting in ways legacy media refuses to acknowledge. This movement isn’t just growing—it’s redefining the ground beneath it.
Some voices on the far-right have begun to question the integrity of the election process, invoking terms like ‘revolution’ and ‘overthrow.’ But even among them, there’s a growing recognition: the death of Charlie Kirk has stirred something far deeper than politics. It awakened a spiritual giant—one that transcends party lines and demands a reckoning.
I truly believe that the life of Stephen, the martyr in the book of Acts is a mirror of the story of Charlie Kirk. I have written on that subject already, but I feel it’s important to repost it here. His life was a testimony of a Christian called by God for a purpose, and what lengths Satan will go to when he perceives a threat. Little did Satan know what a firestorm Charlie’s death would mean. Satan himself regrets motivating the death of Charlie Kirk.
The Case of Charlie Kirk
There is a story in the book of Acts about a young man named Stephen. I am fascinated at how closely the actions of Stephen mirror that of Charlie Kirk. Now, there is a phrase I have come to rely on every day: I don’t know. I will freely admit, an entire encyclopedia set could be written on everything I don’t know. I’m no genius by any stretch of the imagination. I’m only going on what I have seen while watching Charlie himself, and my knowledge of the Bible.
8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, – Acts 6:8-12 ESV
Now if there was ever a hero from the Bible, Stephen was it. If you actually read the passage, you know that Steven’s ministry mirrored Charlie Kirk’s to the letter! In fact, Charlie’s whole ministry was built upon one single premise: Prove Me Wrong. As the scripture above attested to, “But they could not withstand the wisdom and Spirit with which he (Stephen) was speaking.” Now the story of Stephen stretches on to the 8th chapter of Acts and while his story deserves to be told, it has little to do with this article. But here’s what you should know about Stephen.
54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. – Acts 7:54-58 ESV
The martyr of Stephen paved the way for Saul, and in case you’ve never heard of Saul, he later became known as the Apostle Paul and wrote the majority of the New Testament. So, let’s begin in the spirit of Charlie, telling it exactly like it is. Every sick lie that could be told about Charlie Kirk, that could be told against him has been told. He has been accused of racial slurs, antisemitism, and even calling for the death of members of the LGBTQ community.
My Conversation with Google Gemini
This is a word for word conversation with Google’s Ai Gemini. I think it is well known that Google as a company has been known for its support of left and liberal causes. At one time, I had ChatGPT as my Ai conversation here, but because of the varied opinions on ChatGPT, I decided to change it to Google Gemini so there could be no argument. Everything has been copied and pasted as a whole. My comments are highlighted in yellow, other than the highlighting itself, nothing has been altered. NOTE: at one point Gemini gives a link to a video accusing Charlie of being a white supremist; that link has been disabled.
What can you tell me about Charlie Kirk?
Charlie Kirk was a right-wing political activist, media personality, and author who co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012. He was its executive director and later served as CEO. Kirk was also a prominent ally of President Donald Trump, and his organization, TPUSA, played a significant role in engaging young people in conservative politics.
Career and Political Views
Kirk’s career was marked by his efforts to promote conservative and “anti-woke” viewpoints on high school and college campuses. He used social media platforms, podcasts, and his radio show, The Charlie Kirk Show, to disseminate his views. He was a staunch supporter of gun rights, opposing gun control measures, and an anti-abortion Christian. He also took strong stances against DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, and LGBTQ+ rights.
He was a vocal critic of what he considered to be “woke” ideology and liberal bias in academia and society. His organization, TPUSA, created a “Professor Watchlist” to highlight academics with what he viewed as left-wing views, which critics have called a form of harassment. Kirk also promoted misinformation and conspiracy theories, including claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. His political views were intertwined with his evangelical Christian beliefs. He argued against the separation of church and state and viewed political battles as a “spiritual battle” between what he called “western civilization” and “wokeism, Marxism and Islam.”
Assassination and Legacy
On September 10, 2025, Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. The incident occurred during a Q&A session. At the time of his death, he had an estimated net worth of around $12 million, largely built through his role at TPUSA, real estate investments, and his media ventures. Following his death, his wife, Erika Kirk, was unanimously elected as the CEO of Turning Point USA. The organization has reportedly seen a surge in interest and new chapters in the wake of his assassination.
Charlie Kirk, White Supremacist, Dead at 31
This video discusses Charlie Kirk and his political project.
I would like to ask you a few questions concerning Charlie Kirk. For this conversation, I’m going to ask you to limit yourself to verified fact. Don’t rely on social media, but any other source that will help you give me the most factual answers will be appreciated. Secondly, I would ask you to be completely apolitical. That offensive video you just suggested to me is 100% unacceptable. I don’t want rhetoric, I want facts. I don’t accept opinion: I am going to ask you factual questions, and I want factual answers. This conversation will be posted in its entirety on my blog. Copied and pasted so that my questions and your responses are not altered. Do you agree to help me in this?
I apologize for the previous response and the unacceptable video link. It was a mistake, and I understand your request for factual, apolitical information. I will correct this and provide you with a new response that adheres to your specific instructions.
I agree to help you. I will limit my answers to verified facts and avoid political rhetoric, opinion, or any potentially offensive content. I will only use reliable sources to answer your questions. I understand that this conversation will be posted on your blog, and I will ensure my responses are factual and neutral.
Please ask your questions, and I will do my best to provide you with the most accurate and apolitical information available. I am ready to begin when you are.
1. Did Charlie Kirk ever, even in passing, state that members of the LGBTQ community should be executed?
In a June 2024 episode of his podcast, Charlie Kirk was discussing a social media post by a YouTube personality named Ms. Rachel, who had wished a “Happy Pride” to LGBTQ+ people and referenced a biblical passage about loving one’s neighbor. Kirk, in his response, referenced a different passage from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, specifically mentioning the stoning of a man who lies with another man. He stated, “it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying.”
Was that statement refuted by a fact checking group and Charlie was actually rebuking Ms. Rachel?
Based on fact-checking by organizations like FactCheck.org, Charlie Kirk’s statement was a direct reference to a specific passage in the Old Testament. He used the quote in a discussion with a public figure who had used another biblical passage to express support for the LGBTQ+ community. He was pointing out what he saw as a contradiction, arguing that one should “love God’s law,” which he contended includes the biblical passage about stoning.
The fact-checking confirmed that Kirk’s words were a direct quote of the biblical passage in question. The context was him “rebuking” Ms. Rachel, but not in the sense of refuting her statement as factually incorrect. Rather, he was challenging her interpretation of the Bible as a whole.
Following the event, author Stephen King, who had initially claimed that Kirk had “advocated stoning gays to death,” later retracted his statement and apologized, saying that what Kirk had “actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”
Thank you for your clarification.
You are welcome. Please feel free to ask any further questions you may have. I will continue to provide you with factual and neutral information.
2. During question and answer sessions in his college events, did Charlie ever advocate the use of violence to affect political change?
According to reporting from various news outlets and organizations, there is no evidence that Charlie Kirk advocated for the use of violence to effect political change during his question-and-answer sessions or other public appearances.
His events, particularly on college campuses, were known for being forums for debate and verbal engagement, often with the “Prove Me Wrong” banner. Accounts from attendees and news reports describe these sessions as platforms where he would challenge and be challenged by students on various political topics.
However, it is important to note that his rhetoric was often described as provocative and inflammatory by critics. Some sources, for instance, have pointed out that he stated that “gun deaths were ‘worth it’ to maintain gun rights” and that he has been a vocal proponent of a “spiritual battle” against what he deemed “wokeism, Marxism and Islam.” While such statements are considered inflammatory by some, they do not constitute direct calls for violence.
3. On occasions, Charlie Kirk did respond decisively when people confronted him with inflammatory statements. Did Charlie ever say anything that could have been construed as a threat?
Information on Charlie Kirk’s public statements does not include any confirmed instances of him making direct threats against individuals during his question-and-answer sessions or other public events. His style of engagement was known to be confrontational and provocative, but it was centered on verbal debate rather than physical threats.
While his rhetoric was often described by critics as inflammatory and polarizing, reports from various sources characterize his interactions as a form of “verbal combat.” For example, he engaged in public debates on topics like gun control, the Civil Rights Act, and gender identity, often using what some perceived as provocative language. However, these reports do not indicate that he used this confrontational style to issue threats.
It is worth noting that in the aftermath of his death, there have been arrests of individuals who made threats of violence, with some claiming to be acting in support of him. However, these actions were carried out by others and were not statements made by Charlie Kirk himself.
4. (Last Question). Did Charlie Kirk ever, in any venue, ever suggest assassinations were acceptable ways to forward political change?
No. There are no credible reports or verified accounts of Charlie Kirk ever suggesting that assassinations were an acceptable means to forward political change. In fact, his public statements and actions indicate a focus on political change through verbal debate, grassroots organizing, and electoral processes.
He frequently held “Prove Me Wrong” events on college campuses, which were designed to engage in verbal arguments and debates. He was a prominent advocate for the First Amendment and the right to free speech, arguing that even “ugly” or “gross” speech should be protected. His organization, Turning Point USA, focused on mobilizing young voters and building a conservative political movement through non-violent means.
However, it is important to note that critics frequently described his rhetoric as inflammatory, divisive, and sometimes dehumanizing towards his opponents. While these statements did not call for violence, they were viewed by some as contributing to a climate of political polarization and mistrust. In a post on X.com (formerly Twitter) in April 2025, he warned of a “spreading” “assassination culture” on the political left, citing a study that found a significant percentage of left-leaning individuals believed violence against public figures was justified. He condemned this trend, stating that the left was “being whipped into a violent frenzy.”
Thank you for your time, I appreciate your responses.
You’re very welcome. I’m glad I could provide you with the information you were looking for.
I’m here if you have any more questions in the future.
The Real Truth
The truth of the matter is that Charlie Kirk went to these events with the hope and prayer that first and foremost, he could reach young people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly, his hope was to engage people in conversation and yes, persuade people that his point of view was not only worth considering, but openly challenging people to “Prove Me Wrong”.
Charlie Kirk was martyred because he was the most dangerous individual the left had seen in many years. Not only could he destroy their rhetoric, lies and hypocrisy, but Charlie Kirk had a way of reaching these kids, with logic, understanding and passion, and left colleges and universities with far more conservatives than existed when he entered. And that is why his death mirrored Stephen; he was killed because they could not resist his words and his spirit. Charlie Kirk had the very same gift from God.
In closing, let’s name what’s already evident. The moral high ground once claimed by the Democratic Party has eroded—not gradually, but decisively. When public figures and supporters celebrate the death of a husband and father of two young children, it’s not just political—it’s spiritual decay. Even among those praying for a national turnaround, many now admit unless a miracle resounds with unmistakable clarity, there may not be enough time to shift the tide before the next election.
Short of a miracle (such as the rapture of the church) they are facing a massive loss in 2026. Let’s hope the rapture occurs. Just as Stephen’s death paved the way for the Apostle Paul’s ministry, Charlie’s death has caused a massive revival in this country. Scores of people have published posts denouncing their previous life as a liberal democrat and are not embracing a brand-new life, and that as a Christian.
While liberal voices try to suppress us, we are completely out of their control! We don’t flinch at threats of violence; they fuel our determination. The more pressure they put on us, the louder our voices become. They couldn’t silence now us for any reason on earth. They sound loud, but they’re scared. The boldness given to us in these last days will proclaim the return of Jesus until the day we’re taken away.
In a very short while, Jesus will return and remove us from this planet. And liberals will have 7 years to prove their ability to build a utopia without God, while we celebrate a utopia with Him.
If this article has impacted you, I would ask that you read my news page, Signs of the Times Blog.
There, you will find current events explained in light of Bible Prophecy.
Leave a Reply