A shooter on the roof with a rifle, engraved bullets, and there are two dead victims plus one in critical condition. The shooter killed himself. The target was an ICE facility, and the bullets had anti-ICE messages.
This morning, a deranged gunman attacked a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Dallas field office from a nearby rooftop. The shooter fired indiscriminately at the ICE building, as well as at a van in the sallyport where the victims were shot.
We can confirm, the shell casings were found with anti-ICE messages on them. This was an attack on ICE law enforcement.
This horrific attack occurred amidst the 1000% increase in assaults against @ICEgov. Politicians and media pundits must stop the vile lies and smears designed to demonize and dehumanize ICE law enforcement.
Interesting message. Why do they call him “deranged”? (See my previous post today for a longer discussion of whether such killers are “crazy” or not.) He’s dead now, and I doubt we’ll ever know – except for the fact that completely “normal” people don’t ordinarily do such things unless they think they’re combating great evil and are part of a noble resistance underground, such as in WWII.
That’s where the role of the “vile lies and smears” against ICE come in. However, although apparently the killer was aiming for ICE, his victims were all detainees.
One answer is: copycats. It’s in the air. I believe the same was true in the JFK, MLK, RFK assassinations. The latter two took place in April and June of 1968, a time of extraordinary upheaval. It was also an era with revolutionaries planting bombs, and featured multiple cop killings.
Of course the killers back then came from different backgrounds and political persuasions, and had different motives. Were they crazy? No. The fact that some – such as Oswald – could be described as somewhat disturbed is irrelevant. They were all sane in the legal sense.
And I believe that is true of most political assassins, such as Robinson (and would-be assassins like Brooks), as well as long-ago assassins like John Wilkes Booth.
On the other hand, would-be assassin Hinckley chose a political target – Reagan – but his motive was not political and he came closer to the definition of “crazy” in that he was trying to impress Jodie Foster and was likely schizophrenic (although his diagnosis was disputed). In fact, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was kept in a mental hospital until 2016. I wonder whether he’d have been found not guilty if his trial had occurred nowadays, however. And I wonder if the fact that Reagan recovered factored into it as well.
Now the left is bound and determined to say all assassins are MAGA until proven otherwise, and that when their bullets are engraved with leftist sayings, they’re just being ironic and cute. Likewise, when they have leftist political histories, the left claims it’s a lie. When all of that falls through, the killers are just random crazy people, as good old Jimmy Kimmel – he’s baaack! – said on his return to TV last night:
This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution and it isn’t — ever — and also selfishly, I am a person who gets a lot of threats, I get many ugly and scary threats against my life my wife, my kids, my coworkers because of what I choose to say, and I know those threats don’t come from the kind of people on the right who I know I love, so that’s what I wanted to say on that subject.
So there we have the “sick person” description, as well as the “I’m actually the victim” and the “both sides” argument. All of which you hear a lot of these days.
Of course Robinson almost certainly is a “sick person.” The internet and the furry gaming community was part of that, a world into which he descended in recent years (did COVID lockdowns also have a role, perhaps?) But that doesn’t mean he’s not also a cold-blooded political assassin of the left, motivated almost certainly by political hatred and propaganda. It doesn’t mean he’s crazy. And it also doesn’t mean that it’s equal on both sides.
What’s more – and this is key – Kimmel also stated: “I don’t think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone.” Wrong, and we have the “X” posts to prove it, the ones from the leftists who celebrated the shooting. They were very numerous, and very chilling, and although Robinson wasn’t formally allied with these people in an organization, they nevertheless support him and it’s no stretch at all to say that Robinson represents them.
Words are not violence. But words can spark violence in a receptive mind, and Robinson’s mind had become quite receptive. I have a hunch the reasons were a toxic stew of the following: immersion in an internet world; the idea that Kirk was a “hater” (particularly of trans people) and a “fascist,” things the left has been saying for a long time; and especially the idea that trans people are under physical attack and even victims of a “genocide.”
I noticed that latter assertion – that there’s some sort of genocide going on against trans people – around the time of the Floyd riots and Black Lives Matter’s ascendance. The latter was pushing the “trans genocide” myth in addition to the anti-police myth of widespread killing of unarmed black people by cops. Somewhere I believe I even have an old draft for a post on the subject, which I don’t have time to look for now. Fortunately I don’t need to, because Andy Ngo – a longtime expert on Antifa – has done the work on this:
These assassins are fostered by the left, and it is almost certainly quite intentional.
… and although I’m very close to finished, I recently hit an extremely frustrating formatting snag.
Formatting the essay book wasn’t easy, but it was a piece of cake compared to formatting poetry. The settings that purport to be appropriate only work for short quotes from poems, and that just won’t do for a book. I figured out a work-around, but then the formatting is messed up for prose chapters such as an introduction and afterward.
You can have poetry or you can have prose, but the latter requires indented paragraphs in a print book (not online, of course) and the former doesn’t. I’ve had a correspondence about this with the help desk of the software program I use, and they said what I’m trying to do can’t be done. It took me ages to learn how to use this program and I’m not going to start all over again with another that might not even solve the problem.
I’ve decided to simply cut way back on any pose sections. After all, the poetry is the thing.
BREAKING – At the United Nations, President Trump:
– Called for protections for Christians
– Eviscerated the UN for funding mass migration into the US and western countries
– Said Europe must stop adopting Sharia Law
– Harshly criticized globalism
– Slammed the UN for its climate alarmism
– Scorched countries for funding Russia’s war
– Promoted fossil fuels
– Urged countries stop falling for the “Green Scam”
– Said the UN doesn’t back up its words with any meaningful action on issues that matter
– Preached American exceptionalism and said none of their countries come close
– Demanded an end to biological weapons
– Concluded by urging UN members to protect their national identities by clamping down on mass migration and serving their people
And of course, clowned the UN for its escalator breaking in the lobby and the teleprompter not working.
Hard to argue with any of that.
(2) I wrote about this briefly in today’s previous post, but I thought I’d mention it again: Kimmel’s been reinstated, but Nexstar says “no thanks,” so many local stations won’t be carrying him.
Explanations of this anomaly have rightly placed emphasis upon the intensely Christian character of Pacific societies.
Adherence rates in most Pacific countries sit above 90%. Across the region, Israel and Judaism are exalted as the sacred foundations of their faith. Governments drawn from these societies duplicate these views, which are then borne out in international forums such as the UN.
… [In] Melanesia … local people now advance the claim they have descended from these dispersed [Israelite] tribes, a strategy designed to ensure their salvation
In a variety of ways, people have woven Jewish people, their sacred geography, and the state of Israel, into their own kinship networks.
This may occur directly, as communities assert membership of the ten lost tribes of Israel. …
The kinship connection may also occur indirectly, through expressions of spiritual affinities with Jewish people. In any case, it is in a truly Pacific manner that kinship networks have opened and then closed around those things they wish to extract value from.
They also get US aid. But so do plenty of countries that vote pro-Palestinian.
(4) Trump also had a seemingly cordial meeting with Zelensky, and made a statement that he (Trump) thinks NATO nations should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter their space.
(5) A jury in Florida found would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh guilty on all charges.
Routh served as his own lawyer, which isn’t usually a good career move. This seems to have been the case for Routh as well:
Jurors on Tuesday delivered a guilty verdict for Ryan Routh on all charges after he attempted to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club last September.
After the verdict was read, Routh reportedly appeared to try to stab himself in the neck with a pen before four U.S. Marshals restrained him.
His daughter, Sara Routh, reportedly stood up and said:
“Don’t do anything. I will get you out. What the f—, f—, he didn’t hurt anybody. This is not fair. This is all rigged – you guys are a–holes.” The jury was still in the room at the time.
Routh, 59, was charged on five federal criminal counts, including attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and multiple firearms offenses.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Stab himself in the neck with a pen? Is this some sick Charlie Kirk reference? As for the daughter, has she never heard of the idea of an attempt? As best I can recall, Routh was lying in wait with a weapon and was only stopped by an alert Secret Service agent. According to Google’s AI, here’s the definition of “attempt” in the legal sense:
The legal definition of “attempt” in criminal law is the specific intent to commit a crime and taking a “substantial step” toward its completion, even though the crime is not actually carried out. This substantial step is defined as conduct that is strongly corroborative of the actor’s intent to complete the crime, and it must go beyond mere planning or preparation.
I think Routh’s behavior fits that definition quite well.
And, in a strange foreshadowing of the Tyler Robinson texting “confession” to his roommate-lover, here’s what Routh had done:
The government delivered its closing argument first, with prosecutor Christopher Browne telling the court that the suspect had planned to kill Trump “for a long, long time.”
“It is not every case where the defendant writes his intent down on a piece of paper,” Browne said during his closing statement.
Browne was referring to note Routh wrote before he was arrested and left in a box at a friend’s home in North Carolina. It was addressed “To the World” and stated plainly, “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump.”
Sometimes I think things have changed dramatically for the worse since I was a child. And I do believe that’s true – of some things.
But sometimes I think there are aspects of human nature – and of left and right – that have hardly changed at all, and that perhaps we’re just more aware of them because of social media, the internet, and cable news.
For example, as an instance of something that’s really changed, we have Jimmy Kimmel, a talk show host on a major network expressing something other than empathy/sympathy/sorrow/shock at the assassination of a prominent American political/religious figure. In the 1960s, or when Reagan almost lost his life, talk show hosts kept their politics to themselves. Kimmel has become highly political in recent years – and unfunny as well as unentertaining. But until now he hasn’t been at all reluctant to offend at least half the country.
He got into trouble a few days ago, but now he’s being reinstated – sort of:
Nexstar Media Group, Inc., announced on Tuesday that it will continue preempting “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” despite Disney allowing the show to return to ABC.
“We made a decision last week to preempt ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel’s ‘ill-timed and insensitive’ comments at a critical time in our national discourse. We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve,” the company said in a statement.
“In the meantime, we note that ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ will be available nationwide on multiple Disney-owned streaming products, while our stations will focus on continuing to produce local news and other programming relevant to their respective markets,” Nexstar added.
It may even help his sagging ratings. More people might tune in to hear whether he’ll continue to diss the right or whether he’ll pull back a bit.
But although talk show hosts didn’t do this back then, I remember that when JFK was assassinated the left lost no time whatsoever blaming the right even though the killer was a Communist. The left – and many regular Democrats – blamed the right for creating a “climate of violence.” Sound familiar?
And what of the chickens of the title of this post? It comes from a speech and answer given by Malcolm X – who later was himself cut down by an assassin’s bullet that most agree came from his old allies now turned enemies, the Nation of Islam. At the time of the speech, not long after JFK was assassinated, he was still allied with that group, but by the time he was killed in 1965 he had pulled away. If you read the speech you can see themes that are very popular with today’s left; here are some excerpts, for example:
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us that as it was the evil sin of slavery that caused the downfall and destruction of ancient Egypt and Babylon, and of ancient Greece, as well as ancient Rome, so it was the evil sin of colonialism (slavery, nineteenth-century European style) that caused the collapse of the white nations in present-day Europe as world powers. Unbiased scholars and unbiased observers agree that the wealth and power of white Europe has rapidly declined during the nineteen-year period between World War II and today.
So we of this present generation are also witnessing how the enslavement of millions of black people in this country is now bringing White America to her hour of judgment, to her downfall as a respected nation. And even those Americans who are blinded by childlike patriotism can see that it is only a matter of time before White America too will be utterly destroyed by her own sins, and all traces of her former glory will be removed from this planet forever.
But before God can set up his new world, the Muslim world, or world of Islam, which will be established on the principles to truth, peace, and brotherhood, God himself must first destroy this evil Western world, the white world…a wicked world, ruled by a race of devils, that preaches falsehood, practices slavery, and thrives on indecency and immorality. You and I are living in that great Doomsday, the final hour, when the ancient prophets predicted that God himself would appear in person, in the flesh, and with divine power He would bring about the judgement and destruction of this present evil world. …
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro’s struggle, and they can control the Negro’s so-called revolt. The Negro “revolution” is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God.
The black revolution is the struggle of the nonwhites of this earth against their white oppressors.
It goes on for quite some time in that vein. But the “chickens” part came as part of a question and answer period afterwards. I don’t think there’s any recording of it, but here’s Malcolm X a few months later, attempting to explain his remarks. Again, it’s very familiar stuff:
If you go to YouTube and look at the comments there, they almost all say some version of “Yes, that’s what happened to Charlie Kirk, too.” I’ll give you just a few typical examples, all put up after Kirk was killed:
Charlie Kirk
I thought about this after Charlie Kirk got popped
The chickens appeared in Utah yesterday to greet Charlie Kirk
Charlie Kirk is all I shall say.
When I heard about Charlie Kirk this was the first thing that came to mind.
“They won’t even admit the knife is there” is basically half of Charlie Kirk’s content
We Know Why we’re all here.
And of course we have so many social media postings, and pundits and politicians, openly saying the same thing about Charlie Kirk’s killing. One popular observation is the idea that it’s fitting that Kirk was killed with a gun, since he supported gun rights and said that defending liberty by supporting the Second Amendment meant – sadly – that some people would be killed by guns. The assassination is generally justified and even applauded by many people on those grounds plus the idea that Kirk was a “hater” – although nothing could be further from the truth.
[NOTE: I haven’t watched most of the speeches at the Charlie Kirk memorial yesterday, but I’ve seen short clips and read excerpts plus Erika Kirk’s entire speech.]
Erika Kirk is clearly a remarkable woman, but one would expect that because she was married to a remarkable man.
To even be able to give a public address so soon after her husband’s murder shows tremendous fortitude, especially for a young widow with two small children. But it’s not just that; the content of her speech was also impressive.
You can read the full transcript here. You can find a video here. The speech focuses on many things – religion and one’s purpose in the world, for example – but a goodly portion is devoted to her marriage with Charlie and his message, which is now her message, of what such a marital relationship can and should be. A relevant excerpt on that subject:
The greatest cause in Charlie’s life was trying to revive the American family. When he spoke to young people, he was always eager to tell them about God’s vision for marriage — and how, if they could just dare to live it out, it would enrich every part of their life in the same way it enriched ours.
Someone once asked me how Charlie and I kept our marriage so strong when he was busy traveling.
And our little secret? It was love notes.
Every Saturday, Charlie wrote one for me. He never missed a Saturday.
In every single one of them, he’d tell me what his highlight was for the week, how grateful he was for me and our babies.
And always, at the end, he would ask the most beautiful question:
“Please let me know how I can better serve you as a husband.”
Charlie perfectly understood God’s role for a Christian husband: a man who leads so that he can serve.
To all the men watching around the world — accept Charlie’s challenge and embrace true manhood.
Be strong and courageous for your families.
Love your wives and lead them.
Love your children and protect them.
Be the spiritual head of your home.
But please — be a leader worth following.
Your wife is not your servant.
Your wife is not your employee.
Your wife is not your slave.
She is your helper.
You are not rivals. You are one flesh—working together for the glory of God.
That’s an ideal worth striving for, and isn’t limited to Christian believers. Erika Kirk clearly wants that message to reach young people.
But probably the part of her speech that got the most coverage was this:
Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the lost boys of the West—the young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith, and no reason to live.
The men wasting their lives on distractions.
The men consumed with resentment, anger, and hate.
Charlie wanted to help them. He wanted them to have a home with Turning Point USA.
When he went onto campus, he was looking to show them a better path—a better life that was right there for the taking.
My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life.
That young man.
That young man.
On the cross, our Savior said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
That man—that young man—I forgive him.
I forgive him because it’s what Christ did.
And it’s what Charlie would do.
The answer to hate is not hate.
The answer—we know from the gospel—is love.
Always love.
Love for our enemies.
Love for those who persecute us.
The idea of forgiveness that she is demonstrating in extremely impressive and not the least bit easy. But it is not about law. It is her personal choice, informed by her religion and probably also her desire to set an example of love and not be consumed by hatred. But earthly justice follows different rules – and must.
For many years I have thought deeply about forgiveness. Long before my political change, I balked (and still balk) at the idea that forgiveness is required towards a person who has not apologized or shown any understanding of his or her offenses or desire to change. But yes, forgiveness can nevertheless be given, as a religious or personal choice.
NOTE: I wrote a previous post on the subject of forgiveness that’s very relevant; you can read it here.
It may seem like Bizarro World, but it’s reality – a reality that we knew was coming because it was previously announced, but that doesn’t make it any less repellent:
The United Kingdom, Canada and Australia on Sunday all recognized a putative Palestinian state, acting amid Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza.
The synchronized announcements, coming within minutes of each other, defied opposition from the American and Israeli governments, which said such a move would be a reward for terrorism.
“Since 1947, it has been the policy of every Canadian government to support a two-state solution for lasting peace in the Middle East,” read a written statement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. “This envisioned the creation of a sovereign, democratic and viable State of Palestine, building its future in peace and security alongside the State of Israel.
“Hamas has terrorized the people of Israel and oppressed the people of Gaza, wreaking horrific suffering,” the statement continued. “It is imperative that Hamas release all hostages, fully disarm and play no role in the future governance of Palestine. Hamas has stolen from the Palestinian people, cheated them of their life and liberty, and can in no way dictate their future.
“The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established. … It is in this context that Canada recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel,” Carney said.
Delusional in so many ways. The two-state solution was a dream that was worth pursuing, but it has become abundantly clear that the Palestinians don’t support it and that it is now a mere fantasy. You can’t have a two-state solution when one state wants to obliterate the other.
And a country such as Canada can say all it wants that it is imperative that Hamas release all hostages, fully disarm, and play no future role in “Palestine.” Empty blather. What are you going to do to make that happen, Carney? Reward them with a recognized state – at present, when they have steadfastly refused to do any such things (au contraire) and have toyed with useful idiots such as you?
But perhaps the worst part of Carney’s message was this slander:
The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established.
Oh, if only there was no Netanyahu and his administration, working so hard to prevent a glorious and peacefully co-existing Palestinian state that the Palestinians have tried so hard to establish, the dream of peace would be realized. Either Carney knows zero about the history of the area or is lying in order to placate his constituents (among them quite a few local Muslims; Canada was about 5% Muslim in 2021 and that percentage has probably only increased since then, whereas its Jewish population is about 1%) – or he’s both ignorant and pandering.
I vote for both. There may be a dose of anti-Semitism thrown in there as well. A toxic brew.
That last bit about the vampires putting something in the water is a joke, but it’s one that posits a conspiracy theory to which somebody somewhere probably ascribes, so numerous and strange are these theories.
I’ve written many times before about the propensity of so many humans to come up with such things, but if you read just one of those posts I suggest it be this one. I suggest you read the whole thing. But I want to add what I think is at the root of these belief systems.
One part of it is – as I already mentioned in the linked post – that some generalized distrust of government and official reports (or at least skepticism) is justified by certain lies that officials have told in the past. A good example of this is Russiagate, or their lies about the origins of the COVID virus.
But I want to emphasize something else here, which is that people like to feel that they are smarter than average, and much less gullible than average, and some people do this by rejecting the obvious explanations that are supported by the actual evidence and prefer to latch onto something more obscure and even contradicted by the evidence. Why would that make them feel superior? Because they see themselves as marching to a different drummer, as not being taken in by duplicitous authorities mouthing lies, as being better and more intelligent than the rest of you who are stupid enough and trusting enough to believe in the lying official narrative.
So yes, to believe someone with a gun resembling a cell phone killed Charlie Kirk by firing at close range is preposterous and flies in the face of everything we know about the assassination. But there are always going to be those who reject everything we know and say it’s all (or mostly) lies put out by officials who have some sort of evil agenda to cover up, and that the conspiracy theorists and those of like mind have sussed all of this out and have the inside info – unlike the rest of you naive dupes.
The problem, of course – at least, one problem – is that sometimes there really is a conspiracy and the official word is sometimes a lie. Russiagate was a conspiracy and a lie, for example, and the first COVID origin story – wet markets rather than a lab – was a coverup. It can be challenging to sort these things out. But Oswald killed Kennedy on his own; it’s really not in question any more (see my previous posts on the subject).
And Charlie Kirk was not killed with a gun disguised as a cell phone.
The other day I came across the obituary of someone I knew as a college freshman. I wasn’t looking for information about her, but I saw it nevertheless.
I almost wrote “I came across the obituary of a girl I knew as a college freshman.” But because the obituary was dated only a few years ago, of course by that time she was no girl. She was someone most people would describe as old.
But that’s not the way she exists in my mind’s eye, despite the article’s description of a long – and what sounds like a productive and happy – life. To me, she remains that seventeen- or eighteen-year-old girl, the one I met in the first days of my stay at the far-off university I attended freshman year.
I didn’t fit in. Perhaps I wouldn’t have fit in anywhere; at the time, I was shy with strangers although not when you got to know me. I looked different from most of the students there, though. They dressed differently, they wore their hair differently, they understand the ropes of the place and I didn’t, and I was constantly being asked a question I had never heard before: “What are you?” Meaning “what’s your ethnic background?”
The person whose obituary I just found – I’ll call her Nancy, although that’s not her name – lived right across the hall from me and my roommate. She was the essence of cool at the time – the right clothes, the right hair, and tremendously attractive. But it wasn’t just her looks. She had a lively personality, was a bit quirky but not too much, and seemed especially sure of herself and comfortable in her skin without being obnoxious or even off-putting.
I lost touch with her after freshman year, and we hadn’t been close even then. But I wasn’t surprised to read about her accomplishments, both public and private, or the heartfelt tributes from friends. Such things fit with what I remembered.
I felt a sorrowful loss. She died not young, but younger than average. She apparently had some physical suffering in her final years; some of the friends alluded to her courage in the face of it. I wish I had known her better; she sounds like she would have been a good person to know. But it was not to be.
And she represents so many people I’ve lost, many of them people I lost touch with over the years but some of them those to whom I was close. There’s nothing to be done about it.
As one ages one has to be strong, that’s for sure.
