Charlie Kirk is dead.

For the few who may not know who he is, I suppose I should start with a short , potted biography of who Charlie Kirk was, so as per Wikipedia; 

'Charles James Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was an American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality. He co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012 and was its executive director. He published a range of books and hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a talk radio program. Kirk became recognized as one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement in the Republican Party and, since his death, has been considered an icon of modern American conservatism.

I stumbled across him on YouTube. His big thing seemed to be visiting College campus's and inviting anyone who wanted to, to debate with him the issues of the day. The other aspect of him which the wiki clip misses, is that he was a Conservative Christian. 

Those words always depress me. They reek of wealthy Preachers, calling upon their congregations to make them ever wealthier, while bonking their secretary.

I'm not suggesting this of Mr. Kirk himself, who by all accounts was a sincere man.

Sincere, but divisive, or at least that is how his enemies would describe him. And this is what confuses me. In what sense was he decisive?  He would ban abortion. Well this has been a running sore in American politics since the early 70's and the divisions within US society that resulted can hardly all be blamed on Charlie Kirk. Same with regards Trans rights. I refuse to believe that Charlie Kirk is responsible for the bitter debate on this issue 

Besides why is it that those concerned about women's rights in this issue are being branded as divisive? 

Why not those wanting to allow rapists into women's prisons? Or those who see the mutilation of children as a healthy way of treating them? Why are these groups not "divisive"?

In my book they are.

So what is it about Charlie Kirk that attracted so much hate? I'm tempted to say it's because he was successful. He did change the voting habits of a generation. He helped Trump into the Whitehouse.

Those who have read my blogs will know that I don't see that as a positive thing, but in a democracy it is necessary to have more than one option. And Charlie Kirk was fulfilling a necessary function.

It's just tough on his opponents that he was good at it.

Saying all that I'm not his biggest fan. His debates were typically against bumptious, over confident, under prepared, under graduates who usually ended up badly beaten and looking foolish. Not always and sometimes Charlie boy won simply on debatable technique. 

However he did stand on the platform of courteous debate. And this seems to have ruled his opponents more than his opinions.

So they shot him and thereby showed what they mean by non devisive. Shoot those who don't agree with you 

I have b being are missing for a while now, due to a lack of inspiration and feeling the lack of something to say. This has now changed. Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I feel again that I have truth to reveal. The truth is nothing more than my own views. I'm not pretending it's earth shattering,  but interesting I hope