When Racists Write Charlie Kirk’s Obituary
Because leftists have largely controlled the print and broadcast news institutions in the United States for the last century, they have long exercised a kind of monopoly in rendering public judgment on the recently departed. In obituaries and news stories, leftists tell us who lived good or bad lives. It is no surprise that the lives of leftist fellow travelers are often assiduously scrubbed and polished so that the public might be persuaded to grieve their passing, whereas the lives of non-leftists are banged up and tarnished so as to dissuade the public from following in their footsteps.
In this way, Islamic terrorists are described as “austere religious scholars.” Weather Underground bombers and cop-killers are transformed into civil rights heroes. Serial adulterers and misogynists are extolled as “defenders of abortion rights.” Yet prominent conservatives and libertarians are routinely memorialized as “controversial,” “divisive,” “hateful,” “racist,” or “dangerous.”
This ignoble tradition has continued following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In news stories that frame Charlie’s opinions and speeches as the proximate cause of his murder, America’s pre-eminent news publications scarcely disguise their intended message: He had it coming. It is disheartening to see a good man being defamed when he can no longer defend himself from those who abuse him. For leftist news media, character assassination must always follow political assassination. Those who dare to challenge leftist orthodoxy in life cannot be permitted respect or grace in death.
Of all the different ways that leftist news media have attempted to assassinate Charlie’s character, it is their deranged description of him as some kind of “racist” that most infuriates me. In this regard, former ESPN commentator and current contributing writer for The Atlantic Jemele Hill provides a typically execrable example. Calling Charlie “dangerous,” Hill vomited this tripe in a recent podcast: “I’m tired of white supremacist beliefs being considered a difference of opinion. I’m really sick of that!”
I’m really sick of Jemele Hill and her leftist tribe calling everything they don’t like “white supremacy.” Note that even the biggest race hucksters in America are more inclined to lecture audiences about “white supremacy” than “racism” these days. Why? Because overt acts of racism are incredibly difficult to find — and usually come in the form of some Democrat justifying the harassment of Jewish students on campus or a crazed murderer proclaiming, “I got that white girl” after stabbing a young woman to death.
With the supply of anti-black racism running low in America, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and their race-obsessed friends have had to sell America on invisible “white supremacy.” You see all those nice people laughing and getting along in the park? That’s white supremacy! Have you noticed that Asian-American children work really hard to succeed in school? That’s white supremacy, too! Do you try to follow the law, pay your bills, and show up to work on time? Then you’re a white supremacist! And don’t get me started on the “global warming” effects of backyard barbecues. Could loving dads wearing “Kiss the Chef” aprons be bigger white supremacists?
With “white supremacy” lurking behind every “microaggression,” the grievance industry has made an amazing comeback in the years since Barack Obama taught America that electing a black guy with a Muslim name means the whole country must pay reparations. What we have now is a veritable catch-22: If you don’t do what leftists tell you, you’re a “racist.” If you do exactly what they tell you, you’re a closeted “white supremacist.” If you refuse to prostrate yourself before Stacey Abrams and recant all your “privileges,” then you’re basically a hood-wearing Klansman preaching “white supremacy” (or what we used to call a Democrat). Abracadabra — race hucksters such as Jemele Hill have conjured up an endless supply of fake racism to get them from one payday to the next.
In her desperate need to smear the legacy of Charlie Kirk simply because he was white and conservative, Jemele Hill outs herself as a living, breathing racist. If she did not judge people by the color of their skin, she would have taken the time to actually listen to what Charlie had to say. And if she had ever listened to any of Charlie’s speeches, she would have known that he saw Americans of every color as members of his extended family.
Charlie spoke of the importance of following Jesus Christ. He spoke of the immeasurable blessings found in relationships with family and friends. He spoke of the abundant rewards that come from living a virtuous life. He spoke of the value of self-reliance and the spiritual nourishment of true charity. He spoke of truths that exist in all places and times, and he rejected alluring but deadly forms of moral relativism. He delivered the same messages regardless of the skin color of those who listened. Had Charlie Kirk been black, yellow, green, or red, the truth he delivered would not have changed.
Yet to racists such as Jemele Hill, this man of peace and reason was a “dangerous white supremacist.”
If Hill had white skin and spent all her time demonizing those with whom she disagrees as “black supremacists,” she would have been run out of polite society long ago. Because she enjoys the opposite privilege, she makes a living spewing hate while calling those she slanders “haters.” It’s a lucrative gig if you’re immoral enough to take it.
Another racist black woman named Karen Attiah was apparently not as lucky as Hill. A longtime columnist for The Washington Post, Attiah claims that she was fired over the weekend after highlighting the “racial double standards” connected with Charlie Kirk’s assassination. On the leftist cesspool known as Bluesky, Attiah took advantage of Charlie’s public execution to promote her own brand of vile racism. Among the arsenic-laced calumnies she posted, Attiah complained about the “performative mourning” for “white men who espouse hatred and violence.” She then completely made up a racist quote and attributed it to Charlie in an effort to justify his murder.
It’s good that The Washington Post fired Attiah. She certainly deserved it. But consider the mountain of entitlement upon which Attiah must sit for her to believe that it is remotely appropriate to defame Charlie Kirk as a violent racist whose skin color justified his slaying. Can you imagine the blowback if a white writer had attributed a false quote to a black woman to justify her assassination? Al Sharpton would be busy burning every city in America to the ground, and Eric Holder would be busy coercing every newspaper in America to hire only black writers going forward. Because Attiah is privileged not to be a white male, she will no doubt land on her feet in good standing with the Fourth Estate — many of whom shared her jubilation over Charlie’s assassination.
While Hill and Attiah cry about “white supremacy,” they will keep banging that drum for racial “equity” — that magic word that allows people with the right skin color to avoid criminal punishment while jumping to the front of the line in college admissions and job hiring. Decades ago, we rightly denounced these kinds of unethical actions as forms of impermissible “racial discrimination.” Now the race hucksters justify racism in the name of “diversity.”
An objective reporter writing an obituary for Charlie Kirk would have noted that he treated everyone he met with respect and that he believed that every person — regardless of skin color — deserves love and dignity. But stating this truth would damage the leftist addiction to racial antipathy. So the corporate news propagandists call him a “racist” and “white supremacist.”
With every lie they tell, “journalists” bury themselves. They no longer have the power to rewrite history. They cannot blemish Charlie Kirk’s legacy.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/09/when_racists_write_charlie_kirk_s_obituary.html