The Left’s Lies About Charlie Kirk

Lies, lies, and more lies. From the moment Charlie Kirk, 31-year-old husband, father, committed Christian and conservative influencer, was publicly assassinated while engaging students and critics in respectful debate, the demonic left, enabled by some in the media, has rushed to celebrate (or at least condone) his murder.

This, even though any extended review of his speeches, podcasts, interviews and debates shows a kind, charming and respectful man who, despite disagreeing strongly with his opponents, always encouraged civil debate.

He repeatedly argued that not talking to each other about our political differences is what leads to violence.

“He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him,” wrote Ezra Klein, the liberal New York Times columnist, in a piece mourning Kirk’s death.

 “Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.” Klein described Kirk as a practitioner of persuasion — a fierce ideological opponent but one who still played by the rules.

Even Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted that we should “continue the work” of Charlie Kirk and honor his memory.

So how can the left demonize Charlie Kirk?

Well, the way they justify it is by falsely smearing the extremely decent Kirk as a far-right bigot and racist who somehow, without ever showing or encouraging it, spewed “hate.”

Often all they do is state these smears as fact.

But when they do try to back up their false claims they pull quotes out of context and accuse him of saying things he never said or of meanings he never intended.

Lying about who and what Kirk was and lying about his views and statements is the norm for Democrats and leftists.

Sadly, the selective twisting of Kirk’s words goes back years. It is not just a recent phenomena based on his passing, so many on the left take these oft-repeated lies as dogma.

Let’s start with a few of the biggest outright lies the left has said, and some continue to say about Kirk. And do note, this is far from an exhaustive list.

First, we have the whopper posted by liberal author of horror novels, Stephen King.

Right after Kirk’s murder, King quickly and ignorantly and outrageously posted on X that Kirk supported the stoning of gays based on an out of context conversation Kirk had with a critic.

King was quickly pilloried online and by common folks and politicians alike.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas responded to the post calling the “It” writer a “horrible, evil, twisted liar.”

When reviewing the podcast conversation in full, it was clear that Kirk had been warning his debater of cherry-picking things from the Bible, using the stoning line as an example of how wrong that could be.

Kirk made his comments during a podcast with children’s YouTuber Ms. Rachel in 2024 when responded to her arguing that the Bible verse “love thy neighbor” in scripture should apply to gay people.

On the podcast, Kirk said: “By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture…is that ‘thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just saying.”

Thankfully, and to his credit, King just as quickly pulled his post and apologized for being wrong.

“I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages,” King wrote on X on Sept. 12. 

King vowed it would never happen again. (Let’s hope.)

Sadly, not all those Kirk haters are as willing to admit they were wrong. Many still peddle that same horrible stoning lie about Kirk.

Another lie about Kirk, repeated by many including far-left Democrat Congresswoman, and foreign-born, Jew-hating Muslim, Ilhan Omar, is that Charlie Kirk openly said that he hated empathy, hence making him a despicable callous human being.

In an interview about Kirk’s murder, Omar said: “these people are full of s—, and it’s important for us to call them out, while we feel anger and sadness and have, you know, empathy, which Charlie said it shouldn’t exist because that’s a newly created word or something.”

No, Omar, that’s not what he said.

To make their point, leftists like Omar selectively pull the quote from Kirk where he says as an aside in a longer interview: “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.”

And while he did say that, what he said directly after that quote shows his real meaning.

“But it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy.” He said. 

In the full context, he was being dismissive of fake Bill Clinton style ‘I feel your pain’ empathy by arguing for something deeper and more sincere, thus changing the entire meaning of his intentions.

In another widely spread lie, critics claim Kirk somehow supported the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband because on a podcast he jokingly called for his audience to post bail for the Pelosi attacker, who surprisingly had not been bailed out.

“If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out…Bail him out and then go ask him some questions”

If you continue listening it is clear Kirk was complaining about how violent offenders in Democrat cities are bailed out all the time, but for some reason Pelosi’s alleged attacker was not.

Kirk suggested bailing him out to get to the truth, not to reward him, because he found the story being peddled by Democrats that the bizarre half naked attack on Mr. Pelosi was politically motivated as unbelievable and not credible.

While I personally may not have chosen to comment on such a topic this way, Kirk’s casual musings were in no way supportive of violence or the attacker. Kirk even said the attack was “awful and not right.”

Finally, there is one Kirk quote about the right to bear arms that is accurate but is used wrongly and horribly as a justification for Kirk’s killing or for calling it “karma.”

In 2023, Kirk said: “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth [sic] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

As he also noted, in reference to school shootings:

Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty…So we need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools.

None of what he says is wrong, or false, nor condones violence or shootings. He simply stated a simple observation and reality.

Most Americans would argue the same exact thing about, say, car deaths. The price of Americans owning a hundred million cars for our convenience and transportation involves accepting tens of thousands of deaths annually caused by cars.

Few would advocate banning cars to lessen car-related deaths.

Even fewer would claim anyone who implicitly accepts that car-death bargain and drives a car deserves to die in a car crash.

Claiming Kirk deserved or got karma for that statement is grotesque.

As I noted earlier, this is but a small sampling of the lies and smears being made by the despicable left against Charlie Kirk. I will hopefully be compiling more soon.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: White House Initiates Historic Security Overhaul Following Charlie Kirk’s Death