President Trump says that everyone is on board with his Middle East peace plan leaving the end of the Israel-Gaza war up to Hamas.

 

Action shot of a bombing in Gaza. NBC/Getty.

President Trump says that they are close to deal that would end the Gaza war. NBC. Trump said in a meeting with Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu that the end of the war could be close, but warned Hamas that Israel would be allowed to do what they want if they don't agree to end the war. There is a 20 point plan that Israel, along with Arab powers in the region and the Palestinian authority, have agreed to. It would involve Hamas releasing hostages, Hamas laying down their weapons and giving up power and a general amnesty or voluntary exile for Hamas members. An international committee would temporarily take control of Gaza until the Palestinian Authority would be able to take over. Trump has been critical of Israel for plans to take all of Gaza and the strike on Hamas leadership in Qatar. Trump was able to secure an apology from Israel for the strike, which killed a Qatari serviceman. 

My Comment:

Given how Hamas has essentially lost the war, they should absolutely pounce on this deal. Given that Israel has taken the gloves off, they would likely face antihalation if they did not accept it. Israel seems very angry about this war and I don't think they will leave the job unfinished. 

Does that mean that Hamas will take the deal? Of course not. They have continued this war well beyond the terms of sanity. If they had been smart they would have ended the war years ago, or never launched it in the first place. 

The problem is that Hamas are radicals, even by the standards of the region. They believe that all of Israel is theirs and their radical Islamic beliefs tell them that God is on their side. They are also obsessed with power and are in no way ready to lay down their arms and give up power. They simply aren't going to want to give up what they have. 

That doesn't mean that a deal is impossible though. Trump is right that he got most of the region on board and Hamas could face intense pressure from the Muslim powers in the region to lay down their arms. They could also face reduced aid from those countries, which Hamas needs if they want to survive. 

I do think that the position of Hamas and the people of Gaza is probably different. The people there have to be sick of the airstrikes and battles and the stealing of food aid from Hamas. They probably hate Israel as well, but at this point they have to understand that the October 7th attacks was an obvious mistake. They also might like the amount of aid and help promised in this deal and they might be able to pressure Hamas to take the deal. 

If anyone can pull this off it is Trump. He's ended quite a few wars since he got back into office and he is a true diplomat. But Israel-Hamas is a tough nut to crack and he already had one deal fall apart. Can he pull it off here? I hope so. 

I really do think that this war needs to end. Though the war does not have any real affect on me directly and I have zero sympathy for anyone from Gaza, I am more than ready for this war to be over. I hate how deranged people have come because of it and how much of a rallying cry it has become for the left. If the war were to finally end it would take away one of the major recruitment efforts for the left. 

Eric Adams has ended his campaign for New York Mayor. Will that be enough to defeat Zohran Mamdani?

 

Eric Adams. BBC/Reuters. 

Eric Adams has ended his campaign for New York Mayor. BBC. Adams is the incumbent mayor and will remain in office until January 1st. Adams was a popular ex police officer but his campaign was undone by corruption allegations. Adams lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani, a far left candidate, but ran as an independent. Adams has not made any endorsements but appeared to be critical of Mamdani, saying "beware of those who claim the answer to destroy the very system we built together over generations". The comment is perceived to be against Mamdani who is an open socialist. With Adams out, Mamdani will face independent former governor Andrew Cuomo and Republican candidate Curtis Silwa. However, due to the late date of his withdrawal, Adams will still appear on the ballot. 

My Comment:

This was a necessary move if there was any chance of defeating Mamdani. The field was way too crowded and the only thing Adams was doing was splitting the vote. With him out of the way it's very possible that Andrew Cuomo will be the next mayor of New York City. 

I shouldn't have to say why Mamdani would be a disaster for New York City. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a far left organization and has and still wants to defund the police. He's a Muslim too, and is a pretty open antisemite. Not just being opposed to the war in Israel, but to the point where he won't condemn the October 7th terror attack. He also wants crazy things like a $30 an hour minimum wage and city run grocery stores. In short, he's a far leftist and if he gets into power it will be a disaster. 

Adams was a much better mayor, even if everything negative they say about him is true. Better to have a corrupt mayor than an open socialist. Though I never thought the corruption charges against Adams was anything but political retribution. Adams may or may not have been corrupt, but it was clear that the Biden administration was punishing him for speaking out about their immigration policies. It was good that Trump dropped the charges, even if he was corrupt, because it was clear political retribution. 

Of course it's not like the other major candidate in the race is great. Andrew Cuomo is someone that shouldn't have a political career. Cuomo got me-too'd but that's not what I am talking about. Cuomo was the Governor who made the incredibly bad decision to house coronavirus patients in nursing homes, leading to unnecessary deaths. That should have ended his career but he's attempting a comeback. To be fair, he was doing better in the polls than Adams, and I reluctantly endorse him over Mamdani, but that's damning by faint praise. 

The real problem is Curtis Silwa. Silwa is a long term activist and a Republican candidate that has a long history of fighting crime with his Guardian Angels organization. Normally I would be all in on Silwa, but the problem is that he can't win. With Adams out Cuomo is still way behind. If Silwa drops out? Then there is a real chance for Cuomo to win. If Cuomo was smart he would make some kind of deal with Silwa to ensure that he drops out, because otherwise, I don't like his chances. 

Of course there is another problem. Even with Adams gone, his name will still be on the ballot in November. It's too late legally to take his name off the ballot. And if Silwa drops out it's the same story. In what appears to be a close election, it could be what determines who gets into office and I think it might mean that Mamdani will end up ruining New York. 

President Trump says he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu. AP.

President Donald Trump says he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. AP. Israeli officials have been hinting that they would annex the territory, leading to Trump's comments. The hints have been in response to many countries recognizing a Palestinian state. Trump has been an ally of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu but he has been critical of the state of Israel on occasion. Annexation would end the possibility of a two state solution and is considered a red line for many of the Arab states in the region. Unlike Gaza, the West Bank is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which is considerably more moderate. Israel is still involved in heavy fighting in Gaza. 

My Comment:

I get the feeling that Trump is fairly frustrated with Benjamin Netanyahu. I don't think Trump is happy about threats to annex the West Bank. And he was certainly not happy about the strikes against Hamas in Qatar. And I don't think he likes the invasion of Gaza City.

Trump wants peace and it's pretty clear that Netanyahu does not. Netanyahu instead appears to be having a temper tantrum over the West Bank because a bunch of countries recognized a supposed state of Palestine. I do think he has a point, there is zero reason for Israel to allow a Palestinian state. But man, is the timing bad. 

I'd also have to say that to target the West Bank like this is just crazy. The West Bank is not the problem. And neither is the Palestinian Authority. They have not been causing violence for the most part and are nothing like Hamas. To punish them for the actions of a bunch of other states is just ridiculous. 

Indeed, annexing the West Bank could lead to another front in the Israeli war to open. I am guessing there are a few people that live there that would consider this a red line. And who knows what the Arab states would do? I am guessing, at the very least, they would cut their newly reforged ties with Israel and go back to the bad old days of funding terrorists in the region.  

I am guessing that Trump's warnings will be listened too. Doing this makes little sense for Israel in the first place, but doing and also angering their biggest ally would be insane. I can't imagine that Israel would do something so irrational. But then again, who knows what the Israelis are thinking. They have for a long time just done what they have wanted without any real care as to what anyone else thinks. 

It also makes me think that Trump's further efforts to end the war will probably fail. Just like the war in Ukraine, I can't see Israel giving up the conflict when they are pretty close to wiping out Hamas once and for all. I just don't see what Trump can offer Israel that will make them stop as long as Hamas still exists and holds territory. 

One dead, two injured during a sniper attack on an ICE detainment facility.

 

A stripper clip with five rounds with the words "anti-ICE" written on it. New York Post/Government photo. 

One illegal immigrant was killed and two were injured in an anti-ICE attack on an ICE detainment facility in Dallas Texas. New York Post. The attacker, Joshua Jahn, was a 29 year old man and was found dead with a self inflicted gunshot wound. Though he hit immigrants, the message found on one of his bullets, Anti-ICE, suggests a political motive. Jahn used a 8mm rifle, presumably a Mauser, to target a bus that was entering the facility. Jahn was a registered Independent but voted in the 2020 Democratic primary. His mother was active on social media, and advocated for left wing positions, such as gun control. The incident was confirmed to be a targeted attack against ICE, despite hitting the immigrants instead of the ICE officers. The attack has been condemned by the Trump administration and has been cited as the third major attack against ICE since July 4th. 

My Comment:

Things appear to be escalating. By my count this is the fifth attack by a left wing radical in about a month. There was the school shooting done by a transgender person in Minnesota, the Charlie Kirk assassination, the attack on a local ABC affiliate, and the pro-Hamas shooting at a country club. This is the firth attack. 

There is little doubt that this was a left wing attack. The attacker appears to have been on the left and he wrote an anti-ICE message on the bullets he was using. His mom appears to be a left wing loon, though that doesn't necessary mean much, it does seem like the government is pretty sure that this too was a left wing attack. I'd also point out the utter hypocrisy of the mother calling for gun control while owning a rifle that her son used to shoot three people. 

We shouldn't read too much into the fact that he only hit the detainees. His brother said that Jahn was not a good shot and he might not even have been targeting people directly. He probably just shot at the bus assuming that the people inside were ICE agents, not folks on the way to be deported. I am guessing that the immigrants were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Despite the fact that the victims in the case are illegal immigrants, I am still angry that they were killed. I want these people deported, not killed, and certainly not by some loser leftist that can't even aim. There is no celebrating this attack on the right and I think there is pretty much universal agreement that the victims in this case did not deserve this. 

This absolutely does seem to be a copycat attack. Ever since the attack by Luigi Manngonie who assassinated a healthcare CEO, leftist shooters have been writing on their weapons and bullets. He also used a similar weapon to the Charlie Kirk assassin. Though the weapon hasn't been identified, it's mostly like an 8mm Mauser, a bolt action rifle. The attacker also used an elevated location to launch his attack, just like the 1st Trump assassination attempt and the Charlie Kirk assassination. All of this seems like this attack specifically was a case of contagion due to the media coverage.

I don't think this attack is part of a larger plot. Though Antifa has absolutely launched attacks on ICE before, this doesn't strike me as that. Antifa never seems to work alone and their last attack shows how a real Antifa attack would have gone, with a large number of rioters and a few shooters. It's possible that he had some links but this doesn't strike me as that. 

Instead, this feels like a "lone wolf" attacker. We saw this pattern all too frequently with ISIS. Core ISIS preferred splashy major attacks, but also inspired a wave of crazies that used whatever they had on hand because they were inspired by the violence they conducted. Many times those attackers had no real link to ISIS other than reading their materials online, but it would be unfair to not call them part of Islamic terrorism. I think the same pattern is repeating now with the far left. 

The left wing's response has been both predictable and disgusting. Since the victims in this case were illegal immigrants, they are trying to portray the attacker as a White MAGA extremist. The attacker is supposedly mixed race and very obviously not MAGA but that hasn't stopped people, to the point where they are even saying the message scrawled on the bullet is fake. 

I do think it's time to crack down on the far left. Doing so might not have prevented this attack, but it might have. The message we got from the Charlie Kirk assassin is that the left approves of violence and will defend you even if you murder a man for expressing his political beliefs. Does everyone on the left agree with that? No. But enough do that I think we will continue to see attacks like this. 

I also blame the Democrats and the media for this as well. They have been demonizing ICE for months now for doing nothing but what they are legally empowered to do and what the majority of Americans voted for them to do. They aren't Gestapo agents hunting down innocent people, they are professionals doing an increasingly dangerous job. The people they are detaining should not be here and removing them is not a bad thing. But the media is calling them Nazis and that's part of the reason this happened. 

YouTube creators banned under pressure from the Biden Administration will be allowed back on the platform.

 

File photo of YouTube. CNBC/Getty.

YouTube creators banned under pressure from the Biden Administration will be allowed back on the platform. CNBC. These channels were banned on YouTube for "misinformation" about the Covid19 pandemic and/or the 2020 election. YouTube removed many of these channels due to pressure from the Biden administration to do so, even when the channels did not violate any rules. The bans hit many prominent people associated with Trump or opposed to Joe Biden, including Deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, HHS director RFK Jr. and former Trump ally Steven Bannon. YouTube said that folks banned this way are now allowed to apply for reinstatement. 

My Comment:

Last week the Democrats were in a tizzy over Jimmy Kimmel getting suspended. It took six days for that t be reversed. Meanwhile there are thousands of people that have been banned from various social media accounts due to government pressure in the Biden administration that have just now begun to get their accounts back. YouTube isn't the only one, X/Twitter has brought back a lot of people that were banned, most notably Gavin McInnes. 

There is zero question that these accounts were banned at behest of the Biden administration. Nobody really disputes this. But for some reason when Biden wants people banned for nothing other than questioning the 2020 election or aspects of the Coronavirus pandemic. That's government censorship. Suggesting that the FCC will enforce the law that was voted on by congress is not. 

What is infuriating about this is that the covid vaccine skeptics were, at the very least, closer to the truth than the Biden administration. How effective the vaccine was is still an open debate, but if you even said something moderate, like low risk people and children should avoid the vaccine if possible due to the possibly of side effects, you got banned. Sure, some folks went off the deep end, saying that the vaccine was going to kill everyone that took it and it was some kind of depopulation effort, but the moderates got lumped into the crazies and nothing but a pro-administration. And I'd argue that the 2020 election censorship is even worse, even today it's hard to discuss without risking a ban. 

This was, of course, an injustice. It is good that YouTube is finally reversing this. But they didn't do this on their own. The Biden administration leaned on them hard. This is, of course, a violation of free speech. And it's crazy how the left doesn't seem to recognize just how bad their side is on this issue. 

I do think this is a good example of how insecure the Democrats were under Biden. They understood that a lot of their ideas did not hold up under scrutiny. Instead, they had to ban people from speaking out. This chilling effect was working when the left had total control over social media. This changed, of course, the second Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into X, with a much looser moderation policy (though I still occasionally get dinged by it). Once folks were able to openly say that the emperor had no clothes, everything fell apart for the Democrats. 

President Trump declares Antifa a domestic terror organization.

 

Antifa in Seattle Washington. Fox News/Cameron Higby. 

President Donald Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terror organization. Fox News. Trump asserted that Antifa is a direct threat to the United States government, law enforcement and the rule of law. Antifa, ostensibly opposed to fascism, has been involved with many crimes and riots throughout the United States. The movement is decentralized with no designated leadership, something that could complicate prosecutions. The designation appears to be related to the death of Charlie Kirk, though the assassin had no formal links to Antifa discovered as of this writing. 

My Comment:

I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand this is long overdue. Antifa is a de facto terror group that only has had the success they have because they have intuitional support from both the Democratic Party and many rich donors. Their actions are linked to many murders, riots and general chaos and they really don't have a leg to stand on morally. Though they claim to be opposed to fascism, their actions are inherently fascistic, given they try and silence the opposition and use violence to get what they want. 

On the other hand, I don't expect this to actually do anything. Declaring Antifa as a terror group is fine, but as a domestic terror group they would not face the kinds of things international terror groups do, like enhanced spying, bans from banking and even kinetic action. Without those things, I don't see how much changes. 

Trump is talking about going after the people funding Antifa and I guess that could help. However, these are communists and are often in small cells that self-fund. Getting rid of some of the funders, like George Soros, might help a bit, but these folks are usually unemployed and doing it for free. It would help, but it wouldn't actually stop the problem. 

Of course the fact that the FBI and other federal police will be focusing on Antifa might change a few things. Under the previous administrations, including Trump 1.0, Antifa was allowed to operate mostly freely and almost never faced federal charges. Instead they faced sympathetic state charges that usually resulted in a slap on the wrist at worst, and dismissed charges in most cases. Given that won't be the case I think a few of the worst of the worst will be caught up in the crackdown while the least committed will stay home. 

What I do know is that the media is running cover for Antifa again. They are describing it as an idea, not an organization, and some even saying that anyone that is opposed to fascism, which doesn't actually exist anymore, could be caught up on it. This ignores the fact that Antifaschistische Aktion was a historical organization and was a major reason why the Nazis were elected in the first place. Though Antifa is decentralized, it is organized and is a real organization, in the same way al-Qaeda and ISIS are now after much of their leadership was destroyed in the wars of the last decade. 

Regardless, folks are seeing this as mostly a symbolic move that won't do much. I think a few people might be rounded up and more than a few sources of funding will be shut off. But the real problem is that neither of those things will get rid of Antifa permanently. Indeed, I can see them going dormant in response to this, well, at least the less dedicated ones. I do fear that the true believers that have nothing else in their life but Antifa will instead double down, leaving the whole thing as a wash. 

Charlie Kirk memorial service held in Arizona.

 

Mourners pray during Charlie Kirk's memorial service. USA Today/The Republic.

Charlie Kirk's memorial service was held today in Arizona. USA Today. Kirk was assassinated in Utah earlier this month and his memorial service honored him. Many of the Republican's biggest figures, including President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke at the memorial while other large figures, like Elon Musk, attended. Most notable is Kirk's wife, Erika Kirk, who said she forgives the assassin, in accordance with her Christian faith. 

My Comment:

I didn't watch the memorial service, largely because I'm no good at funerals. But it is worth covering due to a few news worthy things that happened during the service, and I still had a few more things to say about the death and impact of Charlie Kirk. 

First, the news. It is notable that Erika Kirk was able to forgive the man that killed her husband. Forgiveness is a virtue in the Christian faith and it does show that Erika Kirk is obviously a good person. I don't know if I could forgive someone under these circumstances and I have to say that I don't actually forgive Tyler Robinson for his assassination. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe, but I never claimed to be perfect. 

The other big news from the memorial service is that it appears that Elon Musk and President Trump have made up. They were seen sitting with each other during the funeral and that's a huge sign that their feud is over. It already seemed like it was pretty much on the backburner and I am guessing that Musk had a come to Jesus moment, possibly literally, when he remembered that though the Republicans have flaws, he has a better chance with them in getting what he wants. 

But I am guessing that Kirk's assassination had a lot to do with Musk and Trump's reconciliation. Both men have faced major threats against their lives and I think Musk understands that it's a "hang together or hang separately" kind of thing. They both understand that their petty arguments over the Big Beautiful Bill and Jeffrey Epstein are pretty small in the big scheme of things and their common enemies are becoming more violent. 

And it's not like they are wrong. We have seen a ton of violence from folks on the left lately. The Kirk assassination is obviously the biggest one but there was the school shooting in Minnesota too. And this weekend we had two incidents too, where a man attacked a local ABC News station in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel getting fired, and an attempted mass shooting in New Hampshire, that was put down by a good Samaritan, where the attacker said "Free Palestine".

As for the long term effects of Kirk's death, I think it's clear now that things have absolutely changed in this country due to his death. Seeing him assassinated in HD video traumatized everyone that saw it and you absolutely can't argue that he wasn't a martyr for free speech. It's pretty much on the scale of the assassinations of JRK, RFK and Martin Luther King Jr. And like those three men I think he will have an almost mythical status for this generation of Republicans. 

I'd also say that I am thinking that Charlie Kirk's death might lead to a religious revival. The United States does generally have a cycle of religiosity, with the most recent one being 40 years ago in the 1980's. It's about time regardless, but Kirks death and his obvious faith in Christianity is obviously having an effect. He made good arguments for religion, from what I understand, and I have heard a lot of personal accounts of folks going back to church or doing so for the first time. Erika Kirk's statement of faith, forgiving her husband's killer, is a great example of practicing what you preach and will have an impact as well. 

As for the left, they can't help but to beclown themselves, even today. Indeed, folks were making fun of a child's drawing of Kirk because, well, I don't know why. I still say that the biggest effect of Kirk's assassination is showing to the world just how many folks on the left have completely lost the plot. Folks have lost their jobs for the horrible things they are saying about Kirk and it's absolutely having a major impact. Nobody that isn't a true believer is going to want to vote for the Democrats if they can't figure out a way to have their supporters not act like this. 

And I certainly don't think this is the end of violence from the left. Far too many of them have mentally justified violence against their political enemies. Most of them will be too lazy, too scared or too incompetent to actually do anything but some will try and I think there will be more blood before this burns itself out. Indeed, I was concerned that there would be violence at the memorial, but I am guessing the security for the event was extreme given how many major government figures were there. 

The good news is that Robinson's actions have backfired spectacularly. I hope that he has seen just how badly his attack has backfired. The Democrats are weaker than they have ever been and folks are now open about how tired they are of the transgender community. The man he murdered will be a legend for generations and it's going to be a rallying cry for the 2026 midterms. He never understood that violence has this affect when it's an one off like this, but I think he understands now.  

President Trump wants Bagram air base in Afghanistan back from the Taliban.

 

An Afghan Mullah reviews troops at Bagram three years after the withdrawal. Fox News/AP.

President Donald Trump wants Bagram air base in Afghanistan back from the Taliban. Fox News. Trump said he was trying to get the base back and though he could make a deal because the Taliban "need things from us". He also said it was in a strategic position and was "an hour away from where China makes their nuclear weapons". There was a high level meeting between the Taliban and the United States last March, though that was an effort to release George Glezmann, who was released shortly after. The Taliban has long wished to restore diplomacy with the United States and a deal over Bagram would go a long way towards doing so. America withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 after almost 20 years of war. 

My Comment:

As with everything with Trump, it is unclear if this is just a suggestion or a serious attempt at getting something done. Trump has made suggestions like this before and nothing has come from it. But he has also done things that nobody else could accomplish, like his historic visit to North Korea. If anyone would do something as seemingly impossible as this, it would be President Donald Trump. 

The benefits of this acquisition would be obvious. It would obviously be a major threat to China to have a major air base so close to their borders and Trump is right, it's near where they make their nukes. That was true when we owned the base for 20 years and it would be true again if we took it back. And it's not like we have been able to replace Bagram since we left there. 

It would also have other benefits outside of China. Having a major air base in Afghanistan would also be helpful if there was a resurgence of ISIS or other terror groups in Afghanistan. To the Taliban's credit, they have not so far allowed Afghanistan to be a hive of terror groups and have fought ISIS regularly. This of course makes sense because they have been major victims of ISIS as well, so it's not like they would stand in our way if we wanted to use forces at Bagram to attack ISIS. 

Another factor is that normalizing relations with Afghanistan would be a great way to gain access to their massive mineral resources, resources that have until now been largely unused. Regaining Bagram and having a real relationship with the Taliban would help secure these resources and perhaps keep China from exploiting them as well. 

Of course, such a move would be controversial. The Taliban are extremist Muslims. They provided aid and protection for al-Qaeda before, during an after the 9/11 attacks. And they have directly killed US soldiers in combat during our 20 year war with them. There are a lot of folks that would find any relationship with the Taliban to be abhorrent, and it's not like they don't have a point. 

There is also the fact that the Taliban is pretty horrible even if you ignore the war issues. They absolutely have major human rights issues and the way they treat women is absolutely abhorrent. And they are radical Muslims, with all the problems that implies. 

I am guessing that any potential deal with the Taliban will face a lot of resistance domestically. Trump would have a hard deal getting congressional approval for this. Not only are the Democrats not going to make a deal, they hate Trump no matter what, he's likely to face a lot of resistance from his own party, and not just from the war hawks. And there would be a lot of veterans and families of veterans that would be unhappy about this as well. 

Of course there is a long history of making friends out of enemies after America went to war with them. Germany and Japan are obviously allies now, and strong ones at that. Same thing with Vietnam, and that war was even worse than the war against the Taliban. The main difference I see is how recent we are normalizing relations, it's only been four years. There are still a lot of open wounds and for that reason I don't see this happening during Trump's administration. He might pull it off, but I don't know if I would put money on it. 

Jimmy Kimmel taken off the air after lying about the Charlie Kirk assassin's motives.

 

Jimmy Kimmel. BBC/AFP/Getty.

Jimmy Kimmel has been taken off the air after lies about the motivation of the Charlie Kirk assassination. BBC. Kimmel said on Monday night's program "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." (emphasis mine). Kimmel also criticized flying flags at half staff and President Trump's mourning of Kirk's death. The comments caused withering criticism against Kimmel and spurred the FCC to comment that ABC's broadcast license could be at risk if it continued to act against "the public good". However, it was Nexstar media that ultimately pressured ABC into pulling the show after they announced that they would no longer carry the program. Nexstar is one of the largest owners of local television stations and said that Kimmel's comments were not in the public interest. Though a direct motive for the Charlie Kirk assassination has been found, he can be fairly described as a liberal given descriptions of his political beliefs by his parents and other sources. 

My Comment:

The media is framing this as a free speech issue, and if this was just about how offensive Jimmy Kimmel was being, they would be right. Unfortunately, Kimmel wasn't just horribly offensive with his comments, he had crossed the line into defamation. That is why he got fired, not because he made offensive statements. 

Some context is necessary. The program where Kimmel made these remarks aired after court documents revealed the political leanings of the killer, Tyler Robinson. Those documents clearly stated that Robinson was on the left and was in a relationship with a male-to-female transgender. Though Robinson hasn't given a clear statement about his motivations, other than the leaked chat that said he thought Kirk "spread hate". It's very factually wrong to say that he was conservative, let alone MAGA, with the information the court provided. The only way you can really argue it at this point is to go full conspiratorial thinking with it, but Kimmel didn't even do that. He just made the statement as if it was a fact in the public record when the exact opposite was true. And there is every expectation that he and his writing staff must have known about the documents release as it was the biggest story that day. That crosses the line from opinion to an out and out lie. 

Free speech has never protected defamation and libel, and given the circumstances, his behavior is especially egregious. Disinformation about the motivations of the killer are rife on the internet and Kimmel was fanning the fires with a statement that he knew was false. The fact that he didn't retract it in the 48 hours since he made them when there has been no justification offered whatsoever for his false comments shows that he doesn't regret saying what he said, even though it's clearly false. This makes it look like he was lying about MAGA out of sheer malice and if MAGA was an individual they would have a case to sue the pants off Jimmy Kimmel. And if some nutjob out there does get radicalized by Kimmel's words and cites him as a motivation for some kind of attack, he could really be in trouble.

Kimmel's defenders cite free speech as a reason why he shouldn't have been fired, but it really doesn't apply here. His free speech rights aren't being violated. He lost his job, he didn't lose his voice. He is still more than capable of writing a blog post, printing a book, going on a talk show to speak or making a YouTube video or podcast. All that happened is that he lost his job, like so many other people that don't understand that downplaying and praising an assassination is not a good thing. He didn't get fired for his opinions either, he got fired because he was blatantly lying. 

Some are citing the FCC threats a speech violation as well, but again, it's not an apt comparison. The FCC regulations do have a say over what folks can say over the airwaves and it has to be in the public interests. Clearly lying about a charged political event in a extraordinarily tense time is obviously not in the interest of the public, indeed, it's reinforcing false narratives about a terrible crime. That's exactly the kind of thing the FCC should intervene in. 

Of course, it wasn't just the FCC that was putting pressure on ABC. It was Nexstar that pulled the plug and once that happened ABC had to cave. You can't have one of the largest media groups out there pull a show without it having major consequences for your bottom line. Kimmel was, at that point, not worth it and he was going to get fired no matter what. 

Kimmel is the biggest scalp taken in the wake of the Kirk assassination but he's hardly the first or the last. As much as the left is whining about cancel culture now, the fact is that they are being forced to live by the rules they set, though this time instead of folks getting canceled for drawing a cartoon the wrong way or arguing that there are only two genders or any of the other dumb things folks have been canceled for, it's because folks are inciting violence or praising an assassin. Is it great? No. But nobody should shed a tear for folks that lose their job when they are acting this vile. 

I think ABC might just be using this as an excuse to get rid of Kimmel. Late night TV is a joke now and I don't know anyone that watches it. It's not like like when I was younger when everyone watched Jay Leno or David Letterman. There are better options for late night viewing given the internet, but even then, Kimmel and his contemporaries had an extremely narrow draw of left wing viewers. Given that these shows are expensive, getting rid of them might have been a financial boon for ABC regardless. 

As for Kimmel himself, I am not a fan. Like everyone in my age group, I did watch The Man Show when I was younger and it's amazing that the guy that was on that show ended up being the most smug and annoying of the late night hosts. He somehow avoided getting canceled by the left despite being in blackface and he had a long history of being one of the shrillest people on TV. I am not at all sad to see him go. 

Finally, I really do think that the culture is absolutely shifting away from the left. That was already clear when Donald Trump was able to win his third election, but the assassination of Kirk and the backlash it has caused against the left makes it pretty undeniable. I don't know what is going to replace the woke left as the cultural force, they still control much of Hollywood, TV and the internet, but it's clear that their power is absolutely on the downslope. 

Man arrested after Charlie Kirk assassination falsely claimed responsibility to allow the attacker to escape.

 

George Zinn arrested at the scene of the crime. BBC.

A man was arrested after the Charlie Kirk assassination falsely claimed responsibility for the attack to allow the attacker to escape. BBC. 71 year old George Zinn was arrested at the scene after yelling "I shot him, now shoot me". Police say that he did this so that the actual assassin, Tyler Robinson, could flee. It is not believed that Zinn knew Robinson in any way and tried to take credit for the attack independently. Zinn was charged with obstruction of justice as well as four counts of possession of child sexual abuse material. Police found 20 images of CSAM on his phone. All five are class B felonies in Utah and could face 1-15 years per charge. Zinn is a minor criminal with a long history of charges, including sending a threatening e-mail to the Salt Lake City marathon after the Boston Marathon bombing. 

My Comment:

Zinn is a very strange case. Supposedly he is a conservative himself, which begs the question as to why he would help the assassin of Charlie Kirk, who is himself conservative. Well it seems as though Zinn was a well known crank that did this kind of thing all the time. He's gotten arrested 25 times, mostly for misdemeanors, and it's for behavior like he displayed during the assassination. 

Zinn strikes me as someone that absolutely should not have been out on the streets at this event. He's made bomb threats, he's been charged with disorderly conduct and he's also been arrested for trespassing. And he's refused to get any mental treatment for his obvious issues. He's going to be put away now, but mostly because he finally got caught in multiple felonies. 

He obviously wasn't colluding with the assassin. He didn't know Tyler Robinson and had no idea that Kirk was going to be assassinated. When it happened he decided, entirely on his own, that he wanted the assassin to get away. He legitimately might have helped do so, as police focused on him after he shouted that he did it. Robinson was able to escape because of this. 

His motivation makes zero sense. Supposedly he said that he wanted to be a martyr for Kirk, but given his actions helped the attacker escape that doesn't follow. Given his obvious mental illness, I wonder if even he doesn't know why he did what he did. Perhaps he wanted to commit a suicide by cop, but there still is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance caused by a conservative/libertarian man helping a far left lunatic commit an assassination. 

The case also reminds me of the other outrage of last week, the murder of Iryna Zarutska by DeCarlos Brown. Both Brown and Zinn were career criminals that absolutely should not have been out on the street. Brown was obviously worse given he murdered someone for no reason, but Zinn too committed multiple felonies, both the false confession that allowed Robinson to escape and the CSAM charges. Again, why on earth are these folks walking the streets? 

The good news is that Zinn is going to be going away for a long time now. He's charged with five felonies and he's probably got the attention of federal police as well. Having CSAM on his phone is going to utterly destroy his chances of getting a favorable jury for the obstruction charge and I am guessing he will die in prison given his advanced age and severity of his charges. He won't ever get the chance to do this again. 

Florida Attorney General declares open carry of firearms legal after appeals court strikes down ban.

 

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. Politico/AFP/Getty.

Florida Attorney General declares the open carry of firearms legal after an appeals court struck down the 40 year ban. Politico. James Uthmeier made the statement after conflicting county-level decisions. The ruling stemmed from a 2002 arrest of Stan McDaniels, who was standing at an intersection with a copy of the constitution in his hands and a handgun in a holster on his hip. McDaniels said he wanted to appeal his case to the Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court upheld the conviction but the ruling was overturned by an appeals court in wake of the Supreme Court decision NYSRPA v Bruen. That case said that gun laws had to have a historical basis and the appeals court found that the ban on open carry did not pass that test. It will be allowed in Florida now to openly carry a firearm outside of certain restrictions, like businesses that do not allow open carry. 

My Comment:

This ruling is obviously correct in the wake of the NYSRPA v Bruen ruling. You can only restrict gun ownership unless there is a good historical basis for doing so. With the ban on open carry in Florida, that was obviously not the case. The ban is only 40 years old, and that surely does not count under the Bruen standard. 

I always thought it was strange that Florida had a ban on open carry. It's been a conservative state for awhile now and it otherwise has decent gun laws. As someone who grew up in Wisconsin, which has always had open carry (though CCW is a lot newer), it never made any sense for there to still be a ban on open carry in Florida. It's one of the reasons I haven't moved there yet, I never understood why the state would not let folks carry weapons. 

I know a lot of people think open carry is dumb, and I think there is some validity to that. CCW means that folks don't know that you are armed and can't simply shoot you first if they know you have a gun. But I do think that open carry is important for other reasons. It allows the carrying of rifles which you obviously can't do concealed, and that is useful during civil unrest. It also allows folks that are too young to buy handguns to at least carry a rifle in those situations as well. Plus it desensitizes people to gun ownership, which is a good thing. 

I do admire the man at the center of this case, Stan McDaniels. He fought this case for more than 20 years and that's an insane amount of dedication. He knew that the law was unconstitutional but he had to wait for two decades to get a chance to get the law overturned. Well, he finally succeeded and I hope he is a very happy person tonight. 

Of course this is just one law in one state. California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Washington DC all ban the open carry of firearms in most circumstances. Florida was the last red state holdout but until those states undo their bans it's still an injustice. 

I don' think this will have too much of an effect on Florida regardless. Open carry is a fairly rare thing unless you are out in the country regardless. I don't think it will affect the crime rate in any way and it's very possible that it might even reduce it. Though, given that CCW was long legal in Florida, I don't think there is much to gain. And to be honest, I doubt many folks will be open carrying regardless. I am just happy that another unconstitutional law is gone.  

Two men were arrested in Utah for planting a bomb under a news van that was covering the Charlie Kirk assassination.

 

The neighborhood where the suspects were arrested in was evacuated due to bomb threats. New York Post/KTVX.

Two men were arrested in Utah for planting a bomb under a news van that was covering the Charlie Kirk assassination. New York Post. Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahmed Nasir, 31, were arrested and charged with terrorism, along with multiple gun and drug crimes. The men are accused of planting a bomb or incendiary device under a Fox 13 news van. The device was lit but did not explode and was planted near an occupied building. A search of their home found two hoax devices, along with drugs and illegal firearms, as both men were prohibited from owing firearms due to previous drug charges. No motivation for the attack has been revealed. 

My Comment:

This is a concerning situation and it could have gone a lot worse. Thankfully their device did not explode, probably due to shoddy construction. It is unclear how dangerous the bomb was, or if it was just an incendiary device. But it's also unclear if the news van was occupied at the time, even the Fox 13 article on the incident does not say. 

Had the device worked as planned it might have just burned up the news van. That could have still killed someone if the van was occupied. However, if it was a true bomb it could have injured or killed folks, either in the occupied building nearby or simply folks out on the street. Without a better idea of the device or where this incident actually occurred it's hard to tell. 

It is also completely unclear what the motivation is. Given that the two men are Pakistani in origin, Adeeb is an immigrant while Adil was supposedly born here, it would follow that this was a case of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, I would be very surprised if we don't find out some link to Islamic terrorism. 

However, that is not a given. Since the news van was covering the Charlie Kirk assassination and that case was pretty definitively linked to far left politics, it is possible that it was done in support of the assassination. You could even argue that the far left and radical Islam are ideologically aligned on certain issues and both groups really dislike Israel. 

What I do know is that it is extremely unlikely that this is directly related to the Charlie Kirk assassination. I just can't see the assassin and his transgender friends hooking up with an older Muslim man and his 31 year old son. How on earth would they even find each other, for one. Though the Charlie Kirk assassination does seem like it was a wider conspiracy, with some folks in the assassins circle possibly being involved, I can't imagine that they were working with these two men as well. 

Instead, I am almost certain that this was an attack of opportunity that probably had very little to do with Charlie Kirk's death at all. These guys were probably looking for a target for their bomb and the news truck presented itself. It probably don't go any deeper than that. 

The real question I have is how dangerous these guys actually were. They were armed despite being unable to own firearms and they were able to make a bomb. Had they been more competent they could have pulled off a major terror attack. But it's possible that these guys were just small time idiots as well. With what we know now we just can't tell. 

I do think that we an rule this out as "just a prank" though. You don't try to blow up or burn up a news van as a prank. I guess it's possible that the motivation could have been simple nihilism, which seems pretty common these days, but even then, I think this was a serious attack. 

The assassin of Charlie Kirk has been arrested and charged.

 

The mugshot of Tyler Robinson. New York Post/AP.

An arrest has been made in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. New York Post. Tyler Robinson is a 22 year old Utah college student who was turned in by his father after he recognized him in police handouts. Robins was found with chat logs that requested that his friend recover the rifle he used to shoot Charlie Kirk in the neck. He also told the friend about what he had written on the shell casings, including antifa messages. 

Robison was a Mormon with what appears to be a happy family life and it is unclear why he decided to assassinate Kirk, but he was described as being increasingly political. New York Post. He had got into a major argument about Charlie Kirk and described him as being "full of hate". Neighbors speculate that he had been radicalized on the internet. 

My Comment:

There were serious concerns that this crime would go unsolved and it was notable that the assassin was able to escape from the scene of the crime and then remain at large for two days. I think he would have been caught eventually, someone would have turned him in, but it's lucky that his dad recognized him and was willing to turn him in. Given that Robinson will face the death penalty and will most likely be executed for his crime, that could have have been an easy thing for his dad to do, but it was the right thing. 

Robinson is very obviously on the left. Not only did he leave antifa messages on his shell cases, news media outlets, including Liberal ones like The Guardian, are reporting that he was very critical about President Trump despite his family being largely conservative. There is also the widely shared report that he got very upset at a family dinner when he was discussing the fact that Charlie Kirk was visiting the college that he got killed at. 

It seems likely that he was radicalized online. I saw a clip where a high school classmate of his said he was a "Redditor" and that passes the smell test to me. Reddit is an absolute cesspool and it is a breeding ground for this kind of person, largely because the extreme moderation and the echo chamber effect said moderation leads to. In short, Redditors tend to exist in communities where no dissent is tolerated and no opposing viewpoints are to be found. He also used Discord, which is, by all reports, even worse. Discord appears to have three functions, letting pedophiles groom kids, letting transgender people groom kids and letting far left nutjobs groom kids. 

It's not like 4chan, ironically a much better website for a young person to visit, as at least there any viewpoint can be found, even though you will likely be shouted down. And it's not like X/Twitter, where being a left wing grifter is just as profitable as a right wing one and both sides get fact checked and counterarguments. 

I am guessing that he actually didn't know too much about Charlie Kirk, other than he was supposed to hate him because Reddit (or whatever lefty websites he hung out on, including Discord) told him to. If he actually knew anything about Kirk he would know that he was actually pretty moderate, and not a far right extremist like, say, Nick Fuentes. I am guessing he killed Kirk because he thought the strawman the online left made him into was legit, even though it would be laughable under less serious circumstances. Indeed, Kirk spent much of his career getting made fun of by the actual far right for being a "cuckservative" or a Zionist. 

Speaking of the online left, this is an absolute example of why they are so messed up right now. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods in the wake of Kirk's assassination as they really didn't understand that their echo chamber hugboxes aren't the real world and that celebrating the death of a man that was beloved by many was a horrible idea. Of course celebrating the death of someone is almost always terrible, but these folks didn't think there would be any consequences for doing so because they seriously thought that nobody really disagreed with them. They are quickly finding out that yeah, most people do find it horrendous to celebrate the death of a man who was shot in front of his wife and children because he had the temerity to host a dialogue. And those people include their employers. 

This mostly seems to be an online left thing as there have been a much more sane response from actual elected Democrats. Some have beclowned themselves, such as Elizabeth Warren, JB Pritzker and Ilhan Omar, but in most cases they have made the right noise about how violence is never ok and how it was wrong to shoot Charlie Kirk. Some of them, Gavin Newsom and Cenk Uyguer, actually seem to mean it, probably because they had met Kirk professionally and personally.  

Of course, the internet being what it is, the news of an arrest did not stop the online left from beclowning themselves. Before his capture they spent two days celebrating or downplaying his actions but when he was finally captured and it was clear that he was leftist, they could not wait a second to claim he wasn't one of theirs. And this isn't a weird edge case like the guy that shot the state senators in Minnesota, where it was clear he was just insane and the motivation wasn't political. This was about as explicit as you can get without him coming out and saying "I am a Democrat/Antifa/furry". They were at first claiming he was MAGA despite there being absolutely no evidence of that and now are claiming he is a groyper, a follower of Nick Fuentes, again, without evidence. 

As for the long term effects of this, I think I have underestimated just how important Charlie Kirk was on the right. He essentially ran the youth outreach with his Turning Point USA organization and he was a close personal friend of both Donald Trump and JD Vance. He also might have played a role in why the zoomer males have had such a swing to the right in the last election. I don't know how you easily replace someone like that. I know Ben Shapiro is going to try, along with a few others, but none of them had the charisma and reach that Charlie Kirk did. And some are genuinely afraid of retaliation, for good reason. Like I said in my last post, this is as angry as I have ever seen the right be in this country and I a hoping against hope that nobody on my side snaps. 

I also expect there to be some kind of crackdown on the far left for this crime. What that would look like I don't know, but it's possible that antifa could be declared a terror group, or perhaps they will look into who is funding groups like it. Supposedly George Soros could be in the crosshairs, but that might be unrelated. 

What I would like to have happen is for the hammer of the gods to come down on websites like Reddit, Discord, TikTok, and Bluesky for the festering wounds they have inflicted on the internet. How you do that is a real problem, because I also don't want freedom of speech to be curtailed, I don't want age checks on websites and I don't want actual good websites to be caught up in the purge. But if something has to be done to turn down the temperature in this country, that would be a good start. Who knows how many more Tyler Robinsons are out there? And who knows what they are planning? 

Republican political activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk assassinated in Utah.

 

Charlie Kirk before his death. Fox News/AP.

Republican political activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk has been felled by an assassin's bullet as he was conducting an event at a Utah college campus. Fox News. Kirk was being asked a question, about transgender violence, when a shot rang out and a bullet hit him in the neck. Kirk had launched his America Comeback Tour at Utah Valley University. Kirk was speaking about campus free speech freedom and was taking questions from the audience, of all political stripes as he is known to do. Kirk leaves behind a wife and two children. The suspect in the case appears to still be at large. 

Live updates for this incident can be found at the following outlets:

AP

BBC

Fox News

My Comment:

This is a breaking news story so as always check the live feeds for the latest information. There are conflicting reports that a suspect was captured but was then released, though it is unclear if this has happened once now or twice, as another person was detained at the scene of the crime. 

I won't speculate too much about motive, with the suspect still at large there is no way of knowing who did this and why. My guess would be the left, but I do know that Charlie Kirk had some negative interactions with the Groypers, but I would be surprised if they were the ones behind it. It's not like Nick Fuentes, who was also the target of an assassination attempt, would approve of this and he has indeed condemned the murder of his old foe. I should also mention that this could just be another nutjob, like the case in July where Vance Boelter assassinated and attacked some Democratic politicians, for reasons that probably didn't even make sense to himself. Indeed, that might even be the most likely motivation, though time will tell, assuming the assassin is caught. 

This assassination is notable because there is high quality video of the attack. Much like the attack on Trump during the rally in Philadelphia, there were a lot of cameras pointed at Kirk as he was speaking. I would highly recommend not watching the video as it was legitimately horrifying. One second Kirk is answering a question, probably fielded to him by a liberal, and the next, his neck explodes in a shower of blood and all the life leaves his eyes. He didn't die at the scene but it was clear to me after I saw it that he wasn't going to survive. Given that I saw the video of Iryna Zarutska yesterday, it's been a bad couple of days in terms of seeing things I probably didn't need to see. 

To say that folks are upset about this is an understatement. Charlie Kirk was a very influential person and one that deserves some of the credit for getting Trump elected in 2024. He was also a very milquetoast kinda of boring guy, a true moderate in both politics and delivery. He was also someone that was more than willing to engage in debate with folks of all political stripes. It's not like Kirk was someone like Nick Fuentes, who has actual extreme views and expresses them loathsomely.

To see him die, (and a lot of folks saw the same video I did) is going to simply break some people. Everyone on the right is saying to themselves "Kirk was more moderate than me and has died in what appears to be a political assassination, I am in danger". Folks on the right were already angry, about the Minnesota mass shooting and the cold blooded murder of Iryna Zarutska, and it wouldn't be impossible that some people will snap. A retaliation attack is absolutely possible, as sad as that seems, folks are incredibly upset about this. 

And even those that don't are feeling a lot more radicalized that they were last week. I know that I had to check myself from fedposting several times today. I obviously don't support violence but at what point does it become inevitable? Kirk was just a b-tier guy, not someone I ever expected to get killed in such a public and horrifying way. But if he wasn't safe, who is? 

Of course you could say that folks are jumping the gun, getting radicalized by a shooting when we don't know the motive. I did point out that it's very possible that the guy was just a nut or had some other motive besides left wing politics. The problem with that is that so many folks on the left are essentially claiming the assassin as one of their own. Sure the actual politicians are giving their "thoughts and prayers, political violence is wrong" statements, but the folks on the left on social media?

Those folks on the left are beclowning themselves. So many folks on Reddit, Bluesky and even X/Twitter are celebrating this death, as Kirk's rather moderate viewpoints somehow justified shooting him in the neck in front of a horrified audience. According to them he deserved to die, his wife deserved to be a widow and his children deserved to be orphans just because he "owned the libs" and occasionally said something controversial or unkind. It's just insanity at this point. 

Of course not all folks were like that. Some were just saying that they don't actually care that Kirk died because he was "mean". Or they have devolved into insipid whataboutism, most bringing up the Minnesota assassin Vance Boelter, falsely claiming he was MAGA when he was very obviously just delusional. Very few people on social media are just saying "this is horrible regardless of politics", outside the Democratic politicians and most of those folks are trying to shift the conversation to gun control of all things. Like folks would give up their guns after someone on their side was brutally murdered. And there is, of course, the constant blame of President Trump, who is apparently responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in the past 10 years. 

I would say that the lefts reaction to this was a lot more radicalizing than the assassination itself. Even when Trump was clipped the reaction wasn't this bad, and I had thought that after more than a few people had lost their jobs over the celebrations in the failed assassination attempts on Trump these folks would have learned a lesson. Apparently not. 

The problem I see is that everyone on the right, or even in the middle is starting to ask the question, "how can we live peaceably with these people?' it seems very clear that there is a large swath of the left that either supports violence or, at the very least, doesn't care if it happens to people they don't like. Sure, there are some of those folks on the right too, but the left has been a lot louder and more kinetic about it than the right. 

My real fear is that the violence could spiral out of control. I don't think we will see a civil war but we could see something like the Troubles in the UK, a low intensity military conflict that has more paramilitary fighting that actual warfare. If we are lucky, we will just end up with the 1960's-1970's style Days of Rage, where the left became quite violent for awhile but eventually lost the culture war for a decade or two. Regardless, I don't think this is a one off thing and I do think that the country is not heading for a good place.

I think social media is a lot of the problem. Folks might have had thoughts like this before but very few people would publicly celebrate an assassination for the simple reason that they might face consequences for it, physically or professionally. To be fair, some professional consequences are coming, folks will absolutely lose their jobs for celebrating this. But the fact is that folks are stuck in echo chambers and rarely have to face the idea that folks disagree with them. 

Regardless of the politics of the situation, the fact of the matter is that the suspect is still on the run as of this writing. That is pretty deeply concerning and I do worry that we might see follow up attacks. I do think that this was a well planned attack and the guy that did it was probably not an idiot, the fact that he made it off site alone is proof of that. But I worry that Kirk wasn't his only target and that he may not allow himself to be taken alive. 

Suspect in the murder of Iryna Zarutska, who was killed in Charlotte North Carolina, now faces federal charges.

 

Attorney General Pam Bondi. Fox News/Reuters. 

Suspect in the murder of Iryna Zarutska, who was murdered on a Charlotte North Carolina light rail car, now faces federal charges. Fox News. The case sent shockwaves throughout the country as a viral video showed the victim brutally attacked by DeCarlos Brown Jr., a career criminal with a long history of arrests. Now Brown is facing federal charges of committing an act causing death on a mass transit system. If convicted he could face execution for the crime. Brown also faces state charges for 1st degree murder and faces the death penalty in that case as well. 

My Comment:

A necessary follow up to an important news story on a busy news day. Though obviously the revolution in Nepal and the Israeli strikes on Qatar would normally be the top story but a murder on a light rail car last month is the story that is going to have a more important and longer term impact over either of those stories, at least in the United States. 

Why? Because it sure seems like there is going to be change due to this crime. To be fair, it's going to give cover to do what the Trump Administration wanted to do anyways, which is crack down on crime on the inner city, just like they did in Washington DC. They were probably going to do that regardless, but they have a very effective rallying cry in this horrible crime.

I mentioned in my last post on this that the attack when viral because the victim, Iryna Zarutska, was extremely sympathetic, while the attacker, DeCarlos Brown Jr. was extraordinarily unsympathetic. Some of this is due to the comparative backgrounds of the principle actors in this case, the victim was a beautiful war refugee coming home from work while the attacker was a career criminal that, in any sane society, would have been locked up, committed, executed or exiled. 

Those comparisons got even more dramatic today as the full video of the attack was released, with only the stabbing itself blurred out. That video shows Brown stabbing Zarutska three times and the poor woman cowering in fear before dropping dead long before she even processed what happened to her. Brown can then be heard saying "I got that white girl" after the attack, suggesting a racial motive for the crime, as shocked onlookers seem incapable of acting. Due to the graphic nature of the stabbing and the unclear TOS on this website, I won't be posting the video here, but it is widely available on the internet. I'd recommend not watching it it really is soul crushing. Zarutska really looked like an innocent victim of crime that had no idea what was happening to her and her death was as sudden as it was heartbreaking. 

The whole case is a microcosm of criminal justice in the United States today. Crime has long been a problem but the perception is that it certainly got worse after the 2020 summer of love. That year defunding the police became a rallying cry and another career criminal, George Floyd, became a martyr for resisting a lawful arrest and causing his own death. In short, we started to celebrate criminals, as long as they were the right skin color and this is the end result. The crime rate, as always, has peaks and valleys, and is always manipulated by the folks that collect the data, but the feeling of the country is that crime is out of control, largely because every time you see a crime like this it's by someone that has been in and out of jail for most of their lives. 

And I think this is why this story is comparatively important as I think it marks the death of the Democrats focus on criminals. It certainly isn't the only case of inner city violence, I've covered many of those cases here in this blog and even then I missed thousands of them. But it certainly seems like the final straw. Nobody really understands why the Democrats support policies that allow folks like DeCarlos Brown Jr. to be on the street when they are clearly a threat to themselves and others. Things like cashless bail and other bleeding heart liberal priorities will likely see the ax soon enough. Either that or they will double down on yet another 80/20 issue and further destroy their chances in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential races. 

We are also likely to see more deployments of troops to inner city crime areas like the recent one to Washington DC, which appears to have a fair amount of success. Chicago is already seeing some kind of enforcement action and it might just be the first of many cities. Will those deployments work? I am guessing so. It's hard to commit a serious crime when there are soldiers deployed everywhere. More importantly it sends a message to criminals. The Democrats may be soft on crime, but they aren't in power any more and right now, crime doesn't pay. That might cause at least a few of the more rational ones to give up crime, at least for the time being. It's a short term solution and what is really needed are new laws to repeal what the Democrats have been doing in terms of criminal justice and going back to something that works, or at least trying something different. 

I also said that I thought the news media would be shamed into covering this story, and boy was I right. They could no longer ignore the case as it grew in prominence. When the President of the United States name drops a murder as a reason to launch a major political operation, it's certainly notable, which even means Wikipedia's effort to delete the article about the murder will fail. You can't put this genie back in the bottle now. 

As for Republicans, it's clearly a strategy that they are going to focus on crime as a major issue for the lead up to the 2026 midterms, and it's clear why. Though crime has fallen a bit from the peak under Biden, it's still insanely high and the general perception is that the criminals that are out there are going to get away with it. By focusing in on this issue they are giving themselves a good blueprint for success. 

Finally, having watched the video, I do want to say that I should defend the other people on the train. Many folks are asking how Brown was able to kill Zarutska without anyone stopping him, and the truth is that it happened so quickly that nobody could have done much. Like I said, Zarutska was dead before she fully understood what happened to her, so it's no surprise that the other folks on the train didn't really get it either. In a perfect world someone would have put down Brown before he finished his attack, but in a perfect world, the attack wouldn't have happened in the first place. Plus, it's illegal to bring a firearm into a Charlotte light rail car. Regardless, not everyone can be a hero and it all happened so quickly that I doubt even a trained police officer or solider could have prevented the attack or saved Zarutska's life. 

Homicide of an Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte goes viral on the internet, but ignored by the media.

 

A screencap shows the moment before Iryna Zarutska was murdered by Decarlos Brown Jr. New York Post/Police handout. 

A homicide of a 23 year old Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte North Carolina has gone viral on the internet but has largely been ignored by Democrats and the Media. New York Post. Video shows the attacker, Decarlos Brown Jr., pulling out a pocket knife and stabbing Iryna Zarutska, which resulted in her death. Brown is a career criminal with 14 arrests and 12 convictions, including for assault and armed robbery. Media coverage has been scarce, with only local and conservative media really covering the story. The Mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles, even thanked people for not sharing the video.

Footage indicates that Decarlos Brown Jr., 34, has been charged in connection with the fatal stabbing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light rail train on August 22, 2025. Authorities report that the attack appeared random, with Zarutska being… pic.twitter.com/0AG960hNuS

— S∆VI☆ (@SAVI3fi) September 7, 2025

Social media photo of Iryna Zarutska. New York Post/Instagram. 

My Comment:

This case has gone viral for pretty obvious reasons. The attacker was a career criminal that had no business being in public, especially since the video makes it seem like he's in the middle of some kind of mental break. It touches on crime, which is a huge topic in America today. And there was compelling and disturbing video of the attack (which thankfully cut the actual murder itself). All of those things ensure it was going to go viral.

The victim of course played a role in this too, though it's not always necessary, like the case with the truck driver making a u-turn on the freeway, which went viral despite there being no info about who he killed outside of the basic information (they were Hattian immigrants). Zarutska was a very attractive young woman with a compelling story about being a genuine refugee. She came to America to avoid warfare, but she might have been safer in Ukraine. 

Of course in a perfect world it wouldn't matter that she was a refugee or that she was an attractive person. It shouldn't matter at all who she was, just what happened to her, but it does partially explain why this case went viral. 

It also makes sense why the mainstream media is ignoring this story. Some of it might be fears of racism, though they had no problem in broadcasting hours and hours of footage of things like Michael Brown, George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery. Racism is bad when it goes one way, apparently. 

But the real problem is that this plays into Republican narratives about crime. This is the kind of crime that would be preventable if the attacker, a man who obviously made a career out of crime and was also obviously undergoing a mental episode, had been in prison, or even an asylum. Instead, despite 12 convictions and 14 arrests, he was on the light rail system of Charlotte. 

Given that crime is being treated as a huge issue right now, and to be fair it is, the media is going to continue to downplay this case if they are allowed to do so. They don't want to do anything to justify Trump's actions in Washington DC, where he deployed the National Guard, and a high profile murder in a blue city (in a red state) would do that. 

I do have a lot of sympathy for the victim in this case. It seems like she was a fairly naive young woman, as I would not have sat anywhere near the attacker in this case. Given that she was from Ukraine, where things are safer in terms of crime, she might not have been aware that the man behind her was a threat. In the short video I saw before her attack, he gave me a serious case of bad vibes, and I would have done whatever I could have done to make sure that I either sat far away from him, or at the very least, in a position where I could keep an eye on him. Supposedly, she had only been in America for a few months, so it would not surprise me if she didn't realize the danger she was in. It really does say something about the crime in the United States that she would have unironically been safer in much of Ukraine, despite the active war there. 

As for the attacker, I have to say that it's just entirely predictable that he was able to do this. Our criminal justice system rarely deals with folks like this in any effective manor. We let folks who commit dozens of crimes keep doing it and it never made any sense as to why. Whenever folks do try and make an issue out of it, we just get attacked as racists, even though these kinds of interracial attacks are rare and black folks are way more likely to be victims of crime than non blacks. 

Regardless, I do think that this story will eventually get media coverage, outside of the conservative and local outlets that are covering it now. President Trump was informed of the case and said he would be looking into it. Given the obviously political advantage making the case go even more publicized, I am guessing it will get addressed soon.