A friend asked me why is there so much being made of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, maybe more than made of JFK’s.
Here are the similarities and differences between the two in terms of the position held, the culture of the time, the means of the killing, and the person or persons behind the killings.
True, officially the position of JFK, being president, was paramount. Charlie’s was not “official”, not part of government. He started as a solo influencer. They both had large followings. JFK was loved in large part for the “Camelot” image he and Jacqueline portrayed: young, good looking, regal. He was considered a forward thinking leader of a new, young generation.
Similarly, Charlie was embraced by the young. He engaged college and high school aged young people in debates on popular but controversial topics. They both created enemies. Both sets of enemies hid in the dark shadows of society. JFK’s are still a debated mystery. Charlie’s are more obvious.
The cultures of the times vary greatly. During the early to mid-sixties, the nation was much more unified and less polarized (until the Vietnam war). Most of the institutions of the day were favorable toward JFK: media, academia, government. There were few deep cultural conflicts and undercurrents.
During Charlie’s time, the 13 years of his public efforts from 2011 to July 2025, the nation had become polarized, politically, socially, morally, fiscally. Academia and the media, especially, sank deeply into promoting leftist ideology. The leftist preferences are legion, including open borders, LGBTQ+++ advocacy, excusing Islamic ideology, war on Christianity, further erosion of family values, law and order, bigger government, and globalism.
Charlie debated and challenged these polarizing leftist positions. And he went to the heart of their source, universities and public high schools. These are the hotbeds of moral and cultural corruption in both my view and Charlie’s.
Charlie had a way about him. He devoted his late teen and 11 years there after to gaining an education that the great majority of universities would never consider providing. Early on he recognized the destructive indoctrination of these institutions. Instead he devoted himself to an intense discipline of teaching himself.
His primary foundation was the Bible. He had a Biblical-based world view that even most pastors lack today. In fact, most seminaries suffer the same leftist plague as secular universities: Reducing Biblical morality to what makes people feel good about themselves. The promotion of narcissism in our culture and churches is front and center. Charlie melds sound Biblical teaching as the basis for cultural values, something that most churches fail to do. And he does it without sounding preachy.
Watching Charlie debate those who hold opposing positions on religion, abortion, and gender issues, even with his most virulent detractors, his thorough knowledge of these topics and effective articulation of the truth is truly impressive, verging on the supernatural.
He caused thousands to think. He changed many minds. He was an encouragement to millions. And he angered quite a few.
Who did he anger? Well, news to me, there is a dark web comprised of thousands of confused, mentally ill and angry individuals of vague and changing sexual orientation. His killer was part of that deranged cult. I also have no doubt that universities are enablers of these deviants through their leftist professors and fringe and decidedly useless curricula.
These perverts hate those who are not perverts, especially those who hold and express traditional moral views, especially conservative Christians (yes, there are liberal Christians who embrace LGBTQ+++, but those are apostates.) Their secret, encrypted communications on the dark web promote their hatred for conservatives. Most are glad of Charlie’s assassination. And sadly, many promote even more of the same.
But Charlie inspired and changed many times more souls than he angered.
This brings up a significant difference between our reaction to the assassination of JFK and Charlie. JFKs was superficial, reacting to the attractive, Camelot-esque persona and appeal to the younger folk – based on what, an image? Where was the substance?
In the case of the reaction to Charlie’s killing, it uncovered a dark evil that is in stark opposition to good; in opposition to Biblical values, self-discipline and morality. This lit a fire.
As Charlie's wife, Erika Kirk movingly expressed:
“You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife, the cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.”
“The movement my husband built will not die. It won't, I refuse to let that happen.”
“No one will ever forget my husband's name, and I will make sure of it.”
Therein lies the difference. Substance. Clear battle lines between good and evil. And millions aching to join the battle.
The Turning Point website:
