'OK, that’s spooky’: Biden-masked stranger creeps up to Texas family’s door and eats a banana



If a stranger walks up to your doorstep at night for no good reason, you likely would be afraid.

But when that stranger is wearing a Joe Biden mask, the “Freedom” shirt Charlie Kirk wore before his assassination, and no shoes — all while stuffing a banana through the mask — you would be terrified.

That’s what happened to a Texas family whose doorbell camera captured the bizarre encounter in Watauga.

The masked stranger opened his jacket to reveal his T-shirt, then leaned into the camera, tapped it, and took a bite of the banana through the Biden mask before walking away.


“OK, that’s spooky,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments after watching the video.

“He’s at somebody’s front door. That’s a little bit different than just walking through the neighborhood.”

“I think he’s OK right up until the point where he starts approaching people’s doors."

“What are you doing? I mean, because it’s not safe for you to do that, for you or the homeowner. They might shoot you dead. And in Texas, it’d probably be fine. I’m sorry, I’m protecting my castle, and it’s night.”

“For some reason, it’s funny,” Jeff Fisher chimes in.

“If it was my house though,” Gray argues, “and he’s doing that, I don’t think I’d be laughing. I’d be like, ‘OK, what are you doing?’”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Finna get kirked’: Kansas man arrested after allegedly threatening to shoot Trump



A 24-year-old Kansas man is in federal custody after allegedly threatening on Facebook to kill President Donald Trump.

Jaden J. Read was arrested after the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas charged him with making threats against the president, according to a Monday Justice Department press release.

'Let's shoot Trump honestly, where's our shooter?'

Read allegedly claimed to know exactly where President Donald Trump would speak during his visit to the Wichita area on Monday.

"IK where your speech will be. Already mapped out roofs around. Finna get kirked since yall couldn't help him," Read allegedly wrote.

"Kirked" is a reference to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and has become popular among left-wingers wishing death on conservatives.

A Crime Stoppers tip made on Thursday pointed authorities to Read's comments under a KAKE News Facebook post about the president's upcoming trip, according to the DOJ.

"Let's shoot Trump honestly, where's our shooter? I'm tired of living this money life," the one comment allegedly read.

"I just got a 308 and 305 round and I'm killing this pedo," Read also allegedly posted.

RELATED: Justice Department seeks to BLOCK ballots of 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters in California

Photo courtesy of Charlie Kirk

Under a separate post from KWCH 12 News, Read allegedly wrote, "Can we shoot him in Kansas please I will myself."

The rooftop comment came about a minute later, according to prosecutors.

It follows the July 2024 attempt on Trump's life. Thomas Crooks shot and wounded the then-candidate from a rooftop in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Charlie Kirk was shot from a rooftop at Utah Valley University in September 2025.

The complaint was filed Saturday, and Read was arrested in Clearwater the same day. He will remain in custody until a detention hearing, according to the DOJ. No hearing date has been made public.

If found guilty, Read faces up to five years in prison under the federal law barring threats against the president.

The Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Kansas Highway Patrol, and Wichita Police Department were all involved in the investigation, according to the release.

Trump went ahead with his Monday event at Heartland Credit Union Arena in Park City, just north of Wichita.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser issued a stern statement for would-be assassins and those threatening the president online or offline.

"Political violence and threats of political violence will not be tolerated," he said in the release.

"The First Amendment allows for robust disagreement, but there are constraints," Kriegshauser said, cautioning people "to stay within the bounds of constitutionally protected speech."

The Secret Service, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Kansas Highway Patrol, U.S. Attorney's Office, and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The attorney listed for Read did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Young conservatives are persevering through backlash and intimidation​



Being a 16-year-old in high school is hard enough. It’s a different ball game entirely when you’re actively involved in politics. Sadly, for many young conservative teens across our country, the pressure to conform and abandon their beliefs comes not only from student bullies but from adults.

Ella Smith, 16, is a homeschooled student in southern Nevada who is also enrolled in her local high school choir in Clark County as an elective. She works part-time as a door knocker for Commit 100, a joint program coordinated by conservative nonprofit groups Turning Point Action and Citizens Alliance. Her job is simple: Find 100 registered Republicans unlikely to vote outside of presidential elections and get each of them to make a plan to vote, whether by mail or in person.

Can conservative students participate openly in their school communities without risking their reputations or physical safety?

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk last September, hostility from students and teachers with differing viewpoints has escalated.

In mid-September, Ella was knocking on doors in Boulder City, Nevada, with her grandmother, who also canvasses for Commit 100. The next day as she walked through the hallways to go to choir, a school employee asked her to step into the front office and confronted her about her after-school activities. By the end of the conversation, she was left in tears.

According to the family, a school employee said she was speaking on behalf of the vice principal. She then allegedly accused Ella of going around town telling people how to vote and claiming to represent the school. The employee also said the school had received anonymous Ring camera footage of Ella door knocking and that she’d already watched the footage.

The school employee continued pressing these allegations in front of other faculty and students nearby, turning the confrontation into a public embarrassment. Ella described the exchange as “condescending and intimidating.” To make matters worse, other students and staff remained within earshot during the full length of the interaction.

A teenager should not have to choose between participating in civic life outside school and being treated with dignity inside it. Sadly, accounts from the past year from within Clark County suggest that principle is still in need of defending.

Ella’s mother, Mica Smith, later contacted the vice principal’s office directly. She wanted to understand why the school felt the need to pull her daughter aside over an after-school job.

The vice principal reached out days later and said she had reviewed the footage, found that Ella had done nothing wrong, and said the staff member who pulled her aside had acted inappropriately, leading to an apology.

Those acknowledgments matter, but a simple “sorry” is only the beginning of accountability. What corrective actions were taken? Why was an employee who wasn’t a teacher and had no authority to accuse or discipline a student so confident she could do both? What assurances do Ella and other conservative students involved in civic engagements have that it won’t happen again?

RELATED: The danger of calling the left stupid

ALEX EDELMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Ella’s family believes she was treated this way because of her work for a conservative cause. That motive hasn’t been independently established. However, no one needs to settle the question of motive to recognize how serious her account is, especially given what the school itself has admitted. This is especially true when you look at the state of our classrooms throughout the country and even in Clark County.

Sadly, Ella is not the only young conservative in the community reportedly describing hostility.

Around the same time, the secretary of the Turning Point-sponsored Club America chapter at Veterans Tribute Career and Technical Academy addressed the Clark County school board in late September. The student described repeated online and in-person harassment, bullying, and threats from other students over the club’s conservative beliefs.

Between student bullies and adults who single out conservative students, families deserve an answer to a basic question: Can conservative students participate openly in their school communities without risking their reputations or physical safety?

These don’t appear to be isolated incidents.

Last September, Clark County School District Superintendent Jhone Ebert announced that an unspecified number of teachers were removed from classrooms after posts were discovered on their personal social media profiles mocking and celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.

The district did not tell parents which teachers had been removed. Families shouldn’t have to wonder whether the people responsible for educating their children celebrated the killing of a man who went to college campuses to have peaceful conversations.

RELATED: Democrats have a political violence problem

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

These incidents are not limited to Nevada.

Last month, the University of Utah made headlines when it investigated two College Republicans for alleged doxxing. On the anniversary of Kirk’s assassination, the students shared photos online of a liberal student with a cake that read “Happy Kirkiversary.” The university ultimately dropped the case due to lack of evidence, and the Office of the Dean of Students emailed the two students and apologized for the inconvenience. But by then, the damage was done.

There was a time when a simple “sorry” and “we’re taking care of it” was enough for parents to let situations like these go. But over the last decade, censorship and intimidation have escalated on high school and college campuses across the country.

Expecting accountability from students and staff who misbehave is not a demand for ideological agreement. No one is asking them to bend a knee and convert. But in a functioning society, we shouldn’t have to demand tolerance and basic professionalism from the people running our schools.

There is an inspiring silver lining in all of these situations: the courage of young conservatives standing up for themselves and what they believe.

Ella has continued to knock on doors with her grandmother every day since the incident. Club America chapters are still popping up across the country by the hundreds, especially since Charlie Kirk’s death. And College Republicans aren’t backing down from continuing their meetings and activities.

Ella’s willingness to work, participate in her community, and stand by her convictions reflects the kind of patriotism and responsibility Americans should want to encourage in young people.

Poll: 1 In 5 Undergrads Says U.S. Deserved 9/11, Nearly Half Endorse Violence Against ‘Hate Speech’

Just weeks after the United States commemorated the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, a new poll reveals more than one in five undergraduate students believe America deserved the attacks, while nearly half of all undergraduate students think physical violence is justified to stop so-called hate speech. The Buckley Institute’s 2026 National Undergraduate Student […]

Democrats have a political violence problem



They say politics can be murder. Recent polling suggests a disturbing share of Democratic and left-of-center voters are becoming far too comfortable with the idea.

A new survey from Liberal Currents and the Center for Strategic Politics asked 683 Democratic voters how they would feel about five hypothetical ways President Donald Trump might leave office before his term ends.

Apparently protecting democracy now includes the occasional military junta.

The lawful options drew predictably lopsided reactions: 86% said they would feel positively if Trump were impeached and convicted, and 84% said the same about removal under the 25th Amendment.

Then the poll got darker.

Fifty-nine percent said they would react positively to a headline announcing that military leaders had removed Trump and assumed control of the government to “safeguard the Constitution.” Another 56% said they would react positively if Trump simply died in his sleep.

The only scenario in which negative reactions outnumbered positive ones was assassination. Even there, 31% said they would feel very or somewhat positive if Trump were killed while speaking at a rally; 26% were neutral, and 43% reacted negatively.

The survey measured emotional reaction, not willingness to carry out or personally endorse violence. Still, a positive reaction to an assassination or a military takeover is an ugly result for a party that presents itself as the guardian of democracy.

Apparently protecting democracy now includes the occasional military junta.

Those findings do not stand alone. In April 2025, the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers Social Perception Lab surveyed 1,264 U.S. adults and found that 55.2% of respondents who identified as left of center considered the murder of Trump at least somewhat justified. Nearly 50% said the same about Elon Musk. The researchers described an emerging “assassination culture” among segments of the political left.

Five months later, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors allege that the accused killer targeted Kirk because of his political and religious beliefs.

RELATED: Where was God? Frank Turek asks the question after Charlie Kirk

Owen Anderson

The online reaction exposed something broader than one alleged killer’s motive. Social media filled with people celebrating Kirk’s death, mocking his widow, and arguing that he had deserved to die because of his politics.

A YouGov poll conducted after Kirk’s killing found that 16% of liberals said it was usually or always acceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure they opposed. Among the “very liberal,” the number rose to 24%.

Conservatives registered at just 4%.

Cheering a death is not the same thing as committing violence. But political violence becomes easier to rationalize when the target has first been reduced to someone whose death is funny, deserved, or morally cleansing.

I have watched that permission structure develop in my native Portland, Oregon

During the summer of 2020, rioters repeatedly attacked the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse with fireworks, incendiary devices, rocks, bottles, and other attempts to set fires. Federal prosecutors charged one man after an incendiary object exploded at the courthouse entrance.

The pattern did not disappear. Beginning in 2025, the Portland ICE facility became another center of unrest. Court records describe protesters throwing rocks and bricks at officers, damaging security equipment, trying to breach the building, and using an upended stop sign as a makeshift battering ram. One participant who struck a federal officer in the head with a rock was later sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.

RELATED: ‘Reign of terror’: One-third of Democrats give thumbs-up to Trump assassination

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

There is a difference between peaceful protest and political violence. Democrats should be able to draw it without hesitation.

It’s why then-Senator Kamala Harris took flak during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots when she urged followers to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” In the middle of widespread disorder, a future Democratic vice president used her platform to promote bail assistance for protesters rather than draw a sharper distinction between lawful protest and criminal violence.

Political violence thrives on permission — explicit or subtle. That permission can come from celebrating an assassination, describing violence as justified, excusing riots because the cause is righteous, or treating the rule of law as optional when the target is sufficiently hated.

Democrats have spent the better part of a decade warning that American democracy is endangered by Trump and the right. They cannot demand that the country take political violence seriously while refusing to confront the appetite for it inside their own coalition.

You cannot save democracy by cheering when your political opponents are removed from it.

That is, in fact, how democracies die.

Where was God? Frank Turek asks the question after Charlie Kirk



Arizona State University’s Ratio Christi chapter hosted Christian apologist Frank Turek Monday night. The topic especially caught my attention as a philosophy professor: If God exists, why is there evil?

I call this the major objection to belief in God. Atheists may begin elsewhere, but once the other objections are answered, the problem of evil keeps returning. I have found that true whether I am talking with an atheist at a bar watching a ball game or an elite physicist at Cambridge.

What if the very problem of evil that you think disproves God actually points to God?

Turek made the question as pointed as possible. He told the audience that when he and Charlie Kirk were approaching Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, Kirk asked him to pray. Turek prayed for the event to be effective and safe.

“God said no,” Turek told the audience. About 20 minutes later, Kirk was fatally shot. Turek has asked the same question publicly ever since: Where was God?

To some smug atheists, and a few conspiracy-minded people, the story invites a sneer: If Kirk was such a good Christian, why didn’t his God protect him? Why would anyone want to be a Christian if that is the outcome?

Turek answered with a challenge: What if the very problem of evil that seems to disprove God actually points toward him?

His argument came in two parts.

First, before we can say evil disproves God, we have to know what evil is. And to know what evil is, we need some account of the good. Invoking Augustine, Turek described evil as a corruption or privation of something good. Augustine’s formulation is simple: Evil depends on the good it damages.

Students are often confident that they can define the good until the examples get difficult. Happiness seems like an obvious candidate, but people can be happy about wicked things. Happiness alone therefore cannot tell us what is good.

That is where students often retreat into relativism: What is good for you is good for you, and what is good for me is good for me.

Turek’s answer was that human beings share a common human nature. If something is genuinely good for a human being as such, it cannot become bad merely because another person prefers something else.

Then he pushed the argument into explicitly Christian territory. If Christianity is true, what could be better than knowing God? He cited John 17:3, where eternal life is described as knowing God and Jesus Christ.

That brought him back to Kirk. Kirk’s murder was evil; Turek did not pretend otherwise. But he argued that God can bring good from evil. Turek says he still hears from people who encountered the gospel because of Kirk’s life and death. In his language, the ripple was not merely a ripple but a tsunami.

RELATED: What Chris Hansen knows about sin that modern culture forgets

Kelsey McNeal/Disney General Entertainment Content/Getty Images

That was Turek’s first point: The objection from evil assumes that some things are objectively wrong. His argument is that objective moral law requires a standard beyond individual preference and that the ultimate ground of that standard is God. The problem of evil therefore borrows the very moral categories it tries to use against him.

Turek then moved from philosopher to pastor.

In a philosophy class, people will debate the logical problem of evil. In the middle of intense suffering, nobody wants a philosopher to arrive with a chalkboard and draw syllogisms. They want to know why this happened: Why this child? Why this cancer? Why this death?

Turek answers with what he calls the ripple effect. We know very little of the past, only fragments of the present, and nothing of the future except what has been revealed to us. We cannot trace all the consequences flowing from a single event.

God, in the Christian account, is not only powerful and good but wise. He knows the whole of history and can order events toward ends we cannot see. Turek appealed to Romans 8:28: God works all things together for the good of those who love him.

That reminded me of an old pastoral illustration. A couple had grown cold in their faith. Their child died, and they asked their pastor why. He told them to imagine a shepherd trying to lead two stubborn sheep across a river from danger to safety. They refuse. So the shepherd picks up their lamb and carries it across. The sheep follow.

Was that for their good?

The point is not that suffering itself becomes good. It is that suffering can force us to confront questions comfort lets us avoid. It exposes our finitude and can make us consider our own sin. When we recognize how little we know and how much God would have to know, Paul’s question in Romans 9:20 becomes harder to brush aside: Who are we to correct God?

RELATED: Christians are missing the opportunity next door

Banderlog/Getty Images

With those two claims — objective goodness and divine wisdom — Turek took questions.

One student asked why God creates people who will be damned to hell. Turek answered that people who finally reject God receive what they insist upon: separation from Him. If that is what they choose, he asked, on what grounds do they complain about receiving it?

Another asked about animal suffering that no human being ever sees. How could that possibly help us?

Turek’s answer was essentially: How do you know it does not? Human knowledge is extraordinarily limited. The fact that we cannot identify a good purpose for some instance of suffering does not prove that no such purpose exists. He also noted that in the Christian account, the whole creation is affected by human sin.

So is Turek right? Does the problem of evil point toward God rather than away from him? Are atheists borrowing from an objective moral framework they cannot ultimately ground without God?

The audience was clearly intrigued. Skeptics had something substantial to push against, and Christians had to think more carefully about what they claim the Bible teaches concerning good, evil, suffering, and God’s wisdom.

As a philosophy professor deep in the heart of Sun Devil territory, I count that as a good thing.

EXCLUSIVE: A year after Charlie Kirk’s death, Sabo’s 'controversial' tribute finally goes on display



One year after the murder of Charlie Kirk, the VFW in Denver has allowed me to hang the art that I created in tribute to him.

I’d presented it four months ago, but it was suggested that the story was too hot, that not enough time has passed for people to be comfortable with the content. I could have pulled the old line, “I thought that was the whole point of art, to challenge people,” but even I could appreciate their trepidation, especially in a city as captured by liberal dogma as Denver.

I learned a while back that when a liberal says that art should never be censored, what they really mean is art that they agree with should never be censored.

A year has passed since the murder, and we've heard just about every conspiracy theory you could imagine: exploding mics, palm guns, a bullet fired from a drone, it was Israelis, it was the FBI, it was his wife.

Nonetheless, it was determined last month that the case against the official suspect will be going to trial. Without a doubt, it will be the most watched legal proceeding since OJ’s. This art will be on display in October on First Friday in Denver. I hope that you’re able to see it.

Over the target

As with the COVID art I revisited this summer, I dedicated a good amount of time to getting the pieces together, all the while with an increasing sense of dread that my time — the last thing I have to waste — would be in vain: There was no way in hell the VFW was going to allow me to hang the work.

Ever since I’ve been showing art in Denver, my website has been getting hacked, making it difficult for me to be able to support my family. As much as it sucks, these attacks remind me of the saying, “You take flak when you’re over the target.” In other words, I must be doing something right.

In light of what happened to Charlie for standing up for his beliefs, getting a site hacked and losing a couple of bucks pales in comparison. Don’t get me wrong — it's not that these people don't want the worst for me. If my wife and I ended up living under a bridge, they would laugh and throw things at us as they drove past. It’s sobering to realize how joyfully some people embrace hate. I may not be Charlie Kirk, but I am certainly closer to him than our self-proclaimed enemies.

Unsavoryagents.com

Violent reactions

I put these Charlie Kirk pieces on the streets not long after Charlie’s murder. The tattered, textured look is meant to represent the violent reactions that he inspired from those who disagreed with his views, as well as how often my street art is ripped down just as quickly as it’s put up. I put my posters up at night and never wait for better light to document them, aware that they may be torn down before the sun comes up.

I learned a while back that when a liberal says that art should never be censored, what they really mean is art that they agree with should never be censored. Everything else is fair game, and as Charlie learned, no tactic to silence someone is off limits.

I also decided to include my Iryna Zarutska pieces; perhaps these would make the cut even if the Charlie pieces proved too much. Who was I kidding? I thought, as my anxiety increased. This series is even more brutal.

Unsavoryagents.com

Screaming 'stop!'

Taking over a stop sign is not as simple as it looks. I’ve seen many half-hearted attempts at repurposing one. My approach is to not add a single word to the piece. I want the art that I add to scream, “STOP!!!” The art should belong on that sign. I think I pulled it off with her murderer half a second from plunging that knife into her neck. I want everyone who views this piece to scream that one word in their head. Included are photos taken from the street hit in Hollywood. One piece boldly and purposefully includes the name IRYNA ZARUTSKA so there is no question as to who this person is. Everyone who views these pieces will say her name, even if just in their thoughts.

I CAN’T BREATHE! I’ll admit to the art being cluttered. The pieces should have more room to breathe. I was so surprised and blown away at being allowed to show these pieces, from both series, that I took the opportunity to throw as much of it up as I could, fearing I'd never get such an opportunity again. But if all goes well, next month I’ll curate the display to include only the Charlie Kirk pieces, some of which are absent. The month after that, I intend to reshow the Iryna pieces, also including those photos I didn’t have room for this time around.

RELATED: Sabo returns to Denver — this time with Jeffrey Epstein hanging on the wall

Unsavoryagents.com

Unsavoryagents.com

The small “ALL LIVES MATTER” piece is a deliberate reminder of this truth. I mean to provoke those who cheered the murder of Charlie because he did not agree with them and dismissed the murder of Iryna simply because she was white and her murderer was black. This is what I mean when I include the word “DOGMA” in the Charlie Kirk piece. What good is art if it only confirms what you already believe?

Glenn Beck: The UVU report on Charlie Kirk’s death isn’t the plot you think it is



Last week, Utah Valley University — the campus where Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September 2025 — released an independent 158-page after-action report concluding that university staff did not act in bad faith.

While Glenn Beck is not surprised at the report’s conclusions, he is surprised by the reactions to it.

“It’s all released, and within an hour, everybody had a verdict. … The family's lawyer blamed the university. Parts of the left blamed Turning Point. Podcasters said, ‘The silence is the real story,’” he says.

These one-sided hot takes, he says, are proof that we have left the information age behind and entered an era that riles us up but costs us the truth.

“We were in the information age. Now we're in the opinion and outrage age,” says Glenn. “Opinion is the currency of the day, and it is so cheap to print. Nobody ever runs out of opinions. … Facts are what's scarce in today's world.”

The “silence” from Turning Point and Charlie’s security that certain podcasters are interpreting as evidence of a cover-up has a very practical explanation, Glenn argues: “The family has filed notice of a lawsuit. Lawsuits make people stop talking.”

“Everybody's going to court, and they've all got an attorney. That’s not silent; it's just a blank space. And in the opinion age, somebody has to rush to fill in that silence,” he says.

But this reflex isn’t new. Glenn points to the sinking of the Titanic as the best example of how a series of ordinary gaps can turn into massive conspiracy theories.

He explains that before the ship departed, a last-minute officer change sent David Blair off the ship carrying the key to the locker that held the lookouts’ binoculars, which later forced lookouts to watch with the naked eye. Radio operators then brushed off ice warnings to send passenger telegrams, and although the ship carried enough lifeboats to meet an outdated law, it didn’t have enough seats for everyone on board.

But instead of seeing the string of small failures that led to a catastrophic one, many “tried to make it into a conspiracy,” says Glenn.

Even though the “dots” substantiating a conspiracy theory are often “real,” “the line between them is not.”

That’s how he interprets the buzz around UVU’s report. And while hyperfixation on conspiracy theories is understandable to Glenn — because “a plot means somebody is in charge; catch him and it can't happen again” — he knows they rarely lead to the truth.

“The truth is harder. Nobody's driving sometimes. … It's just ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, leaving a small hole, and that's how Charlie Kirk gets killed,” he says.

To hear more, watch the video above.Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Higher Ed Is Mass-Producing Violent Leftists Like The Ones Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Murder

New internal records obtained by Judicial Watch show Utah Valley University profs spewing hatred for Charlie Kirk after his murder.

‘That’s not the issue’: The NYT is dodging the real problem with political violence



A recent article from the New York Times alleges that President Donald Trump is cracking down on free speech in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination — but BlazeTV host Pat Gray says that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Instead of defending free speech, Gray says the Times is excusing the left “as they revel in violence.”

“They had some thoughtful insight into Charlie Kirk’s assassination just a few days after the anniversary of his assassination. And you know, they’ve got all of these reporters who side with all the murderers in our society now,” he says.

“They did the same thing with Mangione and the murder of the CEO from the health insurance company,” he adds.


Gray went on to explain that no one is stopping them from celebrating “the murder of anybody they want.”

However, he says, “It just shows what kind of people we’re dealing with here. It shows that the left has no respect for human life.”

And in a recent poll, it’s revealed that nearly a whopping 60% of Democrats are neutral on President Trump getting assassinated in order for him to leave office.

“Twenty-three percent of Democrats say that would be very positive. Nine percent say somewhat positive," executive producer Keith Malinak says.

"So you’ve got 32% saying it would be very or somewhat positive,” Gray says.

“Fifty-seven percent either positive or they’re fine with it,” Malinak adds.

“The New York Times wants to make this a freedom of speech thing. ... That’s not the issue here. The issue is these people are insane. They’re psychotic. The left has literally gone nuts,” Gray says.

“Violently, frighteningly nuts,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.