Obama: Charlie Kirk's views were "wrong"

Yesterday Obama came out and made some comments about Charlie Kirk's horrific assassination. They were not great. While he did address the fact that it was a horrible act, he went on to call "some" of Charlie Kirk's views "wrong".

Here's what he said.

“I didn’t know Charlie Kirk. I was generally aware of some of his ideas. I think those ideas were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family,”

He said he disagreed with things that he implied Charlie Kirk believed and espoused. For instance...

“We can also, at the same time, say that I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power. I can say that I disagree that Martin Luther King was awful.” 

This, of course, implies that Charlie Kirk was a racist. But he was talking specifically about Affirmative Action not black people in general. He was not speaking about ALL black people.

His contention is that a person should rise to high levels by their brain processing power not the color of their skin. Is that wrong? No.

As evidence of the wrong-ness of Affirmative Action, Shirley Jackson-Lee said, and I quote: 

"I rise today as a clear recipient of affirmative action, particularly in higher education. I may have been admitted on affirmative action, both in terms of being a woman and a woman of color, but I can declare that I did not graduate on affirmative action."

So she said she achieved because of Affirmative Action, not her merit. SHE said it. Not Charlie. Charlie's contention is that this is a bad way to go. All people in positions of leadership should be there because they are the best qualified for the job. Regardless of color, gender, or anything else.

Martin Luther King was not the saint people make him out to be. He had a secret life of sexual debauchery that is very unpopular to acknowledge around those who think he was the second coming of Christ. And Charlie believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 ultimately morphed into anti-white attitudes. So Charlie's contention was that there could have been a better law put in place.

Does this make him racist? No.

Of course Obama cherry picked the out of context quotes to disparage Charlie Kirk, ignoring the myriad mainstream, and highly sensible and spot-on points-of-view he had.

The question before us is, why did he do this?

Why did he not simply take the high ground? Simply condemn the killing, and praise Kirk's pro-free speech stance. That's it.

If you want to see the correct way for someone who disagreed with Charlie Kirk to eulogize him, look no further than old crazy Bernie Sanders. I disagree with almost every view he has, but he was right about this. Check it out...

"I want to say a few words regarding the terrible murder yesterday of Charlie Kirk — someone whom I strongly disagreed with on almost every issue but who was clearly a very smart and effective communicator and organizer — and someone unafraid to get out into the world and engage the public. My condolences go out to his wife and family. A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize and take part in public life without fear — without worrying that they might be killed, injured or humiliated for expressing their political views. In fact, that is the essence of what freedom is about and what democracy is about. You have a point of view, that’s great. I have a point of view that is different than yours, that’s great. Let’s argue it out. We make our case to the American people at the local, state and federal level, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want. That’s called freedom and democracy. And I want as many people as possible to participate in that process without fear. 

Freedom and democracy is not about political violence. It is not about assassinating public officials. It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue. Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force. Every American, no matter what one’s political point of view may be, must condemn all forms of political violence and all forms of intimidation. We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view. That’s what our Constitution is about. That’s what our Bill of Rights is about. That, in fact, is what freedom is about. 

The murder of Charlie Kirk is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating. From the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to the attack on Paul Pelosi, to the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to the murder of Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, to the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, to the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson and the shooting several years ago of Rep. Steve Scalise, this chilling rise in violence has targeted public figures across the political spectrum. 

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. We all remember the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, Medgar Evers and the attempted assassinations of President Ronald Reagan and Alabama Governor George Wallace. 

This is a difficult and contentious moment in American history. Democracy in our country and throughout the world is under attack. And there are a lot of reasons for that, which need serious discussion. But, bottom line: If we honestly believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, all of us must be loud and clear. Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned."

Bernie, I agree with you, for once. Except we don't have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is majority rules. Constitutional Republic is rule of publicly ratified laws.

So what were some of Charlie Kirk's views? (I wonder is Obama agreed with these?)

pro-Traditional Marriage

pro-2nd Amendment

pro-Free Speech

pro-Traditional Values

pro-Israel

pro-Voter ID's

pro-Military

Pro-American Exceptionalism

anti-Abortion

anti-Trans Agenda

anti-Illegal Immigration

anti-Sharia Law

anti-Radical Islam

Respect for Authority

Promoted hard work, discipline, and mutual respect

I wonder which of these points of view Obama agrees with, or not.

======================================================

Barack Obama has once again decided to weigh in on America’s political climate, which, according to critics, is hardly what the country needs. Obama is often remembered by the left as a unifying figure, but in reality, he proved to be one of the most polarizing presidents in modern history. In 2008, he ran on the promise of unity—no red America, no blue America, just Americans. Yet once in office, he governed from the hard left. Rather than fostering cohesion, he attributed backlash to his policies to America’s history of racism, a move that only deepened divides.

Recently, Obama gave an interview in which he stated that America is at an “inflection point” with regard to political violence. This statement, however, comes with irony. After all, it was Obama who, critics argue, justified riots in Ferguson and failed to fully support police officers following the Dallas shootings. Rather than condemning violence outright, he framed it as a response to systemic injustice, signaling sympathy for those who lashed out violently.

In his comments on the Charlie Kirk shooting, Obama expressed sympathy for Kirk’s family and urged Americans to extend grace during mourning. Yet he quickly shifted focus away from the ideology of the shooter, instead using the moment to warn about free speech backlash and to condemn Donald Trump for empowering extremists. According to critics, this reflects Obama’s pattern: minimizing or excusing violence linked to the left, while framing right-wing speech and politics as the real threat.

Obama’s remarks also touched on issues of race, recalling criticisms of Charlie Kirk’s statements about affirmative action and brain processing power. By bringing this up in the context of Kirk’s death, critics claim Obama implied that Kirk was fundamentally racist, further undermining the sincerity of his supposed “grace.”

The broader issue, as critics frame it, is Obama’s hypocrisy. While insisting that political violence is wrong, he simultaneously advanced ideologies and narratives that, in their view, embolden violent actors. From Ferguson to Dallas, from his rhetoric on gay marriage opponents to his stance on police conduct, Obama regularly portrayed dissenters as bigots or enemies, all while maintaining that he was above extremism.

Saying “violence is bad” is easy; anyone can agree with that sentiment. But critics argue that unless leaders identify and condemn the ideological permission structures that fuel violence, such statements are empty. By ignoring the role of the left in fostering political hostility, while pinning the blame on figures like Trump, Obama, in their eyes, demonstrates selective outrage and reinforces polarization.

===============================================================

R.I.P. Charlie Kirk. You did not deserve to be murdered.