I’m just going to come out and say iy: 99.999% of the world doesn’t care about the so-called Charlie Kirk Conspiracy, or any of the shenanigans circling it right now. For those unaware, Charlie Kirk was a conservative political activist, focused on young people (high school and college age) to attempt to influence their political and cultural views. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, he became very successful in his endeavor. In 2025, someone took too much offense and murdered him. Very sad. Not just for his family and friends, but those that followed him closely.
It seems to me that when people look at an event, or a series of events, that don’t seem to add up, they inject their own bias into what for them is a game of connect the dots. Unfortunately, sometimes, they don’t fit the way they’re supposed to so the interlocutor will add dots to attempt to complete the picture the way they believe it is supposed to look. This is not logical, or even scientific inquiry. This is storytelling while sitting around a campfire and determining how to complete the story based on the audiences reaction. As the story continues, plots rise and fall based on nothing more than the modulation of the storytellers voice and will accept the truthfulness of what they’re hearing based on the pitch, volume, and pace of the story. As the story continues, people enter and exit where the telling proceeds without knowing how the story began, or who the characters in the story are, yet base their opinion of the of the story upon the fragments they gather from others who’ve been there longer, but still, not from the beginning. the telling becomes more and more complex as the length of the story continues because it is the only way to hold the audiences attention. Some parts of the story drop away, others become a focus of the story, and this roller coaster ride never seems to end. Some listeners become exhausted from the never ending, exploitative story, while others just become more passionate for the story to continue, hoping for a conclusion they’ve been set up, by the storytellers bias, to accept all along. But no conclusion appears to be evident and so the story becomes more and more complex, with characters become more devious, the storyteller being the protagonist. Will the story conclude and if so, not only when, but will there be a satisfactory ending for all those who’ve taken the time, their days and weeks, to follow expecting the righteous to persevere and the depraved will receive their just punishment?
Probably not. The story will just conclude without any satisfactory ending and the audience will be convinced that there may never be a satisfactory end. Decades will go by, books will be written, documentaries and movies filmed that will attempt to pick up the story and have the audience believe in a satisfactory conclusion. Conspiracies will be settled, conspirators identified, The story will take on a new direction unseen by the original storyteller and will continue, generation after generation.
A third attempt was made on President Trump’s life, while attending the White House Correspondents Dinner (for the first time as President). Luckily, the alleged assassin was stopped before he could enter the room, where 2,500 people were in anticipation of the night’s events. There was one minor casualty: a Secret Service agent was shot by the attacker, but his bullett proof vest prevented him from being seriously injured, or killed. The attacker was taken alive, shortly thereafter. This is what occurs when the occupant of the White House is constantly referred to ss a Dictator, Hitler, Fascist, Nazi, well, you see where I’m going. The real issue is how these verbal attacks are magnified and carried on by the same media, many of whom were at that same dinner last evening. With the amount of hate and vitriol hurled his way by not only the media that covers him, but opposition politicians as well who have no shame in the way they refer to him or anyone that works in his administration. These people have put a virtual target on Mr. Trump a well as any of his appointees.
I want to be clear to everyone: questioning policies of our government is not being disloyal to that government. It is exercizing exactly what our founders desired but had to separate from England to establish: the right to free speech. We often interpret that to mean, well, everything, but the founders were considering the tyranny and oppresion of their government, so the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the constitution is the most important and those today questioning others patriotism based on questioning actions taken or not taken by our government is a discredit to those that wrote those famous words placed on paper in 1789.
I read recently that the City of San Antonio, Texas, have refused Chik-Fil-A permission to open a store at their airport, citing the companys anti-LGBTQ stance and their donations to groups that are anti-LGBTQ. Buffalo Niagara Airport, more recently, denied Chik-Fil-A accomodation at their facility for the same reason. As most are aware, Chik-Fil-A is a Christian, family owned business. The question is should any business be banned from a public facility based on their religious belief? As long as they don’t directly discriminate against anyone, the answer should be no.
