Recently, Charlie Kirk and Van Jones were involved in a bit of a public feud over the killing of a Ukrainian migrant by a Black man in North Carolina.
Kirk maintained that the attack was racially motivated due to comments made by the alleged killer in the immediate aftermath of his murderous act.
CNN’s Van Jones made allegations of racism against Kirk over his hypothesis, then gushed over him in an op-ed after his death, but Megyn Kelly wanted nothing to do with the belated gesture.
Kirk had no problem discussing uncomfortable topics in public, and he specifically mentioned the need to politicize this particular killing, stating, “If we want things to change, it's 100% necessary to politicize the senseless murder of Iryna Zarutska because it was politics that allowed a savage monster with 14 priors to be free on the streets to kill her.”
He continued, “There are so many dynamics at play here. Based on the information and the evidence we have, the attacker did say, 'I got that white girl.' The attacker racialized it in his own telling of the situation ... If a random white person on a subway took out a knife and stabbed a Black girl senselessly to death, there would be massive media coverage.”
Kirk's X post on the subject stated, “There would be policy changes. There would be people having to apologize for this. We saw this in George Floyd. And yet for whatever reason, this situation has not garnered even a fraction of that kind of outrage or backlash."
Van Jones took exception to Kirk’s statements and openly made allegations of racism against Kirk (who had, on more than one occasion, taken aim at racists at his events and on his show).
Jones stated, “We don’t know why that man did what he did. And for Charlie Kirk to say, ‘We know he did it because she’s white,’ when there’s no evidence of that is just pure race mongering, hate mongering. It’s wrong.”
He continued, “Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there would be sweeping changes imposed on society. Where is the George Floyd Policing Act? It didn’t pass that… We don’t know how to deal with people who are hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people hurt people.”
The so-called evidence is in the words, on which Kirk based his opinion, and his statement was just that, an opinion. Only days later, Kirk was murdered, and Jones went into self-preservation mode by publishing a gushing op-ed about Kirk.
When Kelly took heat in the media over a blackface costume years ago, she stated that Jones offered to publicly support her, but he eventually backed out because he started to receive racially motivated threats. He was allegedly receiving similar threats after arguing with Kirk on social media, which is why Kelly believes he wrote the recent op-ed.
She stated, “For the record, while I was on the air covering the Charlie murder live on this program, I did say this is not Van Jones’ fault. I was sure to point that out, and I maintain that position now. It was totally irresponsible of you. It was wrong, and you have yet to undo it.”
Kelly continued, “Van Jones, I believe … sees what happens to Charlie on Wednesday, and clearly starts to panic, because he’s been in a very open fight with Charlie Kirk.” Then Jones did what Democrats do in situations like this, try to make themselves the victim, adding, “What you should have done with me is say nothing or don’t volunteer to do anything. Don’t try to lie about your alleged death threats.”
Kelly crushed it in this piece and showed why she was once a top anchor on Fox News. And I agree with her… do I think Jones’ comments were responsible for Kirk’s death by themselves? No, absolutely not. But I do see this as a cumulative problem, so the CNN personality's words certainly went into that pot. When you portray someone as vile for a long enough time, eventually those words get into the ears of someone willing to act and make themselves out to be the savior by taking the targeted individual out. That is why I believe Charlie Kirk is dead today.
