If watching and reading all of what's been happening on the Right (at least, we think it's the Right, we're starting to wonder) regarding Iran, America, and Israel has you feeling like you're taking crazy pills, you're not alone.
This is nuts.
People many of us have trusted for years suddenly using Charlie Kirk to wage some sort of propaganda war on America because 'Israel bad' is not something this editor had on her Bingo card.
And yet, here we are.
Take for example, Kent went on with Tucker Carlson right after he resigned and claimed that Kirk's last words to him were about stopping war with Iran.
Sure ...
Wow.
— Holden Culotta (@Holden_Culotta) March 19, 2026
Joe Kent just revealed the last thing Charlie Kirk said to him:
“The last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this Earth was in June, in the West Wing.”
“He looked me in the eye and he said … Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.”
“One of President Trump’s closest… pic.twitter.com/dUcl3Etj0X
Post continues:
... advisors was vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink, at least, our relationship with the Israelis.”
“And then he’s suddenly publicly assassinated and we’re not allowed to ask any questions about that?”
“The investigation that I was a part of [with] the National Counterterrorism Center, we were stopped from continuing to investigate.”
“But there was still a lot for us to look into that I can’t really get into.”
“There’s unanswered questions.”
“We know, because of the text messages that have been made public, that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro-Israel donors.”
Convenient for Kent that Kirk is no longer around to correct the record.
Especially when we have videos like this from Kirk himself saying otherwise:
Charlie Kirk on the night we bombed Iran last June:
— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) March 1, 2026
“And you might say, ‘Charlie, do you support or oppose this?’ I support President Trump. That’s my answer. I know the man…He’s the man for the hour…So in a situation like this, I support my friend. And he’s had my back, and… pic.twitter.com/Q3E47kpLHw
Recommended
Post continues:
... And he’s had my back, and I have his.”
If you think Charlie would be tweeting against these strikes with Candace and the clown co, you’re out of your mind, bastardizing and repurposing a dead man’s for your own ends.
Easy to take a man out of context who is no longer among the living for your own efforts, eh?
This response from James Lindsay though, this is straight fire:
Listen you human piece of garbage and anyone else here in the comments who wants to get this straight.
— James Lindsay, anti-Communist (@ConceptualJames) March 19, 2026
Charlie died in September of 2025. This conflict started in February 2026. Joe said this conversation happened in June 2025. Operation Midnight Hammer happened in June 2025.…
Post continues:
So we can establish that Charlie was talking to Joe in the context of Operation Midnight Hammer, but Charlie said those exact same things on camera to the world at the time. This isn't new information at all. It was always public straight from Charlie.
Then Trump executed Operation Midnight Hammer, and a nervous Charlie Kirk said he supported President Trump 100%, though he didn't want a "regime-change war." He later said the operation was a success.
Charlie Kirk backed President Trump 100%, even though he voiced his concerns before Trump made his decisions, both in public and in private. He supported Trump when he made these decisions and stood strongly with him, for him, and with and for the United States of America, even when he was nervous about it.
Charlie's words in June of 2025 cannot be construed in any way to be applicable to the circumstances that led Trump to make these decisions in early 2026. It isn't hard to guess how Charlie would have felt about this situation, though, since he already demonstrated it for us in June last year.
1) He would be publicly and privately nervous about getting into such a war and would strongly caution against regime-change as a goal and boots on the ground as a strategy;
2) He would have voiced these concerns both on camera and in private and maintained a pro-Trump and pro-America, while "America First," messaging about the looming conflict;
3) Once things started in late February/early March, he would have backed President Trump 100% like he did on 100% of the other things he backed President Trump on 100%, 100% of the time;
4) He would have stood by the operation and President Trump's decision-making, even while voicing his anxieties, concerns, and beliefs about wanting the war/conflict to wrap up quickly and avoid boots on the ground and a deliberate strategy of regime change;
5) He would have reassured Americans that President Trump has the best intelligence, the best instincts, and the best capabilities to redefine conflict in the 21st century and to guide us through this war, consistently.
To suggest anything else is to fail to have known Charlie Kirk or even to have paid attention to what he actually said in the relevant situation Kent is bringing up, standing on the silence of Charlie's coffin to do so.
To tie this to Charlie's murder is nothing short of reckless and heinous, and it is likely so reckless that it will possibly interfere with bringing Charlie's murderer to justice, given the idiotic and opportunistic things he said.
You are all vultures and skanks, and your judgment will be ruthless.
Ruthless.
============================================================
Related:
Gavin Newsom's Pep Talk for Kids With Learning Disabilities May Be His Most SHAMELESS Bit Yet
============================================================