The assassination was particularly gruesome because it was caught on film by an attendee who was very close to the stage, filming Charlie head-on. Out of nowhere, he appears to be jolted by something and a percussive shockwave ripples his clothes. Almost instantly, his carotid artery (we can assume) shoots a fountain of red blood all over his white shirt and he slumps back and to his left, then falls out of his chair. The rest is history. When I saw that video, reports were that he was still in critical condition in the hospital, but I never had any doubt he was gone. You just don’t survive that. This was the first time since Martin Luther King that such a charismatic political leader was shot and killed. In 1968, the photos were mostly gray and grainy and you had to find a television or newspaper to even see what little was publicly available; much of it was never released. Charlie’s assassination was the first time in history that it happened in high definition, uncensored, and with a screen in every adult’s pocket.

Since then, I’ve detected a stark impact on almost everyone I’ve spoken to. It’s been brought up to me, unprompted, over a dozen times. Generally this is done with a somber tone while discussing something entirely unrelated to Charlie or even politics. People who I know personally and who were, as recently as September 9^th, generally unmoved by political discourse, are suddenly awakened to something that they cannot quite articulate. There’s a deep and palpable sense that something is profoundly wrong with the American political environment. Charlie Kirk’s politics would have been center-right and entirely unremarkable in the first decades of the 2000s. If anything, he’d have been an outlier on the right during that era for his non-interventionist tendencies – a Ron Paul type. Now, the overton window has shifted so far that a huge portion of the American political left considers his positions as only a hair’s breadth away from Mussolini or Franco. Then, after his death came a deluge of people across the ideological aisle mercilessly dancing on his grave. For days, the onslaught of cackling, unhinged liberal women jeering the grotesque murder of a young father and husband for the crime of wrongthink was unavoidable to anyone with an X account. Many of them even wished a similarly macabre fate on his parents, wife and children.

The name of the organization he founded may have been both branding and prophecy. The irony of his assassination is that it, and the multitudes who cheered after, may have ultimately sparked a turning point for the United States. Most Americans are only mildly political, but what political opinions they do have probably overlap fairly substantially with Charlie’s. Many of them are proud of their faith like he was. They see themselves, their sons, their brothers or their friends in him. They believe in many of the same things he used his platform to espouse, and they grew up believing that free speech is the cornerstone of the American project. Now, they feel themselves confronted with a nebulous enemy whose tendency to violence betrays the knowledge that its ideas cannot stand on their merits. Since there’s no logical way to argue that a dude can actually be a woman, maybe he’ll just shoot you for not bending the knee to his idolatrous pastel flag. He may even wish the same fate on your family. Wading through this fog of chaos, the aforementioned mildly political Americans will now be eager to vote for an even heavier hand who will pledge to restore order. If that does not succeed, eventually they’ll take matters into their own hands. Never forget that Hitler rose to power during the crushing economic collapse of the Weimar Republic.

Subscribe now

Freedom requires order to function. Proper order requires justice to maintain. Justice, in this case, would mean catching those responsible and prosecuting them for their crimes. A young man by the name of Tyler Robinson is in custody, but to date (09/15/2025) authorities report he is not cooperating and a motive is unclear. What is clear is that, from the jump, the FBI has done a poor job handling this case and an even poorer job answering the most obvious questions. The suspect managed to escape the crime scene, and it was over 24 hours before he was captured. Even then, his whereabouts and identity weren’t discovered by FBI investigators until a family member turned him in. Kash Patel gave a self-fellating speech praising the bureau’s work, but in reality there are a multitude of curious, unanswered questions that will almost certainly leave all interested people doubting the official story regardless of who is charged. A true sense of justice will likely escape the American public unless these are answered.

To start, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, a man named George Zinn was detained by police for yelling “I shot him, now shoot me!” As it turns out, George Zinn was featured in a 9/11 remembrance video sponsored by the Major Brent Taylor Foundation in Weber County, Utah, discussing how he was at ground zero on 09/11/2001 and saw the twin towers struck. He was also arrested in 2013 for threatening to bomb the finish line of the Salt Lake City Marathon a week after the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the one in Boston. What motive might George Zinn have had for attempting to distract authorities at the scene? How does Zinn keep popping up at the sites of such historically significant tragedies? And given his prior arrest for terrorism, might he have had a role to play in a coordinated effort to assassinate Charlie?

Immediately after the shooting, video surfaced of a man cheering and smiling enthusiastically. This would be unusual enough, but to compound suspicion, he appears to turn around and face the precise direction the alleged shooter was perched during his celebration. He also does all of this only seconds after the shooting, when the entire crowd is ducked down. If he was operating off the same information as any other event-goer, he could not have known whether or not this shooter was intending to target others. Yet he was comfortable and confident enough to stand straight up, above all the crouched members of the audience, and draw maximum attention to himself. What, if anything, did this man know? Why did he appear so enthusiastic about such a grim scene? To me, this reeks of the high-fivers from 09/11.

Only a few minutes after Charlie had been driven away in a suburban by his security team, a man is observed entering the tent where he was shot, walking all over the crime scene, and removing a camera that appeared to have a direct shot of Charlie and the crowd. Who was this man? Why was he removing the camera? Was the camera capturing footage before or when Charlie was shot? If so, what does the footage show? Who has the footage? Why has it not been released to the public?

The following day, CCTV stills and grainy security videos begin to surface from the FBI’s investigation. Reuters announced that investigators had found the murder weapon - a Mauser .30-06 bolt action rifle. Interestingly enough, though, that is a big ass gun. As a thought experiment, imagine the challenge, but make it easier: you must effectively conceal a large-frame revolver (a .460 or .500 S&W magnum for example, not a scoped .30-06) while walking through a whole neighborhood, up five flights of stairs and across the roof of a giant building. Then, fire your weapon, conceal it again, run back across the roof, jump off it, and run away from the spot where you fired. At no point may you drop your weapon, print it clearly, or otherwise reveal it to any person or any security camera in the hyper-crowded setting you’re navigating. You will also only be wearing a t-shirt - no jacket or hoodie. I’d be willing to bet that most people would fail miserably at this task. Yet, this is precisely what the FBI claims Tyler Robinson did. In the still photos released from the university’s parking garage, his cell phone is clearly printing in his right front pocket; no angle, however, reveals anything approximating the silhouette of a .30-06 hunting rifle. In the grainy security video (available at the prior link), he appears to be carrying something in his hand, but it isn’t clear what the object is. Also curious is the fact that the released security footage begins after the shooter has left his perch. Moments earlier, an event attendee had captured video of someone laying on the roof of a building facing Charlie’s tent. The man narrating the video mentions seeing the person run to his location, but makes no mention of seeing a gun. Assuming the FBI has the story correct, how did the shooter manage to get the rifle onto the roof without being detected or caught on camera? If he concealed it under his clothing, how was he able to run and eventually jump fifteen feet to the ground? Where is the footage from the same security camera that would have captured him setting up at his perch and firing his weapon?

In the days leading up to the assassination, several small-scale social media accounts were posting cryptic messages about Charlie Kirk coming to UVU to speak, the most famous of them being someone using the handle “@NajraGalvz.” After the shooting, the account handle was changed, the posts were protected and the photos were removed.

This account does not appear to belong to Tyler Robinson. Who’s account is it? What did he or she know, and how? Why was the account scrubbed, and who scrubbed it? Has the FBI made contact with the account holder? If they have, what do they know? How many others also had prior knowledge of the event?

After authorities had taken the suspect into custody, it was identified that he lived with another man named Lance Twiggs, who was allegedly “transitioning” to living as a woman. The New York Post sent a pair of correspondents to their apartment complex to investigate, where a neighbor informed them that, in recent weeks, several people with out-of-state plates who “did not give off a good vibe” had been in and out of the home. Has the FBI asked for descriptions of these visitors? What states were they from? What was meant by the neighbor’s “vibe” comment? Did anyone at the complex have security cameras that would have captured vehicles or people who came for these visits?

Perhaps most bizarrely in all of this, a close friend of Kirk’s allegedly told Harrison H. Smith of InfoWars that Charlie was worried that Israel would kill him if he publicly disavowed his support, which Harrison reported nearly a month before the shooting:

This was later confirmed further by Max Blumenthal of the Grayzone, who was told by a different source close to Kirk that Charlie had recently come to loathe Benjamin Netanyahu and his elite network of influential Zionist allies in the United States, many of whom were financiers of TPUSA. As his attitude towards Israeli influence in American politics began to shift, Charlie had reportedly become fearful of the consequences of opposing their influence over American policy. Charlie himself alluded to this, telling Megyn Kelly in August that he was less free to criticize the Israeli government “than actual Israelis.” Only a week before this interview was recorded, it was confirmed by Max Blumenthal that uber-Zionist and billionaire Bill Ackman had attempted to stage a hostile “intervention” with Kirk by using other conservative, pro-Israel influencers in the Hamptons. Ackman himself confirmed as much in a vaguely-worded response to a similar accusation by Candace Owens on X. If Charlie, perhaps the highest-profile political influencer on the right, personally expressed fear over the consequences of his shifting views on Israel, a foreign government with a history of high-profile political assassinations and who has proclaimed publicly that the world is a global screenplay in which they direct, act, and produce, it stands to reason that an FBI interested in justice would do more than nothing to see if this could be a lead worthy of investigation. It may amount to nothing at all.

I have no opinion yet on exactly who killed Charlie Kirk, who else could have been involved, what the motives were, how the murder was orchestrated or what the FBI knows or doesn’t know. What I absolutely believe, however, is that the federal government is not delivering the transparency that this case deserves. We are not getting the full story, and the FBI has not proved their competence in chasing down the important leads. There are significant holes in the official narrative, and the bureau has a long history of abject failure. I’m no journalist and will not be the one to track down answers to these questions, but the perception of justice by the American public depends fully on them being answered. Charlie’s murder has the potential to further ensconce American political divisions, and deepen the sense of chaos and disorder felt by the population at scale. In this climate, tyranny finds fertile ground. Freedom demands order, and order demands justice, and one way or the other the American populace will demand answers to the obvious questions surrounding Kirk’s death.

- Warren Post

In hindsight, these results seem painfully predictable. But it is important for the reader to remember that there was a time when Super Size Me was an absolutely revelatory film to most of the country. Growing up in the Midwest, the only person I ever knew who didn’t think that chronic illnesses were just random, unlucky events outside of your control by way of genetic happenstance was my crunchy uncle who had left for Southern California in the late 1980s. My improvement had changed this for me. By the mid 2010s, I had begun to get into the habit of asking simple questions regarding my health and that of my family’s. I was still not terribly skeptical of the medical establishment, and frankly couldn’t have articulated that it even existed. All I really knew is that I liked my doctor growing up, and he’d been my doctor for my entire childhood.

With this backdrop, I thought to ask a couple simple questions with regard to my son who would arrive in a few months. The first was “which vaccines do the professionals recommend we give him?” The second was “what illnesses are they preventing?” The third was “are there any potential side-effects?” Up until this point, I had never thought to ask any of these questions; after all, vaccination was just what you did to keep your new baby healthy. We vaccinated our first two kids and everything seemed to turn out fine.

To answer the first question, I searched something innocuous like “recommend vaccines for childhood.” The schedule looked like this:

• Birth

  • Hepatitis B

• 1-2 Months

  • DTaP

  • Hib

  • IPV

  • PCV

  • Rotavirus

• 4 Months

  • DTaP (dose 2)

  • Hib (dose 2)

  • IPV (dose 2)

  • PCV (dose 2)

• 6 Months

  • DTaP (dose 3)

  • Hib (dose 3)

  • Hepatitis B (dose 2)

  • IPV (dose 3)

  • PCV (dose 3)

  • Rotavirus (dose 2)

• 7-11 Months

  • Influenza

• 12-23 Months

  • Chickenpox

  • DTaP (dose 4)

  • Influenza

  • Hepatitis A

  • Hepatitis B (dose 3)

  • Hib (dose 4)

  • IPV (dose 4)

  • MMR

  • PCV (dose 4)

• 2-3 Years

  • Influenza

• 4-6 Years

  • Chickenpox (dose 2)

  • DTaP (dose 5)

  • Influenza

  • MMR (dose 2)

My first thought was something like “wow, that is 31 shots against 14 illnesses by age 6. I don’t remember getting that many.” So, like any good sojourner of the 21^st century, I took to Google. “CDC vaccine schedule 1990 (the year I was born),” I searched. Sure enough, I would have received 10 shots against 8 illnesses. Chickenpox was on the list back then too, but in 1990 no self-respecting mother was concerned that her child might die from it, so my mom just left us to get it from our friends. Why the sudden increase? I knew other people with children and, if anything, they seemed slightly sicker and definitely more allergic to things than I remember kids being when I was growing up.

“Fine,” I thought, “if this is what it takes to keep my kid healthy, I’ll do it. But I should probably know what I’m trying to prevent.” I decided I would answer my second initial question: “what illnesses am I vaccinating him against?” Logically, I started with the first vaccine on the schedule, Hepatitis B, and figured I’d move chronologically down the list. First thing was first: what even is Hepatitis B? I had no clue. I turn to Google, again, and the first result is from some broadly-known mainstream health authority like the Cleveland Clinic or NIH – I don’t remember exactly which. It turns out it is a viral infection that creates inflammation in the liver, which of course I don’t want my infant son contracting, so at this point I’m still on board. The follow-on question to this was obviously “well, how would he contract it?” This is where things began to stop making sense for me. There were basically three avenues of transmission of Hepatitis B: sexual contact or sharing intravenous needles with an infected person, or mother-to-child transmission during childbirth. None of these scenarios made any sense to me though, because my wife was tested for Hepatitis B at her first prenatal visit and, of course, the result was negative. Since she was not going to have sex with an infected person (or share intravenous needles with one) before giving birth, there was an actual zero percent chance my child would contract this illness.

At this point, the cognitive dissonance was profound. Why on earth would you inject a baby, only hours old, with a vaccine for an illness he could not contract? I wouldn’t even give a toddler Infant Motrin without having a reason to. Imagine the logic: “Hey honey, Junior is learning to walk now. He could fall and hit his head, and that would hurt. Should we give him Motrin in case it does happen, then he’ll be in less pain afterwards?” I was almost incredulous – surely there had to be a reason. My next thought was the most logical one I could think of: “How long does the immunity last?” Maybe the reasoning was that lifelong immunity might as well be acquired in infancy to ensure maximal lifetime protection. I searched Google again, and once again the answer blew my mind. The first result was the NHS website from the U.K., and it says that immunity “may last 20 years.” “20 years?” I thought, “I’m going to inject my hours-old son with a vaccine to protect against a sexually-transmitted illness he won’t contract in childhood whose immunity wears off around the time he reaches sexual maturity?” I was still convinced that there was no way this is the kind of thing that you’d find when you asked the most basic questions about the vaccines on the CDC’s schedule, so I did more digging.

The next vaccine on the list was DTaP, which I found out stood for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. I had no meaningful idea of what any of these diseases were, so I continued my research. Diphtheria is a virulent bacterial infection that creates a fibrous coating on the throat that can restrict breathing, and whose shed toxins can poison the heart. It was the illness central to the story of Balto, which was a movie I had enjoyed as a child. By all accounts a terrible sickness I would not want my son contracting, only one or two cases per year have occurred in the United States since the 1980s, and all of them were acquired internationally. It also turned out to have an established, effective, and widely-available treatment protocol. And, unlike COVID, it was not spread through respiratory aerosols; this means that if there was, by some incomprehensible anti-miracle, a diphtheria outbreak in the neighborhood, simple quarantine of my infant son would be enough to prevent him from contracting it. All of this information came straight from institutions like the Cleveland Clinic, the NIH, the NHS, the CDC or the WHO. I did not have to dig far to put the pieces together.

Tetanus turned out to be similar; it was basically only contracted by having a puncture wound contaminated by rust, soil or infected saliva – none of which would likely apply to my baby boy. And, even if somehow it did, both the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines could be given as post-exposure prophylactics, meaning they could be administered once exposure had potentially occurred, and would be equally preventative. To further compound my confusion, I discovered that both diphtheria and tetanus boosters are recommended for adults every 10 years. I had never heard a single adult in my life tell me that he or she was going to the doctor for a diphtheria or tetanus booster. I did, however, know a couple adults who had received tetanus shots after stepping on rusty nails. If the wait-until-it-happens approach worked just fine for every adult ever, why would I not follow the same protocol for my son?

Over and over I found the same kinds of answers. Hib was another bacterial pathogen that used to infect over 20,000 young children every year, but has since dropped to less than 50 cases annually and, like diphtheria and tetanus, has a successful post-exposure prophylactic protocol. PCV is intended to prevent pneumonia, which has been around forever and has always been straightforwardly treated with antibiotics. There are certainly serious, antibiotic-resistant strains, but these are more commonly acquired in hospital settings and among otherwise immunocompromised people with significant comorbidities and, it turns out, PCV doesn’t immunize against those anyways. IPV targets polio, and the last case of that acquired in the U.S. was in 1979. Rotavirus is the stomach flu. Hepatitis A is, like COVID, fatal in a vanishingly small number of children who acquire it. Influenza is the flu – we all get that a bunch of times before we hit adulthood. Chickenpox is so unserious that I remember my own mother being glad when it finally hit our house because we wouldn’t get it again after that. MMR stands for “measles, mumps and rubella.” Mumps is probably the most contagious, least treatable and most complicated disease on this list, but is still generally mild in infected children and lasting complications are rare. I found that the CDC’s own data said that <0.02% of infected children will develop encephalitis, the most dangerous of potential side effects. Rubella is typically even milder in young children; both are much worse in adults. Last, but not least, let us not forget that classic episode of The Brady Bunch where the kids were thrilled to contract the measles, because it meant they could stay home from school without being especially sick.

In my search, I never even got to the third of my initial questions: “are there any potential side-effects?” I didn’t feel like I needed to. The collective possibility of my child being disabled or killed by any one of these diseases was smaller than the likelihood a child is killed in a car accident before reaching adulthood. No half-caring parent would stick a single needle into his or her child’s arm knowing there would almost certainly be no measurable benefit, much less 31 of them. Nor would that same parent give a child a dose of Tylenol without reason to believe it would lessen the burden of some ailment. Yet, somehow, when the same institutional apparatus that gave us the deadly Vioxx debacle demands we do just that, all social forces coalesce to corner us into compliance.

Mildly astute readers will notice that I have not said a single thing about autism, adverse events, VAERS, safety studies, or any of the things the Children’s Health Defense crowd typically concerns themselves with. I take no position on those matters in this article. Instead, I asked simple, basic questions regarding the benefit of these shots for my child in our own family’s situation, and the answers I got could not have surprised me more. My calculations could be different if my son was born immunocompromised, or if we lived somewhere with poor sanitation, or if we regularly traveled somewhere one of these diseases was endemic or common. I think there’s a perfectly good argument that the benefit is substantial in occupations where exposure potential is high (i.e. rabies in animal control). If there was a sudden outbreak of diphtheria in my area, and my kids were exposed, I would absolutely vaccinate them post-exposure. If my son stepped on a rusty nail, same thing. But these are situational cost/benefit analyses that are dependent upon specific factors, and relevant to specific circumstances. To take a blanket preventative tactic with almost no measurable benefit to most patients that is immensely profitable to American pharmaceutical companies seemed, at minimum, a sacrifice I wouldn’t be making with my son.

- Warren Post

I am an unapologetic Mormon, though not a member of the LDS church. I have an indefatigable mistrust of authority and an unrepentant commitment to freedom. I believe in the ancient and patriarchal order of the household, and that modern feminism and the damage it wreaks on relations between men and women is the most destructive force alive in our culture. As I see it, a large, faithful, upstanding family of descendants possessing sound moral character is the pinnacle of achievement in a man’s life. In my view, the American Revolution and the founding of the country was ordained by the hand of God, and was the last justified war fought by American soldiers. I believe that the corporate world is a vacuous, soulless place of apathy and misery. In fact, I believe its entire survival in its present form is predicated on laws that keep cheap money and regulatory favors flowing freely among the billionaires that rule over us. I believe that physical health is not just the cornerstone of a long life, but a core religious duty, and that your right to bear arms in defense of your family, yourself, your property and your freedom is given to you by God. Most importantly, I believe that the highest possible pursuit is to bring souls to a knowledge of the Father and the Son by being an example of the application of the principles of the gospel.

On a long enough timeline, I believe the war of ideas is always won by truth. I started this blog because I do not find anyone in the public sphere who truly represents the lens through which I view the world, though many represent at least a part of it very well. I believe that religion, politics, health and fitness, the social order and the economy are all connected in a fundamental way, and I hope that I can elucidate these links for anyone who might be sympathetic. I pray that I can inspire inquisitive minds to see the world and its events with a slightly more complete picture. And perhaps, most selfishly, there is some simple catharsis in having a medium through which to form, deliver and preserve my thoughts. I hope you find value in the content.

- Warren Post