Morgan Wallen paused his concert Friday night in Edmonton to offer a heartfelt dedication to Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated two days earlier during a speaking event. While performing on his “I’m the Problem” tour, Wallen opened up to the crowd, sharing how deeply the tragedy had affected him and his family.
“I’m not gonna say a whole bunch on this, but this song right here has been hitting me harder in the last couple days,” Wallen told the audience. He then dedicated the song “I’m A Little Crazy” to Erika Kirk, asking fans to join him in prayer. He said, “Me and my family are sending prayers her way.”
The moment unfolded just 48 hours after Charlie Kirk was killed onstage. Wallen, visibly moved, invited the audience to sing along, turning his performance into a moment of communal reflection and solidarity. Fans responded with warmth, many praising Wallen for using his platform to show support in a time of grief.
Erika Kirk recently made her first public remarks since her husband’s death, sharing memories and vowing to carry forward his mission grounded in faith, family, and service. The artist’s tribute adds another layer to the wave of public mournings and efforts to preserve Kirk’s legacy.
Federal investigators have revealed that the suspect accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk lived with a transgender partner in Utah who is now cooperating with authorities. According to senior FBI sources, Tyler Robinson, 22, shared an apartment in St. George with the partner, who is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Robinson was taken into custody following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Sources told Fox News that the transgender partner, identified as male transitioning to female, has provided information to investigators and assisted in clarifying Robinson’s activities before the attack. Text messages and communications between the two reportedly played a role in narrowing the FBI’s investigation and identifying Robinson as the suspect.
Agents executed search warrants at the apartment shared by Robinson and the partner, seizing computers and other electronic devices. The equipment has been transported to FBI headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, for forensic analysis. Officials are examining whether Robinson acted entirely alone or if he was influenced by broader ideological motivations.
The partner told authorities they had no prior knowledge of Robinson’s alleged plan and emphasized that they were not involved in the crime. The FBI has confirmed that the individual is cooperating fully and has not been charged.
The revelation adds another layer to a case that has shocked political and faith communities across the country. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was a prominent voice for conservative and Christian values. His assassination has sparked widespread calls for accountability and renewed attention to politically motivated violence targeting public figures.
While details continue to unfold, the FBI has not released information suggesting a larger conspiracy. Investigators remain focused on Robinson’s background, digital communications, and potential ideological influences that may have led to the attack.
GAZA CITY, GAZA - OCTOBER 13: Palestinian citizens inspect damage to their homes caused by Israeli airstrikes on October 13, 2023 in Gaza City, Gaza (Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty)
Roughly one in four residents of Gaza City have evacuated amid preparations for an intense Israeli assault on the remaining Hamas strongholds, according to estimates from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Over recent weeks, tens of thousands more civilians have fled, with the total evacuee count reaching about 280,000 under Israeli estimates. However, Hamas‑run civil defense reports a far lower figure, stating fewer than 70,000 people have left.
Before the IDF’s offensive began, Gaza City was estimated to house around one million people. Many of those leaving are relocating to humanitarian zones established in southern Gaza by the IDF in an effort to reduce civilian casualties as military operations intensify.
The offensive — named “Gideon’s Chariots II” — aims to dismantle the remaining infrastructure of Hamas and rescue the 48 Israeli hostages still held, 20 of whom are reportedly alive but in grave danger. The mission comes amidst global diplomatic pressure, hostages negotiations, and ongoing ceasefire discussions, which have so far stalled due to Hamas refusing to disarm or step down.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled that if Hamas does not relinquish power voluntarily, Israel will take decisive action to remove its leaders wherever they hide. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Israel to coordinate U.S. responses and express American reservations over operations targeting Hamas officials who are sheltering in Qatar.
A Virginia-based hospital has fired a healthcare worker after she made a social media post that appeared to support the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The anesthesiologist, contracted through North American Partners in Anesthesia (NAPA), was terminated by Riverside Walter Reed Hospital in Gloucester, Virginia, for what the hospital described as “highly inappropriate comments supporting violence against a public figure.”
Charlie Kirk was recently shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. In the aftermath, several individuals across the country made online remarks celebrating or downplaying the attack. Among them was the now-former anesthesiologist, whose comments quickly drew public attention and institutional response.
According to a statement from the hospital, the employee’s post violated professional conduct standards and the values expected from those working in healthcare. Officials confirmed that by mid-morning on September 11, the employee was no longer affiliated with the facility. The hospital emphasized its commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful environment for patients and staff.
While the identity of the anesthesiologist has not been officially released, the decision to terminate was confirmed by both the hospital and the contracting agency. The hospital’s swift response signals a zero-tolerance policy for speech perceived as endorsing harm, especially when associated with high-profile political violence.
This case raises important questions about the intersection of free speech, public responsibility, and professional accountability. Healthcare professionals are bound by strict codes of ethics, and actions interpreted as supporting violence—even when made on personal platforms—can carry serious consequences.
British punk‑rap duo Bob Vylan caused outrage during a show in Amsterdam when lead vocalist Bobby Vylan mocked the assassination of Charlie Kirk and called on fans to physically confront “fascists” and “zionists.” The performance added to their growing reputation for provocative and incendiary rhetoric.
On stage at Paradiso, Bobby Vylan reportedly asked the crowd, “Are there any snipers in the hall?” a pointed reference to Kirk’s recent murder. He then dedicated a song to Kirk, calling him a “piece of shit,” before telling fans that anyone who “chats shit… you will get banged!” In the same set, he yelled, “Sometimes you have to kick Nazis in their fucking face… Fuck the fascists, fuck the Zionists. Go find them on the street!”
The band had earlier led chants during the Glastonbury Festival, including “Death to the IDF,” and have doubled down on their confrontational style despite facing visa revocations and backlash over anti‑Israel statements. Their music and performances are intended not just to shock but to inspire what they describe as a revolution.
After Kirk’s death, the U.S. State Department warned foreign nationals that praising violent acts or assassinations could lead to visa consequences. Bob Vylan’s actions spotlight broader tensions between free speech, political art, and what many see as incitement to violence.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) sharply criticized members of his own party this week, calling out far-left Democrats for promoting socialist policies with no understanding of the real consequences. Speaking about a recent trip to Croatia—a country that lived under decades of communism—Fetterman said citizens there mocked American progressives who embrace socialism, calling them “morons.”
Fetterman made the comments during an interview while reacting to a Gallup poll showing that 66% of Democrats now view socialism more favorably than capitalism. He described conversations with Croatian citizens who survived life under a communist regime and were baffled by the rising popularity of socialism in the United States. Fetterman relayed their reaction plainly: “You are morons.”
According to Fetterman, the Croatians were “mystified” that Americans are even entertaining socialism, having seen firsthand the devastation it causes. He noted that while younger American voters embrace slogans about “free everything,” people who lived through actual socialism understand the reality—economic collapse, state control, and the loss of individual freedoms.
The senator’s remarks stand in sharp contrast to members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, such as New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who champions government-run stores, fare-free transit, universal childcare, and tax hikes on top earners. Critics argue these policies reflect a naive view of government power and ignore the long-term costs of expanding bureaucratic control.
Fetterman’s comments underscore a growing ideological rift within the Democratic Party. While the far-left pushes for socialist reforms, moderate Democrats and many independents remain wary of repeating the mistakes seen in countries that abandoned free-market economies for government centralization.
California Governor Gavin Newsom (AP Photo/Derrick Tuskan, File)
California lawmakers passed AB 7, a bill that allows colleges—including public universities and private institutions—to give admissions preference to students who can prove they are descendants of enslaved people. The bill says these schools may consider this preference, rather than mandating it, and only if it doesn’t conflict with federal law. The goal is to address historic exclusion and systemic harm stemming from slavery.
Supporters of AB 7 argue it’s race‐neutral because it focuses on lineage—being descended from someone enslaved before 1900—rather than defining eligibility based on being Black or another protected race. They contend this avoids violating Proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment passed in 1996, which bans considering race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin in public schooling and employment.
Opponents counter that the criteria still act as a proxy for race and could invite legal challenges. They note Proposition 209 and recent Supreme Court rulings against race‑based admissions preference may make AB 7 vulnerable to lawsuits. Practical questions are also raised: How will applicants prove descendancy? What documentation is acceptable? How will verification be handled?
AB 7 is part of a broader legislative package this session that seeks to advance repair for slavery’s legacy. Other bills include establishing a bureau to certify descendants of slavery, offering home‑loan assistance programs set aside for them, and processes to address property loss tied to racially motivated eminent domain or other historical injustices.
Governor Gavin Newsom will soon decide whether to sign AB 7 and the related bills. If signed, they would reshape how admissions and other state benefits are allocated in California, and likely spark broader legal and constitutional debates over the boundaries of race‑neutral reparative policy.
A Columbia University student publication has come under fire for publishing a so-called satirical article that jokingly referenced the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The piece, featured in The Federalist, a student-run satire outlet, mocked Kirk’s pro-Second Amendment stance by imagining his death and a fictional reversal in Turning Point USA’s gun rights position.
The headline of the article read: “Turning Point USA Undergoes Unexpected Ideological Shift, States Second Amendment Actually Not That Important Anymore.” The fake news story centered on a hypothetical assassination of Charlie Kirk and suggested that only after being affected personally would conservatives reconsider their views on firearms.
One section of the piece stated, “Guns kill people. That is a truth that we have only recently learned. It turns out, ignoring all of those public health experts … wasn’t a good idea. Our bad!” Another line explicitly attacked conservatives, stating, “In typical conservative fashion, it seems, Turning Point USA only realizes how terrible their politics are when it f—s with their own lives. Go figure.”
The article has provoked outrage among conservative students and free speech advocates, who argue that the mockery of political violence—even under the guise of satire—crosses ethical lines. Critics contend that referencing a public figure’s murder to make a political point normalizes violent rhetoric and fosters a hostile climate on campus.
Columbia University has not yet released a public statement regarding the publication. There is no indication whether the administration will take disciplinary action or implement new editorial standards for student-run media outlets.
The incident underscores growing concerns about political extremism and double standards in higher education. While universities often defend controversial speech in the name of academic freedom, critics argue that violent rhetoric against conservative figures is routinely tolerated or ignored by campus leadership.
This controversy follows a pattern of escalating hostility toward conservative voices on college campuses. From speaker disruptions to physical threats, ideological intolerance continues to challenge institutions’ commitments to civil discourse and equal treatment.
The satire piece not only mocks a conservative leader but does so through a scenario involving his hypothetical assassination—an act many consider beyond the bounds of acceptable commentary, regardless of political affiliation. The backlash highlights a growing divide over what qualifies as free speech and what amounts to incitement cloaked in humor.
California’s State Senate approved a bill co‑sponsored by Senator Scott Wiener that would prohibit federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from wearing masks while on duty. The measure is now headed to Governor Gavin Newsom, who must decide whether to sign it into law.
Under the new legislation, ICE agents—and most law enforcement officers—would be required to appear unmasked during public operations, except in limited situations such as tactical missions or medical needs. The California Highway Patrol is exempt under the bill.
Supporters argue the bill advances transparency and accountability by ensuring that officers are identifiable. They say masked agents create fear and distrust among communities, especially during immigration enforcement actions.
Critics warn the law is unconstitutional, citing the Supremacy Clause which grants federal laws precedence over state laws. Some also claim it violates equal protection by exempting the Highway Patrol. Others argue the law could expose officers to danger or limit effectiveness in field operations where masks are necessary.
Senator Wiener has previously sponsored legislation seen as controversial, including efforts to soften loitering laws and expand access for transgender medical procedures. His critics say this bill is part of a broader pattern of enabling activists at the expense of law enforcement authority.
Governor Newsom now faces a political decision: whether to sign the bill and appease left‑leaning activists, or veto it to support federal agents and law enforcement agencies. The outcome could set a precedent for other states considering similar mask bans on law enforcement.
A new national survey reveals that a disturbing number of college students view violence as an acceptable tool to shut down speech they oppose. Conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings report highlights a growing trend of hostility toward free expression on American campuses.
The survey gathered responses from more than 68,000 students across 257 colleges and universities. One in three students said it is at least “rarely acceptable” to use violence to stop a campus speech. Specifically, 2% said it is “always acceptable,” 13% said “sometimes acceptable,” and 19% said “rarely acceptable.” Only 67% stated that violence is “never acceptable” in response to speech.
The report also measured views on less aggressive but still coercive actions. More than half of students said it is at least occasionally acceptable to block others from attending a speech. Among respondents, 3% said it is “always acceptable,” 19% said “sometimes,” and 32% said “rarely.” This suggests that disruption tactics—whether physical or procedural—are gaining broader acceptance among students.
Political identity did not provide a clear divide on the use of violence. Seven percent of self-identified liberal students and eight percent of conservatives said using violence to stop speech was “always acceptable.” This suggests a bipartisan erosion of foundational American values, particularly the right to express ideas without fear of retaliation.
These findings coincide with increased campus protests, especially around controversial speakers, religious topics, and Middle East politics. The growing tolerance for intimidation and even physical confrontation has placed new pressure on university administrators to respond decisively.
FIRE, which advocates for free speech rights on campuses, has used the survey to call for stronger protections for viewpoint diversity and disciplinary actions against those who seek to suppress debate through coercion or violence. The full rankings evaluate universities on speech climate, administrative tolerance, and student attitudes.
The report warns that unless institutions recommit to free speech principles, the next generation of leaders may carry into public life a deeply flawed understanding of civil liberty and democratic engagement.
