Oft Evil Will Shall Evil Mar
Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and a New Great Awakening

The title to this essay is a line from Tolkien. But I’m also reminded of two distinct lines from Star Wars, paired:

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I dunno, I can imagine an awful lot.

Charlie Kirk was a powerful force. He went from campus to campus and he talked to people. Generally when he was debating, he would put his microphone down, to reassure his partner that he wasn’t going to talk over them. He was respectful, and he was highly effective. He played a major role in winning over Gen Z to the conservative side. That’s why he was killed — murdered. He was murdered not because he was “hateful,” or “extreme,” but because he was effective.

But now, even dead, he’s beating them, worse than he ever did when he was alive.

For all the fear of “Christian Nationalism,” a shallow, largely fictitious bogeyman for years, the murder of Charlie Kirk has effectively called it into being as a force.

(Ron Coleman, by the way, is an observant Jew.)

Trump couldn’t, and wouldn’t, have called Christian Nationalism into being himself. (Though, to be honest, it’s currently in a form FDR or Truman would have been comfortable with, if not Obama.) But Charlie Kirk’s murderer did. Christianity has historically advanced martyr by martyr. The way to kill Christianity is to ignore it. But the left can’t do that, of all things.

For one thing, leftism has the instinct to extirpate all potential rival power centers. And at a more fundamental level, since leftism was (to invoke Tolkien again) created in mockery of Christianity, as the Orcs were created in mockery of the Elves, there’s a fundamental hatred there that can’t be tamped down for long.

That hatred isn’t really returned by its objects. But if you get people’s attention, well, you may not like what comes next.

Why are they afraid? Erica Kirk today offered forgiveness.

Her full eulogy is here. On the other hand:

Forgiveness doesn’t mean avoidance of responsibility, or of consequences in this world.

But the real — and most hated — consequence won’t be FBI raids, and RICO prosecutions against the leftist groups that organize and finance terror, though those are likely to happen. It will likely be in another Great Awakening. There have already been signs of a religious revival among the young, both here and even in Europe. My University of Tennessee colleague Rosalind Hackett has been predicting for some time that the big religious force of the 21st Century is going to be militant Christianity, not militant Islam.

Tyler Robinson played a major part in helping to move that prediction closer to reality. I hope he reflects on that, in whatever time he has left.

CCL holder shoots, kills man trying to break into West Side apartment

CHICAGO (WGN) – A man was shot and killed by a concealed carry license holder while trying to break into a West Side apartment Saturday morning, according to Chicago police.

Sources close to the investigation said a 33-year-old man was kicking the back door of an apartment, threatening a woman and her children inside. The resident called police and a relative, a 28-year-old woman, who was able to get there quickly.

Police said the incident happened in the 3400 block of West Monroe Street just before 7 a.m. Saturday in East Garfield Park.

The man allegedly continued trying to get into the apartment, breaking a bedroom window and threatening to kill the family inside, sources told WGN-TV. The 28-year-old relative, who has a valid CCL, fired toward the man, hitting him multiple times.

According to police, the suspect in the attempted break-in was transported to Mt. Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The CCL holder was taken to Area Four for questioning, and no charges have been announced.

Police said the incident appears to be domestic-related.

BUY THIS BOOK! READ THIS BOOK!!
TELL YOUR PASTOR TO READ THIS BOOK!!
IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL- and you have not yet gotten them out of that indoctrination center and started homeschooling them – TELL YOUR PRINCIPAL, SUPERINTENDENT AND SCHOOL BOARD TO READ THIS BOOK!!

First 30 Seconds: The Active Shooter Problem

America has been failing for over 40 years at understanding, planning for, and responding to Active Shooter attacks. So, we continue to see attacks end in high victim-counts. America fails because we:
– do not base plans on TIME & MATH
– like plans that are easy to type, easy to drill, and do not “trigger” anyone
– recommend and adopt “best practices” that are not best
– adopt plans that work flawlessly every day there is no attack, but fail during attacks
– desperately want a non-violent solution to an extremely violent problem
– allow emotions and political agendas to distract us

The author served as an active-duty US Army officer for over 20 years. Throughout this career, planning to give and receive deadly violence was a common, required task. Ten days after his Army retirement, he began teaching public high school, where violence was never allowed, discussed, or planned for. He was STUNNED when school leaders told him the school’s planned response during an Active Shooter attack was to gather in groups and wait to see if the killer or cops got to you first.
This experience started his study of the Active Shooter problem. This book is about what he found.

Read Ed’s no-nonsense, blunt analysis of the Active Shooter problem. Using TIME & MATH analysis, he clearly shows the ONLY response that has a high expectation of minimizing victims in future attacks.
This is UNLIKE any discussion of the Active Shooter problem you have heard from any source. It disproves MANY long-held myths and assumptions, including that we should rely on RUN HIDE FIGHT, Lockdown Drills, and 911 response. It is a wake-up call for America, the “leaders” of our schools, churches, and businesses, and our elected officials.
America has failed at this for 40+ years. It’s time to end the failure.

“Ed Monk is today’s leading expert on thwarting mass murderers. His recommended strategy is by far the most effective, as proven in cases where the defenders did what Monk suggested.” — Massad Ayoob

 

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

Never give up your guns. Any American who demands his countrymen give up theirs is either a criminally negligent incompetent at citizenship, or an evil domestic enemy who knows exactly the kind of tyranny he is salivating to unleash. -David Codrea

The Trump Administration Announces Major Changes to U.S. Citizenship Test

The government has unveiled substantial changes to the US naturalization civics test, announcing a return to more rigorous standards for prospective citizens.

These updates, effective for applicants filing after mid-October, are intended to ensure a deeper understanding of American history, government, and civic values, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Expanded and More Challenging Content

The revised test, as outlined in the Federal Register notice , seeks to modernize and strengthen the assessment of civics knowledge.

Officials state that the new questions, format, and evaluation criteria are designed to challenge applicants to demonstrate not just rotate memorization, but a deeper conceptual understanding of core American values, historical turning points, and the structure of government authorities.

The revised test increases the pool of possible questions from 100 to 128, reintroducing updates first implemented in 2020 and rolled back during the previous administration. Applicants now face 20 questions, of which they must answer at least 12 correctly, compared to answering 6 out of 10 in the previous version.

The test remains an oral exam, with a wide range of topics including the Constitution, significant wars, influential figures such as Thomas Jefferson, and examples of American innovation.

Notably, the passing score is unchanged, but administrators can stop the exam after 12 correct or 9 incorrect answers, streamlining the process while maintaining rigor. Most applicants will take the exam in English, although some exceptions exist for older, long-term residents.

New Vetting and Character Assessment Standards

Alongside changes to the test content, the administration is implementing stricter criteria for evaluating applicants’ moral character and societal contributions. Guidance to USCIS officers now instructs them to consider a broader range of behaviors and revives neighborhood investigations to help verify eligibility.

Additionally, the agency has clarified that any involvement in illegal voting, illegal registration, or false citizenship claims will disqualify applicants from meeting good moral character requirements.

Rationale and Broader Context

USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser stated that “ American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world and should only be reserved for aliens who will fully embrace our values ​​and principles as a nation,” and that the changes are designed “to ensure only those aliens who meet all eligibility requirements, including the ability to read, write, and speak English and understand US government and civics, are able to naturalize.”

He framed the move as promoting full assimilation and strengthening the integrity of American citizenship, calling these “critical changes… the first of many” planned under the current administration.

This announcement has sparked renewed debate in political and civic circles over the balance between making the citizenship process demanding and ensuring it remains fair and accessible.