ReportWire

Tag: Vengeance

  • While mourning, Christian nationalists are calling Charlie Kirk a ‘martyr’ and want vengeance

    [ad_1]

    A few hours after Charlie Kirk was killed, Sean Feucht, an influential right-wing Christian worship leader, filmed a selfie video from his home in California, his eyes brimming with tears.

    The shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative activists, Feucht declared, was no less than “a line in the sand” in a country descending into a spiritual darkness.

    “The enemy thinks that he won, that there was a battle that was won today,” he said, referencing Satan. “No, man, there’s going to be millions of bold voices raised up out of the sacrifice and the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.”

    Soon afterward, Pastor Matt Tuggle, who leads the Salt Lake City campus of the San Diego-based Awaken megachurch, posted a video of Kirk’s killing on Instagram, adding the caption: “If your pastor isn’t telling you the left believes a evil demonic belief system you are in the wrong church!”

    People place lighted candles below a photo of Charlie Kirk at a vigil in his memory in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    Kirk’s death has triggered a range of reaction, much of it mournful sympathy for the 31-year-old activist and his family. But it also has sparked conspiracy theories, hot-take presumptions the left was responsible and calls for vengeance against Kirk’s perceived enemies.

    At a vigil for Kirk in Huntington Beach this week, some attendees waved white flags depicting a red cross and the word “Jesus,” while some chanted, “White men, fight back!” Kirk spread a philosophy that liberals sought to disempower men, and some of his male supporters see his killing as an attack against them.

    Whether the calls for vengeance will ebb or intensify remains to be seen, especially with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s announcement Friday that a suspect in the fatal shooting, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, had been arrested after a family member turned him in.

    In life, Kirk spoke of what he called a “spiritual battle” being waged in the United States between Christians and a Democratic Party that “supports everything that God hates.”

    In death, Kirk, one of the Republican Party’s most influential power brokers, is being hailed by conservative evangelical pastors and GOP politicians as a Christian killed for his religious beliefs.

    President Trump called Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom,” and ordered flags to be flown at half-staff in his honor. He blamed Kirk’s death on the rhetoric of the “radical left.” Vice President JD Vance, who helped carry Kirk’s casket to Air Force Two, retweeted a post Kirk wrote on X last month reading, “It’s all about Jesus.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, quoting Jesus, wrote on X: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

    A woman rests her head on a church seat.

    A woman lays her head down on a seat during a vigil at CenterPoint Church for Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    Experts on faith and far-right extremism say they are troubled by the religious glorification of Kirk in this era of increased political violence — and the potential vengeance that may spring from it. The activist’s death, they say, seems to have ignited various factions on the right, ranging from white supremacists to hard-core Christian nationalists.

    “The ‘spiritual warfare’ rhetoric will only increase,” and Kirk is now being lifted up as “a physical manifestation” of a religious battle, said Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia who has written a forthcoming book about Christian nationalism that prominently features Kirk.

    “Spiritual warfare rhetoric was a big part of Jan. 6,” he said of the deadly 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. “Making a martyr out of Charlie Kirk will change our nation in severe ways.”

    Samuel Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma and expert on Christian nationalism, said he is a Christian himself but that religion, cynically used, “has the potential to amplify what would otherwise be very secular political conflicts between Democrats and Republicans.”

    “What if those are amplified with a cosmic and ultimate significance?” he said. “It becomes, ‘This is God vs. Satan. This is angels vs. demons — and if we lose this next election, we plunge the nation into a thousand years of darkness.’ … It basically provokes extremism.”

    Feucht, a Christian nationalist and failed Republican congressional candidate from Northern California, said that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” and that, in the wake of Kirk’s death, “we have to do something.”

    Kirk — who rallied his millions of online followers to vote for Trump in the 2024 election — declared that God was on the side of American conservatives and that there was “no separation of church and state.” He was also known for his vitriol against racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ+ people, childless women, progressives and others who disagreed with him.

    Kirk called transgender people “a throbbing middle finger to God.” He said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a huge mistake” and called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “awful.” On his podcast, he called with a smirk for “some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area [who] wants to really be a midterm hero” to bail out of jail the man who attacked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer in their home in 2022.

    A memorial is set up for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

    A memorial is set up for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

    (Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

    In 2023, Kirk sat on the stage of Awaken Church in Salt Lake City and said: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

    Two days before his death, Kirk retweeted a video of himself saying that a “spiritual battle is coming for the West,” with “wokeism or marxism combining with Islamism” to go after “the American way of life, which is, by the way, Christendom.”

    Perry said, “There’s no need to whitewash the legacy of Charlie Kirk.”

    “This is a tragedy, and no one deserves to die this way,” Perry said. “Yet, at the same time, Charlie Kirk is very much part of this polarization story in the U.S. who used quite divisive rhetoric, ‘us vs. them, the left is evil.’”

    Perry noted that Kirk’s Turning Point USA had placed him on its Professor Watchlist, a website that says it aims to expose professors “who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.” The entry on Perry flags him for “Anti-Judeo-Christian Values.”

    Some on the right say their recent fiery words are only a response to the hateful rhetoric of the left. One widely shared example: Two days before Kirk’s killing, the feminist website Jezebel published an article titled, “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.” It has since been removed and replaced by a letter from the site’s editor saying it had been “intended as satire and made it absolutely clear that we wished no physical harm.”

    Kirk was killed by a single sniper-style shot to the neck Wednesday during an outdoor speaking event at Utah Valley University.

    After announcing the suspect’s arrest Friday, Gov. Cox said he had prayed that the shooter was not from Utah, “that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country.” But that prayer, he said, “was not answered the way I hoped for.”

    He then said that political violence “metastasizes because we can always point the finger at the other side” and that, “at some point, we have to find an offramp, or it’s going to get much, much worse.”

    Some of Kirk’s most prominent evangelical followers have said that his death represents an attack on conservative Christian values and that he was gunned down for speaking “the truth.”

    Jon Fleischman, Orange County-based conservative blogger and former executive director of the California Republican Party, who started out as a conservative college activist, knew Kirk and said “there is one hell of a martyr situation going on.”

    “A lot of people are getting activated and are going to walk the walk, talk the talk, and give money as their way of trying to process and deal with losing someone they care about,” he told The Times.

    In recent years, Kirk had become more outspoken about his Christian faith. He founded the nonprofit Turning Point USA in 2012 as an avowedly secular youth organization and became known for his college campus tours, with videos of his debates with liberal college students racking up tens of millions of views.

    But in 2020, during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, college campuses closed. Kirk started speaking at churches that stayed open in violation of local lockdown and mask orders, including Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Ventura County, which was led by Pastor Rob McCoy, a former Thousand Oaks mayor.

    McCoy is now the co-chair of Turning Point USA Faith, which encourages pastors to become more politically outspoken. McCoy, who could not be reached for comment, wrote in a statement Friday: “For those who rejoiced over his murder, you are instruments of evil and I implore you to repent. For those of you who mock prayer, you would do well to reconsider. Prayer doesn’t change God, it changes us toward a more peaceful and civil life.”

    Professor Boedy said McCoy turned Kirk toward Christian nationalism, specifically the Seven Mountains Mandate — the idea that Christians should try to hold sway over the seven pillars of cultural influence: arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media and religion.

    Christian nationalism, which is rejected by mainline Christians, holds that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the faith should have primacy in government and law.

    Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and a professor emeritus at Cal State San Bernardino, said, “the more violent fringes of Christian nationalism have disturbing aspects that are eliminationist and antidemocratic.”

    He noted that some of the same Christian nationalists and white supremacists who are now calling Kirk a martyr already deified Trump, especially after he survived two assassination attempts on the campaign trail last year and said he had been “saved by God to make America great again.”

    Levin said many Christian nationalists portray Trump as “an armed Christian warrior protecting America from a disturbing assortment of immigrants, religious minorities, genders and sexual orientations.” And so, when he uses martyr language to describe Kirk, his adherents latch on.

    “Where do martyrs come from? From violent conflicts and wars,” Levin said. “The fact of the matter is that this is a moment that Trump could have more effectively seized, but he veered into divisive territory.”

    California Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) also called Kirk “a modern day martyr.” In a statement, Jones quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Jones wrote: “Let us take care that we allow that tree to grow and blossom as it feeds on the lifeblood of Charles J. Kirk in the years to come.”

    Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Hailey Branson-Potts

    Source link

  • Litman: Will Trump launch a reign of terror against his list of enemies? There’s little to stop him

    [ad_1]

    During his ultimately victorious campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump made no bones about his intention to use the legal levers of government to go after his perceived enemies. When he takes office in January, we should therefore expect him to launch a reign of terror against dozens of people he sees as having crossed him. And his vengeance will be enabled by the Supreme Court opinion granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

    A recent National Public Radio analysis determined that Trump has threatened more than 100 federal investigations or prosecutions to settle scores. They run the gamut from President Biden and his family, whom the president-elect has promised to pay back on Day 1 of his tenure by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate unspecified crimes; to former Rep. Liz Cheney, whom he recently suggested should face something like a firing squad; to judges involved in his prosecutions; and journalists who refuse to give up their sources.

    Granted, Trump frequently gives the impression that he has little understanding of or even interest in many of the policies he pressed on the campaign trail. But retribution against his enemies is clearly something that gets him up in the morning. From well before his entry into politics, Trump has been single-minded in intimidating and exacting retribution against his opponents.

    A passage from one of his tacky books that was read into evidence at his New York criminal trial declares, “My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.”

    Trump is in this respect not unique in the annals of the American presidency. The desire to “screw” one’s enemies, a hallmark of the insecure leader, is the impulse that brought down Richard Nixon. Watergate originally sprang from Nixon’s vendetta against Daniel Ellsberg, whom he was determined to embarrass for exposing the Pentagon Papers.

    In the wake of Nixon’s abuses, the country put in place a series of laws, regulations and norms designed to prevent government by vengeance. These included a prohibition on White House meddling in Justice Department prosecutions that took on canonical status.

    I was a Justice official at the beginning of what became the Whitewater scandal, and it would have been unthinkable at the time for a White House official to try to direct the department to investigate a political enemy. No administration would have dared, and no department official would have acquiesced.

    Since Watergate, the only administration that failed to fully respect that principle was Trump’s. His political appointees repeatedly pushed the department to at least provide information about continuing prosecutions. In those difficult years, the department sometimes resisted but sometimes relented. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, made it a priority to rebuild the wall between the White House and the Justice Department.

    Trump has made it clear that he intends to raze that wall in his first days in office. Working off the blueprint of Project 2025, Trump has announced that he plans to hollow out the department’s career staff and replace them with political appointees who will serve at his pleasure and be loyal to him, not the Constitution.

    At that point, there will be no real impediment to the use of federal power for revenge against Trump’s long list of enemies. It will be the opposite of the department’s proud aspiration to do “justice without fear or favor.”

    Moreover, Trump has said he will rely on the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion to provide full cover against any legal resistance. When asked recently how he would handle special counsel Jack Smith, who led his two federal prosecutions, Trump replied, “It’s so easy — I would fire him within two seconds,” adding that he would enjoy “immunity at the Supreme Court.”

    The irony and tragedy of Trump’s invocation of the opinion is that the court declared it was ruling not for Trump but “for the ages.” But it is indeed Trump whose unscrupulous ambition it has served. And while the court reasoned that immunity is needed to safeguard aggressive, nimble and presumably lawful presidential action, Trump takes the lesson that he can violate the Constitution with impunity.

    The corrupt use of prosecutorial power can amount to a crime. For starters, the federal code criminalizes conspiring to injure any person because of their exercise of constitutional rights or their race. But the Supreme Court has ensured that Trump could carry out unlawful prosecutions: He can commit crimes but can’t be made to answer for them.

    Trump’s retribution agenda may encounter other roadblocks. Grand juries may not go along with prosecutions that reek of vengeance, and trial juries and judges are more likely to resist.

    Also, presidential immunity doesn’t extend to other executive branch officials, and Trump will need confederates in the Justice Department to do his bidding. But with a clear Republican majority in the Senate, Trump is likely to get any senior official he wants confirmed. That could include the likes of the right-wing activist and attorney general hopeful Mike Davis, who wrote Wednesday of Trump’s opponents, “I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)”

    As a practical matter, by far the most important protections against vengeful prosecutions are career federal prosecutors’ nonpartisan professionalism and the norms forbidding the White House from telling them whom to prosecute. Trump is plainly fixing to lay waste to those safeguards. That alone would constitute a giant step away from the rule of law and toward autocracy.

    Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

    [ad_2]

    Harry Litman

    Source link

  • Court Rules Domestic Abusers Cannot Be Barred From Owning Instrument Of Vengeance

    Court Rules Domestic Abusers Cannot Be Barred From Owning Instrument Of Vengeance

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON—Claiming that previous laws were inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that domestic abusers could not be barred from owning an instrument of vengeance. “According to the court’s historical interpretation of the Second Amendment, Americans cannot legally be prevented from purchasing or wielding a method with which to carry out a violent act of retribution,” Judge Cory Wilson wrote in the court’s opinion, adding that per the founding fathers original intent, every American, including domestic abusers, had a God-given right to enact lethal vengeance against whoever they felt was worthy of their ire. “Be it the ex-girlfriend who so heinously wronged you, a coworker who looked at you in a weird way, or a sonuvabitch judge who ruined your life, all Americans have the right to bear whatever arms they need to destroy their enemies once and for all. Without the right to dole out justice and reckoning, we are nothing as a country. This type of senseless violence is what we were built on.” At press time, the court also struck down a mandatory waiting period that Judge Wilson claimed made it take too long for those who had been wronged and were blinded by rage to finally get sweet, sweet revenge.

    [ad_2]

    Source link