klain.wfb

[Michael Knowles @michaeljknowles]

Unpopular opinion: President Trump's self-effacing joke about personal unworthiness is more in line with the traditional Christian understanding of salvation than the popular modern belief in "once saved, always saved."

[Natalie Jean Beisner @NJBeisner]

Charlie Kirk: “Young people aren’t begging for more affirmation—they’re crying out for truth. Stop telling them they’re ‘enough’ when they’re drowning. Show them God’s law, their need for a Savior, and the path to real freedom.”

[Dana Loesch @DLoesch]

Equating a violent offender who exercises free will to commit crimes so heinous that death is an optional, justifiable penalty to an innocent baby (and then to illegal immigrants) is wildly illogical and intentionally deceptive. No, these are not complex issues when one is being honest. What a missed opportunity with Robert Sarah.

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

@JJO80042 @Ikennect Except Paul's message was viewed as a threat to the even "moderate" political class of his day. They did not like his claim that Jesus is King, instead of Caeser. If that political class resembles more closely today's leftism I bet he would have been killed much sooner.

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

@Nenebilliat @KoelnTagblatt @lindyli @LidiaNews @NEWSMAX Weeks ago in a well-published case a young innocent woman (yes because she was white) was stabbed to death on a train by someone of a different race. How many places were burned down/looted? Please send pictures.

[🇺🇸Kevin Adams🇺🇸 @lawyeradams]

- The post by Lila Rose reflects a surprising pro-life victory at Yale University on September 16, 2025, hosted by the Yale Political Union, where the audience vote flipped despite the institution's progressive leanings, potentially influenced by the recent assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, which may have shifted public sentiment.
- Scientific backing for the pro-life stance includes a 2021 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Medical Ethics showing fetal pain perception as early as 12 weeks, challenging the narrative that abortion debates hinge solely on late-term viability, which may have swayed the Yale audience.
- The event’s timing, just days after Kirk’s death, aligns with a 2023 Gallup poll indicating 48% of Americans now identify as pro-life (up from 44% in 2020), suggesting a gradual cultural shift that could explain the unexpected outcome at a traditionally liberal venue.

[Lindy Li @lindyli]

When George Floyd was killed, they burned down my street and caused $2 billion in damages nationwide

When Charlie Kirk was murdered, conservatives from around the world came together in love, song and prayer

Don’t tell me the 2 sides are the same

@LidiaNews @NEWSMAX

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

@Reform_West @JDVance No! Years in prison are worse than public execution (so they claim).
Sure, then the murderer will freely choose public execution.

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

1 Cor1:18 "to us who are being saved" refers to those who are currently undergoing the process of salvation, a journey ...guided by faith & God's grace. In the final analysis, salvation appears to be not a one-time event (only) but an ongoing process of aiming to be more like Christ.

[Bishop Robert Barron @BishopBarron]

A rather silly article appeared in the Sunday edition of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune concerning my participation in the President’s Religious Liberty Commission. The author, Karen Tolkkinen, claimed that I “advocate erasing the boundaries between church and state.” This is a gross mischaracterization of my position.

The first amendment to the Constitution does indeed say that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, and I completely support this. But the amendment contains a second clause in regard to religion, namely, that Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Though there can never be an official American religion, there can indeed be expressions of religion in the public space and in civic life. The relegation of faith to the private sphere, which has been encouraged by some of the regrettable jurisprudence of the last seventy-five years, is happily being overturned by a number of recent decisions of our Supreme Court. It is no accident, in fact, that freedom of religion is the first liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For if the capacity to express one’s deepest moral convictions in public is denied, all of the other freedoms can and will, in time, be denied.

Ms. Tolkkinen represents the elite liberal class that, unfortunately, controls many of the institutions of our society. What she and her colleagues fear the most are confident and assertive religious people who refuse to stay sequestered in private. So I say: fight hard against any formal establishment of religion, but fight just as hard for the right to exercise religion in the public space.

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

@Jwin776 @atensnut No, for the most part, we are not born with it. Protestants believe that nonsense. The child copies the parent, then the parent shifts the blame on the "child born with sin", their solution: the sin needs to be whacked from the small child.

[Constantine | dRPC.ORG @constantine_rm]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's interview with Tucker Carlson just went viral.

And he's NOT just talking about Trump's tariffs.

Instead, he exposed the truth about what happened to America's working class.

Here is what you missed on Trump's $600B tariff plan: 🧵

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

This is totalitarian insanity. If you think small children should be punished for being able to recognise sex, you are a dangerous zealot who should be nowhere near kids or in any position of authority over them. https://t.co/IZI0sP58ss

[Eva Vlaardingerbroek @EvaVlaar]

Lawfare against the European right-wing is being taken to a whole new level.

Marine Le Pen @MLP_officiel has been convicted for “misusing” European funds and has been BARRED from running for President of France, yet @vonderleyen is under investigation for corruption and refuses to disclose her text messages regarding a 35 BILLION euro deal with Pfizer and is currently the President of the European Commission.

Talking about two tier politics.

[klain.wfb @klain_wfb]

@lebo_as_I_am @hu76580 @adalluch @elonmusk 9% ~ 5.5million. Does it have to be above 10 million before it can be defined as hate speech? What is your threshold?

[Vince Langman @LangmanVince]

@realDonaldTrump Her is Rick Wilson calling for a Kamala Harris supporter to put a bullet in you on MSMBC, and he wasn't challenged

[Liz Wheeler @Liz_Wheeler]

@realDonaldTrump Every time Kamala lies & portrays Trump as a dictator poised to take away your rights & marginalize you… how do you think crazies are gonna react? Exactly like Ryan Routh. The Democrats know exactly what will happen as a result of their rhetoric. Attempted assassination. Twice.

[Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11]

WATCH: This young man asked who he should vote for. I think I won him over.

This is the kind of energy we need on college campuses.

[JD Vance @JDVance]

Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly learn about him and his motive.

President Trump is my running mate, and my friend, but he is more importantly a father and grandfather to people who love him very much. I want him to have many more years with his family. (And selfishly, I'd like many more with my own.)

I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control. It nearly got Steve Scalise and many others killed a few years ago. It nearly got Donald Trump killed twice. But I want to say something about yesterday's news, and how it illuminates the difference between vigorous debate and violent rhetoric.

Here is what we know so far: Kamala Harris has said that "Democracy is on the line" in her race against President Trump. The gunman agreed, and used the exact same phrase. He had a Kamala Harris bumper sticker on his truck. He was obsessed with Ukraine's "fight for Democracy" and absorbed many unhinged views about the Russia-Ukraine war. HIs name is Ryan Routh, and he donated 19 times to Democrat causes and zero to Republican ones.

How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It's a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris's campaign surrogates have said things like "Trump has to be eliminated." And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

NBC News called the attempted assassination a "golf club incident." The LA Times told us "Trump Targeted at Golf Club." The USA Today's top of the fold headline is "Hope in America," and they published a preposterous letter to the editor arguing that Trump "brings these assassination attempts on himself." CNN's Dana Bash--who just yesterday bizarrely accused me of inciting a bomb threat--said today that Harris campaign rhetoric didn't motivate Routh even though he echoed their rhetoric explicitly.

PBS's weekend show perfectly illustrates the double standard of Kamala Harris's media friends. After spending 30 seconds on the second assassination attempt on President Trump, they then focused on the real danger: me and President Trump, who are, according to them, personally responsible for bomb threats against Springfield. Of course, I repeatedly condemend those threats. And reports today suggest they came from a foreign country, not--as the media suggested--a deranged Trump fan.

The double standard is breathtaking. Donald Trump and I are, by their account, directly responsible for bomb threats from foreign countries. Why? Because we had the audacity to repeat what residents told us about the problems in their town. Meanwhile, Harris allies call for Trump to be eliminated as the media publishes arguments that he deserved to be shot.

This seems like a double standard. But at a deep level, it is entirely consistent.

Consider Springfield. Citizens are telling us that there are problems. These include the undeniable truths of higher car accidents, unaffordable housing, evictions of residents, overcrowded hospitals, overstressed schools, and rising rates of disease. They also include the infamous pet stories--which, again, multiple people have spoken about (either on video or to me or my staff).

Kamala Harris's first strategy was to ignore these people and their concerns. Yes, she had prevented the deportation of millions of illegal aliens, and some of them made their way to Springfield. But it was a small town with no voice. Some of the local leadership even loved the cheap labor. So the suffering of thousands of American citizens went ignored.

Their next move with these stories is censorship. In Springfield, a psychopath (or a foreign government) calls in a bomb threat, so they blame that on President Trump (and me). The threat of violence is disgraceful of course, yet the media seems to relish it. They cover a bomb threat, but not the rise in murders. They cover the threat, but not the HIV uptick. They cover the threat, not the schools overwhelmed with new kids who don't speak English. They cover the threat, not rising insurance rates or the car accidents that caused them. They cover the threat, not the failures of Kamala Harris's leadership.

The purpose is not to turn down the rhetoric. If anything, covering the bomb threats gives whoever makes them exactly what he wants: attention. The purpose is distraction and shame. How dare you talk about the problems of Haitian migration in Springfield? You're endangering people, simply by discussing the problems of Kamala Harris's policies. It's a form of moral blackmail, designed not to make anyone safe but to shut everyone up.

Springfield is the most recent, but hardly the most egregious example. There was the Hunter Biden laptop story, censored by BigTech. And who can forget that anyone who didn't support Kamala Harris's Ukraine policy was drenched in the blood of Ukrainian children. That last one appears to have had some effect on Routh--the most recent would-be assassin. The message is always the same: don't you dare express an opinion on the public affairs of your nation. The message is: shut up.

This is the difference between debate--even aggressive debate--and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for "destroying the country" and quite another to say that President Trump should be "eliminated." It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and another to say that a former president has invited an assassination on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump's arguments about the election of 2020 are wrong; it is another thing to attempt to remove him from the ballot over it.

It is one thing to say that pets are not, in fact being eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to murder people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great tradition of the United States. Censorship is not.

For the next 7 weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to "tone down the rhetoric" it's not about being nice--our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don't like it--or empty platitudes.

Instead, I'm asking all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Embrace persuasion of your fellow citizens over silencing them--either through the powers of Big Tech or through moral blackmail.

I think this will make our public debate much better. But there's something else. Reject censorship and you reject political violence. Embrace censorship, and you will inevitably embrace violence on its behalf.

The reason is simple. The logic of censorship leads directly to one place, for there is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Trump is the most relentlessly demonized politician in US history. That has consequences. Those consequences are entirely intentional. The media won’t tone down the rhetoric after this. Why would they? Their rhetoric is having the desired effect.