Dumbest Kirk conspiracy theory, political violence double standard and other commentary

Conservative: Dumbest Kirk Conspiracy Theory?

The fact that Charlie Kirk’s murderer was not “someone whose politics centered on Israel- or Jewish-related topics” has annoyed “a small but influential faction of right wing ghouls,” fumes Commentary’s Seth Mandel. They have “taken it upon themselves to shoehorn Israel” into the narrative to insist that Kirk supported Israel simply “because shadowy Jewish figures had scared him into toeing that line.” Candace Owens, backed by Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), has accused Jewish donors, including Bill Ackman, of “intimidating” Kirk. But Kirk openly expressed “support for Israel right to the end,” and toured the country “warning of the dangers of anti-Semitism.” Indeed, he exposed the “Tucker/Owens Jew-baiting game” as a “third-rate embrace of permanent political inferiority.”

Media watch: Political Violence Double Standard

ABC’s Matt Gutman’s “romanticized portrait of Charlie Kirk’s assassin,” highlighting his “human experience,” good grades and parents’ pain, put National Review’s Jim Geraghty in a “conniption”: “Why are you like this, mainstream media?” “This punk,” Tyler Robinson, “just pulled a Lee Harvey Oswald on a beloved young father,” and “you’re telling me about his ACT score and grade point average?” Gutman doesn’t represent all journalists. Yet why, when “right-wingers riot, the mainstream media can see right and wrong with 4K crystal clarity, but when left-wingers riot, everything suddenly becomes murky?” Right-wing violence is “justifiably” painted in black and white, but “when a left-wing perpetrator” is responsible, “there are more shades of gray than the book in the drawer of your wife’s bedside table.”

Campus beat: Muted Ivy Assassination Responses

After the death of George Floyd, major universities offered “support” for students in “deep distress over the incident,” notes Catherine Gripp at The Federalist. Following the murder of Charlie Kirk, however, “the Ivy Leagues have been comparatively silent.” None of the elite colleges “released a unique public statement condemning or even addressing Kirk’s assassination,” as they all did after Floyd’s killing. For example, Douglas Elmendorf, then dean at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “posted a message lamenting Floyd’s death and its implications,” while Yale “shared university resources following Floyd’s death.” What a contrast: Now “universities across the country” are having to dismiss “professors for inappropriate comments about Kirk’s murder.”

Foreign Desk: Brazil’s Democracy Loses Again

“Nearly three years” after “hundreds of former President Jair Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidential palace in Brasília,” Brazil’s highest court “has sentenced Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup,” reports César Báez at Reason. Brazil’s “Supreme Federal Court can both initiate investigations and judge the same defendants,” a “concentration of investigative and adjudicative powers that’s different from the U.S. Supreme Court.” “For some Brazilians, Bolsonaro’s sentence stokes fears of creeping authoritarianism; for others, it confirms suspicions that the Supreme Federal Court is exceeding its constitutional limits.” In fact, “a Genial/Quaest poll found” that only 50% of Brazilians “trust the Supreme Federal Court.” “The court’s handling of the case ‘only accelerates the ongoing erosion of our democracy,’ ” warns Brazilian lawyer Carol Sponza.

Eye on politics: Seeking a Center on Immigration

The moderate new Democrat Coalition has “presented a new immigration framework,” cheers Artem Kolisnichenko at The Hill. Amidst polarization, “this is the first systematic step by Democrats to build a centrist position aimed at 2026 voters and the fight for swing districts,” and polling supports the approach: In 2024, “55 percent of Americans wanted immigration reduced” and today, “79 percent of Americans” favor “a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” “The main risk for Democrats is that a centrist stance could push away the left wing.” But if the New Democrats’ “middle ground” policy strategy “ends up working,” it could “reset” the debate and “pull the country away from an endless fight between extremes.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board