Postscript: The Microphone Under Charlie Kirk's Shirt
Responding to reader comments
I always read and reflect on reader comments, and though time doesn’t allow me to comment on most of them, I always think about them.
I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the comments on my post today (The Microphone Under Charlie Kirk’s Shirt).
For months I have refrained from commenting on the “microphone theory”— despite my awareness of it — because I have perceived it to be too speculative.
The only reason why I commented on it today was because several readers requested that I state my opinion about it.
For over twenty years I have studied and written about remarkable violent crimes that have struck me as inadequately explained by the authorities. In all these cases, the authorities made representations about the crimes that struck me as incongruous with the observable elements of the crimes.
On the face of it, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and the official explanation of it, strike me as very odd. This has prompted me to ask questions that should—it seems to me—be asked by the accused’s defense attorneys.
And so I presented these questions in my post today. IF there are plausible answers to these questions, then let them be answered in court. The whole point of a trial is examine the evidence that the accused is guilty of committing the crime and also to evaluate circumstances and facts that may be exculpating or point to a different culprit. We the People have an interest in maintaining the correct judicial process, even if we believe in the guilt of the accused before the trial is conducted.
I’ll conclude by offering an account of how I view public affairs as a citizen of the United States, and as an author who investigates the increasingly strange and disordered public life of this Republic.
1). I do NOT blindly trust the men who occupy positions of federal and state authority to tell us the truth about anything. I don’t care what the particular subject matter happens to be, or the political party of the politician or agent who is making the representations.
2). If federal and state authorities make representations that square with my knowledge and perception of reality, I won’t waste my time questioning them. However, if they make statements that strike me as implausible, I will question their assertions.
3). Though I believe I am a good citizen and am grateful to be an American, my primary interest is in ascertaining and reporting reality, NOT in maintaining an affiliation or protecting the interests of a political party, region, fraternity, club, or religious congregation.
4). I am an individualist and therefore regard all group identities and interest groups with the suspicion that they do not reliably act for the common good, but more often in the interest of their group.
5). I prefer to be alone than to conform to the pressures of a group or tribal identity.
You will be targeted, called names, and slandered if you do not adhere to the government narrative. Moreover, the trolls have invaded the Substack comments sections as they have everywhere else. They are usually recognizable by their adjectives (ridiculous, looney, et al) and their utter surprise that you could believe such conspiratorial nonesense. It's usually a sign that your writing has become significant when they show up. Anyway, I am sure you already know all of this. Keep telling the truth, you are appreciated.
A very well construed article about an individual's perspective and the need for scrutiny in truth. I would agree that American's in general should always hold a candle to the truth. After all, was our Republic not founded on the necessary basis on an individual's rights and the freedom/liberty those rights should embody? Also true, in my opinion, is staying loyal to the basic principles of our founding. If someone is uncomfortable or unwilling to answer legitimate questions, particularly those who hold any authority in public service, then there is certainly room for skepticism. Political speak and legalese are definitely not synonymous with truth. Without truth, there can never be real justice. I truly know little about Charlie's assassination. The event was beyond tragic because he was making real progress in helping to enlighten younger generations with Christianity, healthy and spirited debate, conservative values, and common sense. He was uniting young people and reigniting those fires of liberty that have been glossed over far too long by complacency and ignorance. Did those things have any connection with his murder? I do not know. But I will say gifted people who make connections as he did with large groups of young people have a storied history of being silenced. That alone convinces me to stay interested and hope that justice is truly served with the truth. Charlie will be missed and his memory is best served in continuing to pursue those inalienable rights for which he stood so well. God has his soul, we have his legacy. Thank you for a great article. May God continue to bless you and yours. God help US and God bless America.