BREAKING: Charlie Kirk's Killer Identified. (P.S. I'm Not Buying It.)

A bonus weekend post because I needed to vent. You're welcome?

Preamble: I lost a paid subscriber yesterday. I’ll call her Jill. Not to boast, but that doesn’t happen a lot, so it stung. It wasn’t because of anything I had said or done, Jill assured while announcing her departure in the comments. She’d gotten offended by another subscriber’s comment (TL/DR: that person called the Charlie Kirk shooting fake, which is not something I believe but it’s certainly a theory that’s being widely circulated). And even though the “offending” person rushed to defend me, Jill could no longer bear to support a substack that “draws people like him.”

It made me incredibly sad.

It’s not the $80/year I’m mourning—it’s the death of the proud belief that I had created a safe, welcoming space for debate. Sure, we are all drawn to people and groups who think the way we do. That’s human nature, and the reason nudist colonies and churches and Comic-Con exist. But if we’re never, ever challenged by outside thought, if we bark into the same echo chamber all day every day, it may be comforting, but we never grow. We learn nothing. We become cults instead of communities (and sorry, but I’m not into matching tracksuits).

I am who I am today because I questioned who I was in 2020. I opened myself up to new ideas. It was uncomfortable. Brutal at times, in fact. My daughter and I were talking just this morning about how much easier life was back when we were completely clueless.

Easier—but not better.

I’m not shaming or chastising anyone here. We’re all entitled to spend our money and our time in ways that support and enrich us. But I wanted to make it clear that I will continue to welcome open, respectful debate and opinions that differ from my own—even when it’s messy. I’m grateful for ALL of my subscribers and hope you see the importance of that, too.

While the sane, not-morally-bankrupt swath of the population continues to mourn the unimaginably tragic death of Charlie Kirk, diligent law enforcement have been working heroically to catch the killer. Yesterday, they announced the success of that grueling, 33-hour mission. (Don’t freak out; it’s just a number.) According to “the authorities” and dutifully parroted by the Propaganda Press™, the assassin was an otherwise unmemorable kid named Tyler Robinson.

Robinson is obviously the shooter, because he is wearing the exact same Chuck Taylors (*except in a different color) as the guy some people think might be the shooter. I love it when hit men are so dumb that they leave clues all over the crime scene. Also, this is a funny photo I snapped one day when my daughter had a gaggle of girlfriends over. No relation; I just thought it was artsy.

Before we go any further, let me reiterate that I believe that Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood. It’s not his actual death that I am questioning today; it’s the preposterous story about his alleged killer that has me pecking away furiously on a Friday night when normal people are star-gazing or sleeping or binge-watching The Crown.

So let’s talk about Tyler Robinson. Apparently, he’s a 22-year-old college student who is especially bright and comes from a close-knit family. He has no criminal history, no political party affiliation, no digital footprint. None, nothing, nada. No X account. No TikTok presence. Not even a grainy Minecraft video uploaded to YouTube. In 2025, that’s not a person, that’s a ghost.

Anyway, we’re supposed to believe this ghost-child quietly procured military-grade munitions, mastered their utilization in secret, waltzed onto a college campus, slipped past security, pulled off a shot with surgical precision that Special Forces guys would spend careers training for, dismantled his firearm, stowed it, climbed down from the rooftop, took out and reassembled his weapon, wrapped it neatly in a towel, and then left it like breadcrumbs in the forest for the feds to find? Okay. And my cat is an ex-Navy SEAL.

Call me crazy, but this has all the hallmarks a professional hit. The kind of “clean” execution you don’t get from a random sophomore with a free weekend and a grudge. Yet the FBI, local police, every major media outlet, the president and vice president, Charlie’s own widow, even “alternative” journalists like Alex Berenson and 2nd Smartest Guy, are reporting or accepting Robinson’s guilt as fact. We found the guy! Phew. Curtain closed. Don’t forget to tip your servers.

The story we’re fed goes something like this:

Tyler Robinson, loner. Possibly motivated by vague anti-government feelings. Somehow had access to advanced weaponry. Skilled enough to pull off a perfect shot under stress. Too dumb to cover his tracks.

And I’m the actual POPME (Princess of Pretty Much Everything).

“Tyler Robinson had become ‘more political’ in the run-up to the shooting and mentioned during a dinner with family that Kirk would be visiting Utah, Gov. Spencer Cox said at a news conference,” the Associated Press reported. “The Republican governor cited as evidence engravings on bullet casings found in the rifle that authorities believe was used in the attack.”

I’m going to go full Conspiracy Theorist here: I’m not saying who might have ordered it or why, but let’s go out on a limb and imagine for a moment that this was a professional hit and not the work of some dorky kid. Is it outrageous to think that an accomplished assassin (or group of them) might pepper the crime scene with fake “evidence” to muddy the trail? You know, the kind of awfully convenient “evidence” that just happens to fall into investigators’ laps—like the 9/11 hijackers’ passports that floated gently down from a fireball inferno and landed intact atop 1.5 million tons of rubble?

If I were a criminal, I might plant something like that.

We’re so used to being lied to and spoon-fed convenient bedtime stories that we’re more than happy to let them pin this heinous crime on a nearly-invisible 22-year-old rather than admit what every pair of functioning eyeballs saw: this was a military-grade murder.

It’s conflicting for sure. With their story, we can sleep at night. It was a one-off. The infamously deranged lone shooter. A disturbed youth—possibly radicalized by the system, so let’s get enraged about that—who’s thankfully been scooped up and is no longer a threat. We can go back to scrolling cute kitten videos. The darker possibility, that a highly organized team of professionals—one that will never be identified or punished—pulled it off and pinned it on a clueless kid, is too uncomfortable to consider.

It sure feels like the same familiar playbook: find a disposable name, pin the blame, and count on the masses to swallow the story whole. Someone raises an eyebrow? Crawl back into your hole, you nutter. We told you, the case is closed.

Am I crazy or just pointing out the blazingly obvious? LMK in the comments. (Also I’m only giving you two poll options today. It’s basically a yes/no question.)

p.s. If anyone feels that it is somehow disrespectful to be questioning this narrative, I would argue that not questioning it would dishonor the very freedom Charlie fought to protect.