Disgraceful: The Left Applauds Charlie Kirk’s Killing, Sky News Host Fires Back

The tragic assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk has not only shocked the nation but also exposed a disturbing trend: open celebration and justification of political violence by certain elements on the left. Sky News host Rita Panahi, in a scathing segment titled “Lefties Losing It,” blasted the left for their reaction to Kirk’s murder, highlighting the depravity and callousness that followed the killing.

The Celebration of Violence

Panahi’s segment began by noting that, while most people agree it is wrong to celebrate harm coming to anyone, some on the left openly cheered Kirk’s death. Social media was awash with comments expressing happiness over the murder, with individuals stating, “Charlie Kirk got shot and killed. How do you feel? Uh, happy. Goodbye,” and “Did you see that Charlie Kirk just got shot and killed? That’s good.” Others justified the violence, saying, “Someone had to do it,” and labeling Kirk as a “misogynist” with “disgusting beliefs.”

Such reactions, Panahi argued, exemplify the corrosive effect of radical leftist ideology on empathy and decency. “This is what leftism does to your mind and soul,” she declared, condemning the lack of basic humanity in celebrating a political opponent’s death.

Media and Political Response

Panahi didn’t stop at social media reactions; she also scrutinized mainstream media coverage, particularly from MSNBC. She accused the network of “victim blaming” by labeling Kirk as “divisive” and “polarizing,” and playing audio of commentators suggesting that “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions.” Panahi found such commentary not only inappropriate but dangerous, noting that MSNBC later sacked contributor Matthew Dow for his remarks.

Political figures joined in, with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker blaming President Trump for “fermenting political violence” in the country. Panahi ridiculed this logic, pointing out that Trump himself was recently targeted by an assassin and that violence has repeatedly been perpetrated against conservative figures.

The Broader Culture of Political Violence

Panahi and guest commentator Army Horowitz lamented the normalization of political violence, especially on university campuses. Horowitz shared personal anecdotes about Kirk’s kindness and generosity, emphasizing that Kirk was far from a radical—he espoused mainstream values such as family, free speech, and civil discourse.

Horowitz expressed deep concern over the chilling data: research from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression shows that one in three students now consider political violence acceptable, and three in four believe shouting down speakers is justified. “That is just chilling,” Horowitz said, warning that this attitude is increasingly common among the left and represents a dangerous departure from their historic support for free speech.

The Radical Shift on Free Speech

Both Panahi and Horowitz reflected on the transformation of the left’s attitude toward free speech. Once champions of the First Amendment—famously defending the rights of even Nazis to march—the left has now, according to Panahi, become “an anti-free speech organization.” The New York Times itself has documented the ACLU’s shift away from defending speech, even if unpopular, to supporting censorship and silencing dissent.

President Trump’s Response

President Trump, in a somber statement, called Kirk’s assassination “a dark moment for America.” He praised Kirk’s dedication to engaging young people and fostering debate, and warned that demonizing political opponents inevitably leads to violence. Trump called Kirk “the best of America,” vowing that his legacy would endure despite attempts to silence him.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

The celebration of Charlie Kirk’s murder by some on the left, amplified by segments of the media and political commentary, marks a disturbing escalation in America’s political divide. Panahi’s segment served as a stark warning: when violence is justified or even celebrated as a political tool, the very foundations of civil society are threatened.

As Panahi and Horowitz concluded, there can be no justification for murder or political violence. The normalization of such attitudes is “pure evil,” and anyone who condones them must be rejected from civil discourse. The tragic loss of Charlie Kirk is not just a blow to his family and supporters—it is a wake-up call for a nation in danger of losing its moral compass.

Charlie Kirk’s legacy of engagement, debate, and principled advocacy must not be overshadowed by those who cheer his death. Instead, it should inspire a renewed commitment to civility, free speech, and respect—even in disagreement.