(Opinion) The Truth About Charlie Kirk

Disclaimer: Please note that the contents of this article are formed from the personal opinions of the author. Consumer Diligence as an organization is fully committed to performing due diligence on public companies free from political or personal bias. We remain committed to our stance of researching our targets in a purely non-partisan and objective manner. With that said, the Consumer Diligence team does grieve for the loss of Mr. Kirk and any innocent victim of political violence regardless of political ideology.

Charlie Kirk was outspoken about many things that made the left furious: his criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and his rejection of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Civil Rights Acts, were two of them.

He argued that King’s personal life, as revealed by his own biographer, was far darker than the myth we are taught in school. And he warned that Johnson’s policies — far from lifting people up — shackled Black Americans to government dependency while giving Democrats permanent political power.

These positions were not born out of racism or hate, but from a willingness to look honestly at history, even when it challenges comfortable narratives.

Once again, the left is doing what it does best: shouting “racist” at anyone who dares question their sacred narratives. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, left-wing publications have been lining up to smear him as a “hateful bigot” for comments he made about Martin Luther King Jr. and for his criticisms of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Civil Rights Acts.Let’s get the facts straight.

Charlie wasn’t inventing wild stories about MLK Jr. He was citing the work of David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize–winning civil rights historian and King’s own biographer.

In 2019, Garrow published an essay based on FBI surveillance files that alleged King was present during an assault on a woman in a Washington hotel room in 1964 — and that he laughed and encouraged it.

Now, whether those FBI documents are fully reliable is still debated. But it’s not “white supremacy” to acknowledge that the nation’s heroes are complicated and sometimes deeply flawed. If Garrow — who is not a conservative, not a Republican operative, but a respected liberal historian — thought the evidence was credible enough to publish, then the conversation is legitimate.

Charlie was willing to discuss uncomfortable truths. The left simply wants to shut that down.

Charlie also had the courage to point out what many Black leaders, pastors, and thinkers have argued for decades: that Johnson’s Great Society and the way the Civil Rights Act was implemented had devastating long-term consequences.

The Great Society massively expanded welfare programs. Critics argue that it incentivized fatherless homes, fueled dependence on government handouts, and created what economist Thomas Sowell has described as a “crippling dependency” in Black communities.

Tim Scott, a Black U.S. Senator, recently said Johnson’s Great Society “hurt Blacks more than slavery.” That’s not racism. That’s an honest reckoning with policy outcomes.

Johnson himself was known to use racist slurs in private conversations. He once reportedly said that passing civil rights legislation would “have those n***** voting Democratic for 200 years.”

That doesn’t sound like a man motivated by pure compassion — it was the cold calculation of a politician weaponizing racism to secure power.

To this day, the effects of the Great Society can be measured in broken families, poverty traps, and entire generations conditioned to look to Washington instead of building resilience and independence.

Pointing this out isn’t racism; it’s telling the truth about what big government actually does.

Here’s the real double standard. The left insists we must look critically at America’s Founders, tearing down statues because Jefferson owned slaves or Washington fought Native tribes.

But the moment anyone applies that same scrutiny to their icons, the accusations of “bigotry” fly.

For example, Elie Mystal wrote in The Nation: “How to Canonize a White Supremacist” — calling Charlie Kirk a white supremacist outright. Moira Donegan in The Guardian claimed, “Kirk’s rhetoric targeted marginalized groups and promoted conspiracy theories,” warning against what she called attempts to “rewrite his life” after his death.

This is the narrative the left pushes: any critique of their heroes or their policies must be branded racist, no matter the evidence.

Charlie’s sin, in their eyes, was daring to challenge the approved script. He refused to bow to the cult of personality around MLK Jr. or to the myth that the Great Society was some unblemished act of justice. He was willing to say what many are too afraid to say: that history is messy, and sometimes the “progress” we celebrate has real costs.

Charlie Kirk was no racist. He was a truth-teller. He saw the long-term damage of LBJ’s policies.

He knew the left’s heroes had skeletons in their closets. And he wasn’t afraid to speak plainly about it.

The fact that left-wing outlets feel the need to smear him even after his death says everything. They know his influence was growing. They know his message resonated. And they know he was right to challenge their false narratives. History doesn’t belong to one side. It belongs to those willing to seek the truth — even when it’s uncomfortable. That’s exactly what Charlie Kirk did.