Amir Odom Debunks the Lies: Why Charlie Kirk Was No Racist

Why Charlie Kirk Was No Racist

By Juan Fermin for NoSocialism.com

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination on September 10, 2025, the mainstream media and left-wing activists have ramped up their smears, painting the Turning Point USA founder as a racist, homophobe, and white supremacist. But a powerful new video from Black gay conservative activist Amir Odom is shattering this narrative, and Elon Musk's retweet of it on September 12 has sent it viral with over 2.5 million views. Titled "Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk," Odom's 8-minute YouTube clip (posted September 11) methodically dismantles the attacks, proving Kirk's focus was on merit and common sense, not hate. As a Black gay man who knew Kirk personally, Odom's testimony cuts through the fiction – and it's a must-watch for anyone tired of the left's character assassination.

The Video: A Black Gay Conservative's Bold Defense

Odom, a rising star in conservative circles known for his unfiltered takes on race and identity politics, goes straight to the heart of the smears. "Charlie gave me a platform when others wouldn't – he didn't care about my race or sexuality; he cared about ideas and truth," Odom says in the video, shared on his X account (@amirxodom). He addresses Kirk's infamous "moronic Black woman" comment from January 2024, explaining it wasn't about race but a critique of affirmative action lowering standards in customer service roles. "Kirk was calling out quotas that put unqualified people in jobs – not hating Black women," Odom asserts, drawing from his own experiences in diverse professional settings.

Odom also tackles Kirk's questions about the competence of pilots and other professionals, framing them as concerns over DEI initiatives in high-stakes fields like aviation and the Secret Service. "If Kirk hated Black people, why did he have so many Black speakers on his tours?" Odom asks, highlighting TPUSA events packed with Black, Latino, Asian, and even LGBTQ+ conservatives. He shares how Kirk encouraged his online presence: "Charlie told me to speak up – he treated me as an equal, not a token." The video includes clips of Kirk debating diverse audiences, showing his commitment to free speech over division.

On transgender issues, Odom defends Kirk's caution against life-altering surgeries for 14-year-olds, noting studies showing many detransition later. "It wasn't hate – it was protecting kids from rushed decisions," Odom explains, aligning with Kirk's "common-sense" approach. And the white supremacist label? Odom laughs it off: "Actual white supremacists like Blood Tribe called Kirk their 'enemy' for undermining racial collectivism. If he was one of them, why did they hate him?"

Musk's retweet – "Truth from a Black gay conservative – the left's smears against Charlie Kirk are pure fiction. He was about merit and freedom for all" – skyrocketed the video, trending under #CharlieKirkTruth. It's a direct rebuke to media like CNN and MSNBC, which have recycled Kirk's quotes to fuel post-assassination attacks.

Kirk's Diverse Coalition: Proof Against the Hate Narrative

Odom's video underscores a key fact: If Kirk truly hated Black people or the LGBTQ+ community, why did they flock to his events? Turning Point USA's Young Black Leadership Summit drew hundreds of Black conservatives, with activists like Chandler Crump crediting Kirk for equal treatment: "He said it doesn’t matter if you are Black or white... He paid attention to us." Kirk's "Blexit" campaign with Candace Owens empowered Black Americans to leave the Democratic Party, filling rallies with MAGA-hatted diverse youth.

Latino support was massive in states like Arizona, where Kirk helped flip it for Trump in 2024 through Spanish-language initiatives at AmericaFest. LGBTQ+ conservatives like transgender activist Blaire White debated Kirk civilly on his podcast, and Log Cabin Republicans attended TPUSA events, drawn to his free speech advocacy. Kirk's message – economic opportunity, family values, and meritocracy – resonated because it was inclusive, not exclusionary. As Odom puts it, "Charlie cared about everyone succeeding on merit, not quotas."

This contradicts the KKK's legacy – a Democratic-founded terror group from 1865 that targeted Republicans and minorities. Modern white supremacists rejected Kirk outright, yet the left slaps the label on him to justify smears.

Media's Role: Smears Over Substance

The video exposes how media cherry-picks Kirk's words – the "moronic Black woman" line becomes "racist," ignoring his DEI critique. Boeing's 50/50 engineer hiring quota is a prime example: With few women at the top of engineering classes, standards dropped, leading to quality issues like SpaceX outpacing them and plane defects. Kirk warned of this; Odom calls it "common sense, not hate."

Transgender policies? Kirk opposed rushed surgeries for minors, citing detransition regrets – a protective stance, not bigotry. Odom, as a gay man, agrees: "Kirk debated us fairly; he wasn't afraid of diverse voices."

A Call to Truth in Kirk's Legacy

Amir Odom's video isn't just a rebuttal – it's a testament to Kirk's impact. Retweeted by Musk, it's gone viral, reminding us that Kirk's diverse coalition proves the smears wrong. He wasn't a hater; he was a fighter for standards and freedom. Watch it here: YouTube Link. As we mourn Kirk, let's honor his legacy by rejecting lies and embracing truth.

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.

Posted: September 15, 2025

Charlie Kirk: Who Are the White Supremacists? Or Should I say, the KKK?

Charlie Kirk: Who Are the White Supremacists?

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University has unleashed a torrent of accusations, with many on the left branding him a "white supremacist." This label, flung with abandon by outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and social media activists, ignores not only Kirk’s actual record but also the historical irony of tying him to white supremacy—a term closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan, a group founded by Democrats to oppose Republicans. Even more striking is the reality that Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), drew significant support from Black, Latino, and even LGBTQ+ individuals, groups traditionally vilified by the KKK. Why would these communities back a man supposedly steeped in hate? The answer lies in a deliberate mischaracterization driven by political agendas, not facts.

The KKK: A Democratic Legacy, Not a Republican One

The Ku Klux Klan, founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, was a product of Southern Democrats furious over Republican-led Reconstruction after the Civil War. The KKK’s early mission was to terrorize freed Black Americans and their Republican allies, who championed emancipation and civil rights. Historical records, including those from the Library of Congress, confirm the KKK’s ties to Democratic Party factions in the South, with figures like Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Klan leader, aligned with Democratic resistance to Republican policies. By the 1920s, the KKK’s second wave saw it infiltrate Democratic politics further, notably at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, dubbed the “Klanbake” for its open Klan influence.

Fast forward to today, and the left conveniently ignores this history. Modern white supremacists, including neo-Nazi groups like Blood Tribe, are often labeled “far-right” by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Yet, as recently as September 2025, white supremacist leader Christopher Pohlhaus explicitly distanced himself from Kirk, writing, “In life Charlie Kirk was our enemy because he did whatever he could to undermine White collectivism”. The American Futurist, another neo-Nazi outlet, called Kirk a “moderate” who wasn’t “one of us” despite his death being politically weaponized. If Kirk was a white supremacist, why did actual white supremacists reject him so vehemently?

Charlie Kirk’s Diverse Support: A Contradiction to the Narrative

The claim that Kirk was a white supremacist crumbles further when you examine his supporters. Turning Point USA, which Kirk co-founded in 2012 at age 18, built a massive following among young conservatives, including significant numbers of Black, Latino, and even LGBTQ+ individuals—groups the KKK historically targeted. Why would these communities rally behind a man who supposedly “hated” them?

• Black Supporters: TPUSA events, like its annual Young Black Leadership Summit, drew hundreds of Black conservatives. Figures like Chandler Crump, a Black activist who met Kirk at 14, praised him for treating young leaders as equals regardless of race: “He said it doesn’t matter if you are Black or white... He paid attention to us”. Kirk’s “Blexit” campaign, co-led with Candace Owens, encouraged Black Americans to leave the Democratic Party, resonating with thousands who attended TPUSA events. If Kirk were a white supremacist, why did Black youth wear MAGA hats and pack his rallies?

• Latino Support: Kirk’s outreach extended to Latino communities, particularly in swing states like Arizona, where he helped flip the state for Trump in 2024. TPUSA’s Spanish-language initiatives and events like the AmericaFest conference featured Latino speakers and attendees, with Kirk emphasizing economic opportunity and family values over racial division. The KKK’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino history stands in stark contrast to Kirk’s appeal to Hispanic conservatives, who saw him as a defender of their aspirations.

• LGBTQ+ Supporters: While Kirk’s Christian conservative views led him to oppose same-sex marriage and gender-affirming care, calling them incompatible with his faith, he still engaged with LGBTQ+ individuals. Transgender conservative Blair White appeared on Kirk’s podcast, debating civilly despite disagreements. Other gay conservatives, like those in the Log Cabin Republicans, attended TPUSA events, drawn by Kirk’s focus on free speech and economic liberty. If Kirk were a KKK-style bigot, why would these individuals share stages with him or promote his events?

Why the Support? Kirk’s Appeal Beyond Race

Kirk’s draw wasn’t rooted in racial exclusion but in a broader conservative vision: individual liberty, free markets, and traditional values. His debates with college students—often liberal, often diverse—showcased his willingness to engage across divides. He didn’t shy away from tough topics, from immigration to gun rights, but framed them as policy disagreements, not personal hatred. His podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” had millions of followers, including diverse listeners who valued his unapologetic stance against what he called “cultural Marxism”.

For Black and Latino supporters, Kirk’s message of economic empowerment and skepticism of progressive policies resonated. He criticized DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives as divisive, arguing they pitted groups against each other. Many in these communities, especially younger voters, agreed, seeing his push for meritocracy as a path to success. For some LGBTQ+ conservatives, Kirk’s emphasis on free speech and resistance to “woke” censorship outweighed disagreements on social issues. His events weren’t KKK rallies—they were packed with diverse faces chanting “USA!” and debating ideas.

The Smear Campaign: Why Call Kirk a White Supremacist?

So why the label? It’s a tactic. By equating Kirk with white supremacy, critics justify outrage—and sometimes violence. The SPLC branded TPUSA a purveyor of “white Christian supremacy” for its anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, yet Kirk’s diverse base and rejection by actual white supremacists contradict this. Mainstream media amplified the narrative: The Guardian called Kirk’s views “bigoted”, and posts on X celebrated his death as “karma” for “hate speech”. This mirrors a pattern—label conservatives as “Nazis” or “racists” to dehumanize them, as seen with Trump and Limbaugh.

The irony is that Kirk’s assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, reportedly cited “hate speech” in his manifesto, echoing media talking points. By painting Kirk as a white supremacist, the left risks inciting the very violence they claim to oppose. Meanwhile, Kirk’s supporters—Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and beyond—mourn a man who gave them a platform, not a noose.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Inclusion, Not Hate

Charlie Kirk was no saint. His rhetoric could be sharp, and his views on race, religion, and gender sparked fierce debate. But white supremacist? The KKK’s Democratic roots and their explicit rejection of Kirk expose the absurdity of the label. His diverse coalition—Black, Latino, LGBTQ+ conservatives who flocked to his events—proves he wasn’t the monster his critics claim. They supported him because he spoke to their hopes, not their fears. As America grapples with his death, let’s reject the smears and ask: If Kirk was such a “hater,” why did so many from the groups he supposedly despised stand by his side?

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.

Posted by Juan Fermin on September 15, 2025

Was Charlie Kirk a Racist?

Was Charlie Kirk a Racist? The Real Focus on Standards, Not Hate

By Juan Fermin, nosocialism.com
Published: September 14, 2025

Once again, we see the mainstream media and their echo chambers relentlessly attacking Charlie Kirk, the late founder of Turning Point USA, for statements like his "moronic Black woman" remark or his questions about the competence of pilots and other professionals. These critics are missing the point entirely. Kirk wasn’t talking about race or "hating" Black people. His focus was on how affirmative action programs—such as those affecting the Secret Service—have lowered standards to meet quotas for Black individuals, women, or even members of the LGBT community. This isn’t about prejudice; it’s about merit.

Take his stance on transgender issues. Kirk’s main concern was advocating for a common-sense approach, arguing against automatically approving life-altering surgeries for 14-year-olds based solely on their word, especially given evidence that many later reconsider their decisions as adults. Again, this wasn’t about "hating" a group—it was about protecting young people from irreversible choices without proper reflection.

A perfect case in point is Boeing’s decision to hire engineers at a 50/50 gender ratio. Since the vast majority of engineers are men and only a tiny percentage of women rank at the top of their class, the company had to lower its hiring bar to meet this quota. The result? Boeing now faces more quality issues than ever—witness their space program’s struggle to keep pace with SpaceX and the troubling defects in recent plane designs. This is the kind of outcome Kirk warned about: prioritizing diversity over excellence erodes standards.

If Charlie Kirk truly hated Black people, as the mainstream media portrays, why did he have so many followers and speakers on his tours who were Black, Hispanic, Asian, and even members of the LGBT community? The reason is simple: they realized he didn’t hate anyone. He cared about everyone and wanted everyone to succeed—based on merit, not mandated quotas. His message resonated because it was about lifting standards for all, not tearing down any group.

Why The "Both Sides" Rhetoric Ignores the Left's Violent Extremism

The Asymmetrical Rage: Why The "Both Sides" Rhetoric Ignores the Left's Violent Extremism

The call for both sides to "tone down the rhetoric" is common, but a look at recent events reveals huge differences in how the political right and left respond to tragedy and conflict.

When George Floyd, a man with a criminal history including theft and drug dealing, was killed, the reaction from the left was extreme—entire cities saw riots, with buildings and businesses burned down. In contrast, when conservative icon Rush Limbaugh passed away, many on the left openly cheered his death, offering zero mourning or even simple respect. The election of President Trump for his first term triggered riots, with parts of Washington, D.C., including a church, set ablaze by the left. Look at the assassination of Charlie Kirk—social media is flooded with mockery and celebration of his death, and they’re still going!

Why? Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS portray Trump, Limbaugh, and Kirk as "Nazis," "bigots," "racists," or even "Hitler." Meanwhile, individuals like Floyd are labeled "innocent victims," despite their criminal records! So think about it: If Hitler and his Nazi regime murdered millions, does labeling someone a "would-be Hitler" justify extreme actions, including violence, against them? Then the same media says, "We would never condone violence!" Why not? If he’s Hitler, doesn’t he deserve to die?

Look at what they did with the Ukrainian girl knifed to death on a train. Sympathy is often directed not toward her family, but toward the "poor mentally ill man" who committed the act, highlighting a pattern of narrative focus. So the left views the criminal as the victim?

Republicans and those on the right tend to identify criminals as such—they are the bad guys! When news emerged of Biden’s terminal cancer diagnosis, the right’s response was way different—no taunting or mockery ensued. Instead, many expressed well-wishes and offered prayers, a civility absent when Rush Limbaugh suffered his first heart attack!

Now, with Charlie Kirk’s killing, where’s the chaos—burning cities, attacks on police, or looted stores? The right doesn’t do these things. We don’t resort to violence or destruction in response to political events, focusing instead on verbal condemnation or prayer. We get back to our lives.

The left’s response is literally like possessed demons, reveling in the suffering of a widow and her now fatherless kids. They justify their mockery by stating that Floyd was beaten to death—what! Did Kirk beat Floyd to death? Where is the logic? The man did nothing but invite others to debate. All he did was exercise free speech. Because he disagreed with some, he no longer deserved to live? How is this "both sides"? No, sorry—there’s only one side acting this way. And everyone can see which side it is.

So everyone now needs to decide. Do you stick with a group of people that obviously have a death culture, or do you choose life.

One final point: The left loves to say there’s actually more violence on the right than on the left, but that’s only because they "categorize" white supremacists as "extreme right" even though white supremacists are mostly KKK members—and the KKK was basically a Democrat-run organization. This historical twist lets them smear conservatives while ignoring the left’s own violent extremism.

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children: A Critical Examination of Gender-Affirming Care Practices

The issue of gender-affirming care for minors, particularly those who have experienced trauma such as sexual assault, has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that the medical industry sometimes exploits vulnerable children by promoting irreversible gender-affirming treatments without adequately addressing underlying psychological issues. This perspective is highlighted in discussions like those on The Glenn Beck Program, where detransitioner Claire Abernathy shared her experience of being rushed into hormone therapy and surgery at age 14, following trauma from sexual assault and bullying. Below, we explore this complex issue, focusing on the concerns raised about the medical industry’s approach to gender dysphoria in children, the role of trauma, and the need for balanced, evidence-based care.

The Case of Claire Abernathy: A Detransitioner’s StoryClaire Abernathy’s story, as discussed on The Glenn Beck Program, illustrates the concerns of those who believe the medical industry may exploit vulnerable youth. Abernathy began identifying as transgender at age 12, following a sexual assault and severe bullying. She describes how adopting a trans identity provided a new social network and a way to distance herself from her trauma. However, when she sought help, her therapists and doctors—practicing at a well-funded children’s hospital—allegedly dismissed her trauma as irrelevant to her gender dysphoria. Her parents were told that without hormone therapy and surgery, she was at high risk of suicide, a claim that pressured them into consenting. By November 2018, Abernathy was on testosterone, and by June 2019, she had undergone surgery, all before completing high school.Abernathy later detransitioned, citing a lack of informed consent. She was not told about permanent side effects, such as infertility or the inability to breastfeed, nor was she informed that many children with gender dysphoria eventually desist if given time to process their feelings. Her experience raises questions about whether the medical industry, driven by ideology or profit, may be too quick to affirm a child’s gender identity without exploring underlying issues like trauma.The Medical Industry’s Role: Protocols and PressuresGender-affirming care for minors typically involves a combination of social transition (e.g., using preferred pronouns or names), puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in rare cases, surgeries. Organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) set guidelines that emphasize affirming a patient’s self-identified gender, often citing reduced psychological distress and suicide risk. However, critics argue these guidelines are applied inconsistently, especially for vulnerable children.In Abernathy’s case, doctors allegedly ignored her history of sexual assault and bullying, focusing solely on her gender dysphoria. This aligns with concerns raised by psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman, who argues that some medical professionals treat gender dysphoria as a standalone condition, neglecting co-occurring issues like trauma, depression, or anxiety. Grossman notes that adolescent psychiatric units may even “create transgender children” by affirming identities without thorough evaluation.The pressure to affirm can come from multiple sources: medical institutions, advocacy groups, and even social dynamics. Abernathy mentioned therapists recommended by peers who shared her identity, creating an echo chamber that discouraged skepticism. Parents, like Abernathy’s, are often framed as abusive for questioning rapid medical interventions, adding emotional coercion to the decision-making process. This dynamic raises ethical questions about whether the medical industry prioritizes patient outcomes or adheres to ideological trends.The Role of Trauma in Gender DysphoriaSexual assault and other traumas can profoundly impact a child’s sense of self, sometimes leading to gender dysphoria as a coping mechanism. Abernathy’s story suggests her trans identity was partly a way to “become a new person” untainted by her assault. Yet, her mother’s attempts to address the trauma were dismissed by doctors, who insisted it was unrelated to her gender identity.Research supports the link between trauma and gender dysphoria. A 2018 study in JAMA Surgery found that transgender youth are more likely to have experienced adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, compared to cisgender peers. However, some medical protocols, like those endorsed by WPATH, prioritize affirmation over trauma-focused therapy, potentially overlooking root causes. Critics argue this approach risks misdiagnosis and irreversible harm, especially since studies, like a 2021 review in Frontiers in Psychiatry, show that up to 80% of prepubescent children with gender dysphoria may desist naturally by adulthood if not medically intervened.The Medical Industry’s Incentives: Profit and IdeologySkeptics of gender-affirming care point to financial and ideological incentives within the medical industry. Gender-affirming treatments, including hormones and surgeries, generate significant revenue. For example, a single course of puberty blockers can cost thousands of dollars annually, and surgeries like mastectomies or vaginoplasties can range from $10,000 to $50,000. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from lifelong hormone prescriptions, as highlighted by Dr. Grossman, who warns that some youth become “consumers of pharmaceuticals the rest of their life.”Ideologically, the push for affirmation may stem from advocacy groups and medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which endorse early intervention despite limited long-term data. The WPATH Files, leaked in 2024, revealed internal concerns among WPATH members about the lack of evidence for pediatric gender-affirming care, yet public guidelines remain unchanged. This discrepancy suggests a disconnect between scientific caution and clinical practice, potentially driven by social pressures or fear of backlash.Ethical Concerns and the Need for ReformThe experiences of detransitioners like Abernathy highlight ethical lapses in gender-affirming care for minors. Key issues include:

• Informed Consent: Minors, especially those with trauma, may not fully understand the permanent consequences of treatments like hormones or surgery. Abernathy was not informed about infertility or the high rates of desistance among youth.
• Trauma-Informed Care: Failing to address underlying issues like sexual assault risks misdiagnosis. Trauma-focused therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, could resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
• Parental Rights: Parents are sometimes sidelined or pressured, as seen in Abernathy’s case, undermining family involvement in critical decisions.
• Long-Term Outcomes: Data on the long-term effects of pediatric gender-affirming care is sparse. A 2022 study in The Lancet found mixed mental health outcomes for youth on puberty blockers, with some showing no improvement in suicidality.

Critics, including former LGBT activist K. Yang, argue that the medical industry’s approach resembles “social engineering,” with children being nudged toward trans identities through schools, media, and healthcare settings. Yang, who once worked at an LGBT nonprofit, notes that the concept of a “trans child” was virtually unknown a decade ago, yet now, a 2019 CDC survey reported 1 in 50 high school students identifying as trans—a sharp rise attributed to cultural shifts rather than inherent prevalence.A Path Forward: Balancing Compassion and CautionTo address these concerns, reforms could include:

1. Mandatory Trauma Screening: Require comprehensive psychological evaluations to identify trauma or co-occurring conditions before any medical intervention.
2. Stricter Age Guidelines: Limit irreversible treatments like hormones and surgeries to those over 18, as some European countries like Sweden have done.
3. Enhanced Informed Consent: Ensure minors and parents are fully educated about risks, including infertility and desistance rates.
4. Support for Detransitioners: Provide resources for those who regret their transitions, addressing physical and psychological harm.

The medical industry must balance compassion for gender-dysphoric youth with rigorous, evidence-based care. While some children may benefit from gender-affirming treatments, cases like Claire Abernathy’s suggest that trauma survivors are particularly vulnerable to being rushed into irreversible decisions. By prioritizing holistic care and addressing underlying issues, the industry can better serve these children without exploiting their vulnerabilities.ConclusionThe story of Claire Abernathy, as shared on The Glenn Beck Program, underscores the need for scrutiny of the medical industry’s approach to gender-affirming care for minors, especially those with histories of sexual assault or trauma. While the industry claims to act in patients’ best interests, financial incentives, ideological pressures, and inadequate protocols may lead to harm. By fostering open debate, prioritizing trauma-informed care, and ensuring informed consent, we can protect vulnerable children from being taken advantage of while supporting their mental and physical well-being.Note: This article draws on Claire Abernathy’s interview on The Glenn Beck Program () and related discussions (,). For further details, see www.glennbeck.com/radio/glenn-interviews-detransitioner-deceived-doctors and www.glennbeck.com/detransitioner-theres-no-trans-child. Always approach such topics with critical thinking, as media sources may carry biases.