We Now Know Why That Charlie Kirk Tribute Never Aired: Death Threats from the Leftists Who Murdered Him

The reason Sinclair Broadcasting Network opted against airing a tribute for the slain founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, has now come to light: the threats stemming from leftist violence proved too substantial to overlook.

Late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel unleashed a particularly egregious falsehood on September 15, falsely claiming that Kirk’s shooter was a supporter of MAGA. Subsequently, Sinclair elected not to broadcast Kimmel’s show across its network of over 40 ABC affiliates.

In a twist, the network announced that it would instead showcase a tribute to Kirk during Kimmel’s time slot. However, by September 19, Sinclair reversed course, with the New York Post reporting that this change was precipitated by “local threats directed at specific local ABC stations” in the wake of the decision to suspend Kimmel.

On the very same day, Anibal Hernandez Santana allegedly unleashed gunfire at an ABC affiliate—KXTV in Sacramento. After firing one shot into the air, he drove to the front of the building and fired three more shots into the lobby while an employee was present. Fortunately, no injuries were reported.

Hernandez Santana harbored a pronounced antipathy towards President Donald Trump. A separate account from the New York Post notes that law enforcement discovered anti-Trump writings in his vehicle, and on his calendar for September 19, he had ominously penned, “do the next scary thing.”

Among his notes was a comment about “hiding Epstein and ignoring red flags,” along with threats aimed at FBI Director Kash Patel, Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Arrested by Sacramento police, Hernandez Santana faces charges including assault with a deadly weapon, negligent discharge of a firearm, and shooting into an occupied building. He made a $200,000 bail only to be subsequently arrested again by the FBI on Saturday, facing federal charges for interfering with a federally licensed station, alongside an additional charge for discharging a firearm within a school zone.

Sinclair’s approach towards these threats is notable as it highlights a troubling trend where more radical leftist elements resort to violence as a means of expression. The narrative echoes the aftermath of Kirk’s murder and the recent attack on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Dallas, Texas, on a Wednesday.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem remarked on that day, following an incident where a detainee and the shooter were both killed after indiscriminate gunfire into a van: “For months, we’ve been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed.”

She further noted, “This shooting must serve as a wake-up call to the far-left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences. Constantly equating ICE with Nazi Gestapo, the Secret Police, or slave patrols comes with real-world ramifications.”

The stark division in the violent rhetoric emanating from the left and right is profound, with right-wing violence generally lacking inspiration from its corresponding rhetoric, whereas left-wing violence often blooms from it.

What’s at play here reflects a historical pattern, reminiscent of the tactics employed by Bolshevik revolutionaries who incited terror during the fall of Imperial Russia. It appears to be the left’s guidebook; resorting to threats and violence has become almost second nature for some factions.

Meanwhile, right-wing groups display outrage when figures like Gina Carano face cancel culture. However, the question must be raised: did American conservatives respond with violence after Disney’s studios faced backlash? Or did they initiate attacks against Fox affiliates following Tucker Carlson’s firing?

Anyone with a discerning eye recognizes that the “both sides do it” argument fails to square with the reality witnessed on the ground.

This article first appeared on The Western Journal.