By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At a public memorial service in Arizona on September 21st, Donald Trump delivered a eulogy for the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During the speech, Trump recounted Kirk’s alleged final words, which included a plea to “save Chicago” from crime. The former president also mentioned plans to address autism and praised Kirk as a “giant of his generation.” The article also details the tragic circumstances surrounding Kirk’s death, as well as his significant role in conservative circles.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Claims Charlie Kirk’s Last Request Was “Please, Sir, Save Chicago” During 40-Minute Eulogy, and the details, frankly, are a bit much to digest. It’s a story that’s become a lightning rod for criticism, and for good reason. The core of it revolves around a claimed final plea delivered by the deceased, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political organizer, to Donald Trump, at a memorial service. According to Trump, Kirk’s dying words, directed at him, were a request to “save Chicago.” The setting for this account was, according to reports, a 40-minute eulogy, a length that seems to have raised eyebrows given the circumstances.
The immediate reaction seems to be skepticism, and the most prominent indicator of this skepticism is the repeated use of the word “Sir” in the recounting of the alleged last request. Apparently, the phrase “Please, sir…” is a tell, a signal that, in many observers’ minds, what follows is likely to be fabricated. It’s a detail that pops up again and again within this context, a shorthand for the idea that Trump is prone to embellishment, if not outright fabrication, when it comes to relating stories. This raises a fundamental question: how much of this account is based on fact, and how much is constructed to serve a particular narrative?
The other angle here is the stark incongruity of the alleged request itself. To imagine a man in his final moments, facing death, choosing to deliver a plea of this nature, seems counterintuitive. In addition, based on reports of the shooting, the likelihood that Kirk could speak at all seems to be very low. The fact that this request was supposedly aimed at Trump, and that it focused on a specific political objective, adds another layer of complexity. It transforms what should be a moment of mourning into what some interpret as a thinly veiled political speech.
The comments reflect a wider view: a widespread sense of disbelief. Some of the comments are directly questioning the validity of the claims, labeling the entire story as a “crock of shit” and highlighting the perceived pattern of Trump’s dishonesty. It is also pointed out that Kirk’s known political positions were more divisive, at odds with the tone of a request about “saving” a city. Additionally, people call into question the motives of anyone involved, especially when considering that the alleged dying words have been twisted in ways that they are not, in reality, what was actually said.
This is not simply a discussion about one individual’s claims. Instead, it delves into the wider perception of Trump’s truthfulness, the intersection of grief and political agendas, and how all of this is further complicated by the context of a public memorial. The accusations of using a tragic event for political gain underscore the heightened sensitivity surrounding the event. There is also the criticism of the rhetoric used during the memorial, which goes beyond simply being politically motivated.
Furthermore, people are mentioning that the comments of the late podcast host are also being distorted. There seems to be a clear consensus that Kirk wasn’t the kind of figure to speak in terms of generalities. It seems, from the comments, that a much more likely scenario is that Kirk would have made some other request, such as requesting the release of the Epstein files. The suggestion of the release of these files would align with Kirk’s known political views and his public statements.
The overall reaction to the story, as reflected in the comments, is far from positive. It paints a picture of someone using another’s death to advance a political agenda, making people question the intentions behind the memorial and the veracity of its central claim. The incident has become a focal point for criticism, and the alleged final request, with its political underpinnings, has become another example of perceived dishonesty and exploitation.