They come to bury Kirk, not to praise him
More fallout from the Kirk assassination:
The House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday condemning political violence and honoring Charlie Kirk, but nearly a hundred Democrats refused to support it. The final tally was 310-58, with every Republican voting in favor and 96 Democrats either voting against it or refusing to take a stand at all by voting present. That raw number is impossible to ignore: Close to 100 Democrats balked at denouncing political violence when the resolution also praised Kirk’s legacy.
What sort of praise was deemed unconscionable by so many Democrats? This sort of thing:
The resolution, which House Speaker Mike Johnson sponsored, honored Kirk as a “courageous American patriot” who modeled civil discussion and promoted unity without abandoning conviction. It described his dedication to free speech and debate as being done with “honor, courage, and respect.”
All of that is true, but the left can’t afford to admit it. There’s no list of the 100, but among them were most of the Black Caucus members, who signed on to a statement that included:
“The resolution introduced in the House to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy is not about healing, lowering the temperature of our political discourse, or even ensuring the safety of members of Congress, staff, and Capitol personnel,” they wrote. “It is, unfortunately, an attempt to legitimize Kirk’s worldview — a worldview that includes ideas many Americans find racist, harmful, and fundamentally un-American.”
The caucus outlined some of Kirk’s past comments that they said they “strongly” disagreed with, listing “his belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended racial segregation, was a mistake; his denial that systemic racism exists; his promotion of the Great Replacement theory; and his offensive claims about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee lacking adequate cognitive ability.”
So the misrepresentation by lack of context continues. Kirk was against the 1964 act for the following reasons, which are not racist and obviously he was not at all in favor of continuing segregation, which is the implication of what the caucus wrote:
“I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it,” Kirk told the crowd at his annual conservative political conference, AmericaFest, in 2023. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
It was a refrain Kirk would return to often in public remarks and on his social media talk show. He argued the bill “created a beast” focused on equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity, and that it “led to more crime.”
Denial that systemic racism exists is a completely mainstream belief, and his claims about these particular black women had to do with their being, in his opinion, DEI hires. Here’s the actual quote, which occurred two weeks after SCOTUS ruled against affirmative action in university admissions:
If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they’re comin’ out and they’re saying it for us! They’re comin’ out and they’re saying, “I’m only here because of affirmative action.”
Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
The article goes on to add that Kirk showed clips to back up his assertion that the women themselves were admitting they were DEI and/or affirmative action hires. What he said about the women was certainly one of his less tactful remarks, but it rested on their own words.
Now that Kirk’s been murdered by a leftist one would think the Democrats would be able to join in the sort of generalized praise that the bill contained, but they refused. However, they did push an alternate bill that condemned all political violence:
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) introduced an alternative measure this week condemning political violence in general, citing Kirk’s murder and last year’s assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, as well as attacks targeting Democrats and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The measure garnered 118 cosponsors, all Democrats, as of Friday.
Of course, the only person murdered on J6 was Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
[NOTE: The title of this speech comes from Marc Antony’s oration at Caesar’s funeral.]
Poor innocent Ashli Babbitt was also, I believe, shot in the neck, subsequently to exsanguinate. And the left still lies about that story. Pattern? Or coincidence?
“You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Unfortunate phrasing. The word “white” in there gives them a (very tenuous) peg to hang a “raaayycist” tag on.
If he would have said, ” You had to go steal the slot of a smarter non-black, non-female person to be taken seriously” they would have no rhetorical shield against his charge.
This clarifies things on both sides. We conservatives need to understand that we have very little in common with the Dems.
If they can’t say something nice about a murdered conservative who regularly interacted with liberal college students, then there’s not much more to say and no reason to try to work with these loons. And loons (and worse) is what they are. I call them Jacobins. For the Dems, politics is a blood sport and they can’t even show any basic human decency.
In a way, I like that this trans business is the hill that the Dems want to die on. The average Dem (think JFK Dems, union Dems) don’t agree with this. Those voters have switched and more will continue to do so.
We need to push back and call them out for the miserable human beings that they are. They’re the ones that need to change.
The solution is we must have giant wins at the polls and put the Dems in a tiny minority. And then just govern without them.
@buddhaha:If he would have said, ” You had to go steal the slot of a smarter non-black, non-female person to be taken seriously” they would have no rhetorical shield against his charge.
They would just change what he said into what they needed it to be. This already happened, it’s not a speculation. Karen Attiah invented a quote and attributed it to Charlie Kirk to paint him as a racist, and got fired for it.
There is no point in trying to jump through the Left’s speech hoops. They just change them after you jump. They will always lie about what you said even if you manage to do it perfectly. This has been going on for thirty years. (Trump to his credit figured this out before anyone.)
There’s far LESS point in, after the fact, Monday-morning quarterbacking someone else’s quote because it didn’t adequately jump through a Leftist hoop.
I remember that at the time of passage of the equal rights law, Hubert Humphrey promised that it wouldn’t turn into a quota system. Here we are 60 years later and it’s a quota system. Lucky for us he never became President.
> who signed on to a statement that included
We have a self-identified constituency of rent seekers in this country.
If Charlie Kirk was just a conservative activist, they might not have hated him so. That he was also deeply religious, (and could defend his faith) as well as conservative was what they couldn’t stand. Most Democrats have exposed themselves as Godless Marxists. Religion is their deepest enemy. Their religion is the REVOLUTION and none other can exist.
I’m not surprised by the vote in the House.
“I remember that at the time of passage of the equal rights law, Hubert Humphrey promised that it wouldn’t turn into a quota system”. Paul in Boston
Given that intent rather than results is the liberal calculus, he may well have actually believed it. Of course, a refusal to examine results rests upon willful self-deception. They not only don’t want to know, they’ll demonize anyone who brings up inconvenient ‘facts’.
Their religion is the REVOLUTION and none other can exist.” J.J.
Though they embrace their woke cultural Marxism with religious fervor, the ‘god’ they actually worship lies in their mirror, virtue signaling ensures that they can look upon their reflected image with self-satisfaction. They tell themselves that lying, bearing false witness and now, murder are all done for the greater good.
If Charlie Kirk was just a conservative activist, they might not have hated him so. That he was also deeply religious, (and could defend his faith) as well as conservative was what they couldn’t stand.
J.J.:
Plus his religious activism was working.
The left really hates Christianity. It’s a longstanding grudge.
Mainline churches are OK as long as they don’t really believe in Christ. At my last (Episcopalian) church they always referred to the accounts in the New Testament as “stories.”
buddhaha on September 19, 2025 at 4:23 pm:
Your comment is exactly what I was intending to say, except you have expressed it better than I might have.
NC: I think we still need to put our rhetorical stakes in the ground, even if the Dems come along and pull them up or push them over. And if we have video and fingerprints from that vandalism, so much the better.
When it comes to Affirmative Action, very few commenters focus on “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” I think it’s a slam dunk that Reparations and AA are Corruption/Attainder of Blood and are therefore strictly forbidden under the Constitution.
Alex Berenson made a very good point a few days ago, pointing out the difference between truth and what the Left is pushing.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/unreported-truths-readers-are-the
Very much in sync with the prisoner that huxley quoted in today’s Open Thread.
huxley on September 19, 2025 at 12:52 pm said:
I heard that Kimmel got dual Italian/USA citizenship last month. Wouldn’t it be nice if he emigrated, and took his wife with him?
I really try very hard not to generalize about anything, including ethnic proclivities and stereotypes, like the “drunken Irishman,” the “lazy Mexican” or the “dumb Polack” This includes the ones that have developed about American blacks, but things like this make it increasingly difficult to do so. The question is why these blacks got elected in the first place, and secondarily, why, once given an opportunity to lead, they act in such an undeniably stereotypical way. Of course, I suppose it is possible that they actually want to conform to the stereotype or are too obtuse to avoid conforming to the stereotype, either one of which possibility would explain everything.
Rosanne Boyland if not murdered was beaten, collapsed and died from direct actions of police
Sen Fetterman I saw sent a message
‘Tomorrow Charlie Kirk will be laid to rest
Let people grieve and give them space”
Turning out to be at least a old style Democrat, even if voting for everything the Marxists send out