95 House Democrats Vote to Honor White Supremacy, Misogyny in Misguided Charlie Kirk Resolution Vote

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives voted for a resolution to honor the “life and legacy” of Charlie Kirk.

That legacy, of course, is one of racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and antisemitism, not one of “respectful dialogue” (here’s a link with some highlights of who Charlie Kirk really was).

Despite the fact that Kirk regularly treated the Civil Rights Act as a punch lien and called for Joe Biden to be executed, 95 House Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, voted for a partisan GOP resolution engaging in hagiography and whitewashing of Charlie Kirk:

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility;

….

Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;

Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;

Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;

The final vote was 310 to 58, with 38 present. 95 Democrats voted YES, 58 Democrats voted NO, and 38 voted PRESENT. 22 were not in attendance.

Notably, the Congressional Black Caucus made up a large share of the NO votes, and NO votes dominated among CBC members.

Of CBC members, 43 voted no, 4 voted present, 4 voted yes, and 4 were not there for the vote. The CBC issued a clear statement highlighting how the resolution was a partisan resolution ignoring Charlie Kirk’s long history of racist and white supremacist marks, especially his history of demeaning prominent Black women:

“At the same time, we must condemn violence without abandoning our right to speak out against ideas that are inconsistent with our values as Americans. We strongly disagree with many of the beliefs Charlie Kirk promoted: including 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.

“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. It is, unfortunately, an attempt to legitimize Kirk’s worldview — a worldview that includes ideas many Americans find racist, harmful, and fundamentally un-American.

AOC also issued a clear statement explaining what the vote was actually about:

“House Republicans today brought to the floor a resolution ‘honoring the life and legacy’ of Charlie Kirk. I voted NO.

“Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter — one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.

“It then only underscores the majority’s recklessness and intent to divide by choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder, as we did with the late Melissa Hortman. Instead, the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.

“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans — far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.

“It is equally important that Congress unites to reject the government’s attempt to weaponize this moment into an all-out assault on free speech across the country. All in the name of Charlie Kirk, the Trump Administration, and the FCC are now cynically threatening to shut down ABC and any outlets who give airtime to his political critics. This is a disgusting attack on the American people and the very First Amendment rights that define us as a country. It is also ABC’s responsibility to refuse to participate in this corruption and escalation of censorship.

Shockingly, only two white Democrats voted against the resolution: Mike Quigley (IL-05) and Seth Moulton (MA-06).

Disappointingly, Greg Casar, Sara Jacobs, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan, and Nydia Velazaquez voted present, instead of NO. Although it is even more damning that progressives like Katherine Clark, Jim McGovern, Jerry Nadler, and Jamie Raskin voted YES.