To be fair, Republican had Democrats in a metaphorical head-lock and the assassination of Charlie Kirk gave the Elephants a perfect “gotcha!” Then again, the Democrats and the rest of the Axis of Unethical conduct were begging for their just desserts and are getting it good and hard.
Well, good. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving party.
House Speaker Mike Johnson introduced House Resolution 719 this week and with over 100 co-sponsors, all Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass., and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D- Cal.) all sucked it up and supported the resolution, which, with a sane party, should have been easy. The relevant text read,
Resolved, That the House of Representatives
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;
(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;
(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and
(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.
Only ninety-five Democrats had the sense to back the resolution even though the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t read the text and would just see it as a routine rejection of political violence and an expression of regret over the death of a murder victim. Thirty-eight Democrats voted “present,” 58 voted against the resolution, and 22 did not vote at all. That’s 117 who objected to the existence of Charlie Kirk so much that they were unwilling to support a resolution condemning political violence.
In June, the House unanimously passed a resolution honoring Minnesota House Democrat Leader Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark after they were murdered, while also condemning political violence. There were no Republican dissenters. But the Hortmans hadn’t played a part in defeating a grand scheme to remake the nation, the government and its culture like Charlie Kirk had. The Mad Left hated him and hates him still, hence today’s vote. Res ipsa loquitur.
Rather than honoring “the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty”—admittedly a tough metaphorical pill for a totalitarian-leaning party to swallow—the majority of House Democrats decided not to condemn political violence…because, as multiple surveys show, a large proportion of Democrats like political violence as long as it’s “fascists” who are the targets. And the previous President told them who the fascists are…
(I know I post this a lot. And I will continue to do so until the stars turn cold…)
Here is the list of the Democrats whose hate for Charley Kirk was stronger than their rejection of killing their political adversaries:
- Gabe Amo of Rhode Island
- Joyce Beatty of Ohio
- Wesley Bell of Missouri
- Sanford Bishop Jr. of Georgia
- Shontel Brown of Ohio
- Andre Carson of Indiana
- Troy Carter of Louisiana
- Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida
- Yvette Clarke of New York
- Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri
- Jim Clyburn of South Carolina
- Jasmine Crockett of Texas
- Danny Davis of Illinois
- Veronica Escobar of Texas
- Adriano Espaillat of New York
- Cleo Fields of Louisiana
- Shomari Figures of Alabama
- Valerie Foushee of North Carolina
- Maxwell Frost of Florida
- Sylvia Garcia of Texas
- Al Green of Texas
- Jimmy Gomez of California
- Jahana Hayes of Connecticut
- Steven Horsford of Nevada
- Glenn Ivey of Maryland
- Jonathan Jackson of Illinois
- Pramila Jayapal of Washington
- Hank Johnson Jr. of Georgia
- Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California
- Robin Kelly of Illinois
- Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois
- Summer Lee of Pennsylvania
- Lucy McBath of Georgia
- LaMonica McIver of New Jersey
- Robert Menendez of New Jersey
- Kweisi Mfume of Maryland
- Gwen Moore of Wisconsin
- Seth Moulton of Massachusetts
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
- Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
- Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
- Mike Quiqley of Illinois
- Delia Ramirez of Illinois
- Emily Randall of Washington
- Robert Scott of Virginia
- Terri Sewell of Alabama
- Lateefah Simon of California
- Marilyn Strickland of Washington
- Emilia Strong Sykes of Ohio
- Shri Thanedar of Michigan
- Bennie Thompson of Mississippi
- Rashida Tlaib of Michigan
- Lauren Underwood of Illinois
- Nydia Velazquez of New York
- Maxine Waters of California
- Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey
- Nikema Williams of Georgia
- Frederica Wilson of Florida
Democrats who voted “present”
- Alma Adams of North Carolina
- Donald Beyer Jr. of Virginia
- Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon
- Julia Brownly of California
- Janelle Bynum of Oregon
- Salud Carbajal of California
- Greg Casar of Texas
- Diana DeGette of Colorado
- Mark DeSaulnier of California
- Maxine Dexter of Oregon
- Lloyd Doggett of Texas
- Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania
- Lois Frankel of Florida
- Laura Friedman of California
- John Garamendi of California
- Daniel Goldman of New York
- Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire
- Val Hoyle of Oregon
- Sara Jacobs of California
- Julie Johnson of Texas
- Timothy Kennedy of New York
- Ro Khanna of California
- Doris Matsui of California
- Jennifer McClellan of Virginia
- Grace Meng of New York
- Brittany Petterson of Colorado
- Chellie Pingree of Maine
- Mark Pocan of Wisconsin
- Andrea Salinas of Oregon
- Linda Sanchez of California
- Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania
- Brad Sherman of California
- Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia
- Mike Thompson of California
- Jill Tokuda of Hawaii
- Paul Tonko of New York
- Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico
- James Walkinshaw of Virginia
Democrats who did not vote:
- Nanette Diaz Barragan of California
- Sean Casten of Illinois
- Kathy Castor of Florida
- Joaquin Castro of Texas
- Steve Cohen of Tennessee
- Herbert Conaway Jr. of New Jersey
- Robert Garcia of California
- Jesus Garcia of Illinois
- George Latimer of New York
- Teresa Leger Fernandez of New Mexico
- Kevin Mullin of California
- Joe Neguse of Colorado
- Donald Norcross of New Jersey
- Nancy Pelosi of California
- Raul Ruiz of California
- Janice Schakowsky of Illinois
- Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico
- Eric Swalwell of California
- Norma Torres of California
- Ritchie Torres of New York
- Marc Veasey of Texas
- Eugene Vindman of Virginia
Ethics Alarms 
So among the Dems, 95 voted in support, including leadership, 95 were opposed or neutral (“present”).
Those opposed (to WHAT??) includes 5 Dem reps from Oregon, who voted as a block — ugh — I will be contacting mine to discover why deploring the assassination of the two Minnesota Dems who were murdered and denouncing political violence in June was okay but somehow she couldn’t do the obviously decent thing here (?!!?)
Of the 22 who weren’t present, hard to know who just wasn’t around for the vote for whatever reason (some leave town on Friday to return to districts etc., kids can get sick etc.) and who deliberately made themselves scarce to avoid a decision.
So a question: Is an even split better or worse than expectations at this point? I actually can’t decide…..
Simply shameful.
jvb
I object to the phrase “Biblical truth” but I support the rest of the resolution. I wonder if they’d be willing to rephrase that if called on it, since the United States is explicitly not a “Christian nation,” even though a lot of people seem to think it is.
I object to that phrase as well, but not enough to vote against the resolution.
The Constitution is a brilliant secular document that recognizes that the government is not the highest power. it recognizes Rights and ensures that the Republic has room for many disparate views and beliefs.
they got more right than wrong 239 years ago.
The non binding resolution recognized the beliefs of Charlie Kirk, the consequences of voting nay, present, or silent is a feature of the system, rejoice in the freedom available to this country.
signed a non religious veteran
Whether or not the U.S. is a Christian nation – and you’re right…it isn’t – has nothing to do with Charlie Kirk’s dedication to Biblical truth. I can’t imagine anyone changing the language of the Resolution because of an objection to two words, especially two words that were, by all appearances, very important to Kirk.
Anyways, I’m blown away by the number of Representatives that voted against it. That’s an awful look, and they blew a chance for a bit of good will. I hope Democrats get spanked and spanked hard in the midterms.
I admit it’s a bit ambiguous as to whether the phrase “dedication to Biblical truth” implies that the legislative body officially subscribes to the idea of the Bible as a source of truth (beyond its role as a historical text subject to analysis like any other), or merely an acknowledgement that Kirk subscribed to that idea with great dedication. I’d just prefer to remove the ambiguity, since it’s easy enough. “His faith” or something similar would have worked just fine. Since it’s just a resolution and not an enforceable law, it’s not a hill I’d die on. I’m willing to let religious remarks pass without comment if the only thing at stake is people’s peace of mind.
Disgraceful. I notice that Jared Golden (D-Maine 2) doesn’t appear on these lists, so I presume he voted in favor. Smart move – Maine’s 2nd CD went for Trump last time, and the only reason Golden is in office in the first place is because Maine ignorantly bought into the vote-rigging scheme known as Ranked Choice Voting.
I also notice that Chellie Pingree, a classic socialist dem who can afford to be one because she married a leftist billionaire and hangs out in the 1st CD, voted “present.” Hey, at least she was there – that’s enough to prove she cares!
Maine is a political shitshow these days. I mourn for it. I live in Massachusetts now, which is far worse (and a state in which the rot has resided far longer), but Maine used to have its shit together. I remember those days. I’m glad I’m watching its deterioration from afar, even if I’m surrounded by worse.
Out of the frying pan, and into the fire, eh, AIM?
Yup. For family reasons.
There are a lot more conservatives around here than most folks believe. Then again, most folks is Democrats.
Mrs. OB has become conservative over the years. She grew up in the jaws of Bay State leftism protesting the Vietnam War, but was actually glad to flee the land of Ivy League back window decals and all that goes with it. I have a cousin in Chatham. Her husband is a retired Bell Labs engineer who was instrumental in getting the Marconi Museum up and running. A fascinating place. I had no idea radio was so complicated and cumbersome until visiting the museum and then on a trip to Ireland actually seeing one of Marconi’s transmission facilities there. Sailors came home from the sea, all thanks to the Jameson Whiskey fortune, into which Marconi married. Mrs. OB also descends from some Wellfleet denizens back when it was a going whaling port.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a moment of absolute moral clarity. And almost all moments of absolute moral clarity have a villain. I became aware of the Charlie Kirk assassination via Ethics Alarms. When I switched on the television the news was that Charlie Kirk has died. Soon thereafter the news changed to “Republicans pounce after the death of Charlie Kirk”, following the main stream media. But as everybody with two eyes and a couple of braincells can see, the real news since that day has been “The left goes mental after Charlie Kirk’s assassination”.
American history had more moments of absolute moral clarity. The most recent one with similar significance is the attack on the World Trade Center at 9/11/2001. Another one is the lynching of Emmett Till, among many more that are related to Jim Crow and the struggle for civil rights.
The one moment that strikes me as most comparable is another famous example of political violence. In May, 1856 Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce the use of force and fraud to plant slavery in the territory of Kansas. This speech is known as the “Crime Against Kansas” speech. A couple of day later, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, with two other Southern Representatives entered the Senate Chamber, and gave Sumner such a beating with a cane, that he nearly died. The other Southern Representatives made sure that the Senator could not get any help. The Southern newspapers praised the attack, and blamed Sumner for bringing his fate on himself. The cane had broken in two, and Southern supporters made sure that Preston Brooks got a new cane. An attempt to oust Brooks from the House of Representatives failed.
In 1856 the country was deeply polarized about the issue of slavery, even more polarized than today. Sumner used words and debate to persuade, however Brooks with full support used force and violence in order to extend their power and way of live which included an oligarchy supported by slavery.
The caning shocked the conscience of the United States of America. The Southern Democrats had let their mask slip; they stood exposed for the entire nation as a party that disdained free speech and republican norms, and instead choose force and violence to get their vision realized.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has a lot of similarities with what happened in 1856. The United States of America is highly polarized, with the two major parties having opposite visions of this nation. A man who uses words and debate to persuade is assassinated. And the left lets its mask slip, and shows is true face, as ugly as the picture of Dorian Grey. The ugliest part are all the social media messages cheering on the assassination. The mainstream media and the Democrat politicians lie, spin, gaslight, shift blame, impugn Charlie Kirk as a racist and a fascist, and do everything to deflect from the big elephant in the room: the left has a violence problem.
A recent poll a YouTube poll shows that 25 percent of people who identify as very left supports violence to meet political ends. Another poll, from Rutgers University, found that 55% of those who identify as left, found it at least somewhat justified to assassinate Donald Trump. These high numbers indicate that political violence is not supported by just a fringe; the base of the Democrat Party is violent. The Democrat Party has been captured by the hard left, for whom power is everything. The Democrats have become a hard left party.
That does not mean that there are no sane Democrats who support republican norms. But what we see happening now is the same as in 1856, namely that everybody sees that the mask has slipped of the Democrats face. After 1856 up to the start of the Civil War many left the Democrats. Another big party had just imploded, the Whigs. The result was a political realignment last for generations. The beneficiary of this realignment was a new party, the Republicans, who would win the Presidency in 1860.
Between November 2024 and September 10, 2025 the Democrats have lost of 2M registrations. The Republicans have won > 2M registrations. After the assassination many TikTok and YouTube videos are being published of people who are horrified, and swear that they will never vote Democrat again.
The Democrat politicians and leaders are terrified. They cannot roundly denounce leftwing political violence, and the demonizing rhetoric that lead to this. They are afraid of losing their base. A significant number of Democrat politicians support this heated rhetoric. Ilhan Omar after Charlie Kirk’s death still labels him as a fascist. The House failed to censor her, with the entire Democrat cause in her favor plus four Republicans. Rashida Tlaib engaged in a wild shouting match with Byron Donalds in the House of Representatives, using words like fascist and Nazi. The vote in the House on Resolution 719, with the majority of Democrats voting against, confirms the picture that also the Democrat representatives are in support of political violence.
As the sane Democrats are leaving the party, the radicalization will continue apace. Mamdani, a radical, is most likely to become the new major of New York City. I would be surprised if the elections in Virginia and New Jersey go their way. Both states will become swing states.
The Republicans did not have much intensity going into the midterm elections of 2026. Now they have intensity. And you can be hundred percent sure that as long as there is any Democrat politician is apply terms like fascist, racist, Nazi, extremist to a Republican, the Democrats will be reminded that they are a hard left party, beholden to political violence including assassinations.
Political parties have disappeared before; I already mentioned the Whigs. Does the Democrat Party have a future? It is a good question that is too early to answer. My impression is that the future for the Democrats looks bleak, and that a major political realignment lasting for generations may be underway.
Jack and EC:
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth…
pretty standard grammar, Charlie Kirk is the subject of that section.
Cees, that was outstanding! Thanks for adding a very interesting historical perspective.
The democrat party is roughly the equivalent of Hamas. The people voting for them are terrorist sympathizers at minimum.
Shots fired at an ABC affiliate. The news reports say there’s no evidence that it is related to the Jimmy Kimmel protests there. Nah. Just a coinkydink.
Terrorists committing terrorism is par for the course. My shocked face is not even in play.
Hamas is a death cult. Comparing the Democrats with Hamas is incendiary for the same reason as calling the Republicans Nazis. Comparing the current Democrats with Southern Democrats during the Antebellum is more appropriate, also because of the shared history. However I have to admit that I feel tempted to compare certain factions of the Democrats (the squad) with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland; Sinn Fein was regarded as the political arm of the IRA, a terrorist organization responsible for many deaths during the troubles. Now Trump has declared Antifa a terrorist organization, we will have to see if which NGOs and foundations are related to Antifa activity, and which members of Congress are related to these NGOs.
The Sinn Fein analogy is terrific, Cees. Absolutely spot on. And your essay making the comparison to the Ante Bellum situation is tremendous. Surely a Comment of the Day coming down the pike.
I’ve watched the left jump for joy at the assassination of Charlie Kirk. They are a death cult. They have embraced nihilism wholeheartedly and jumped straight off the high dive into the deep end of crazy. Hamas isn’t a perfect analogy, but it is close enough. The democrats would gleefully slaughter half the population of the country if they thought they could get away with it, and are psyching themselves up to try. Things are only going to get worse. There has been zero reconsidering of the path they are on. Only pondering of how to quintuple down as fast as possible.
I still think that your statements are a bit over the top, and I sincerely hope you are wrong. But you may be interested in the following thread at X, starting with that chart.
David Marcus commented to Jessy at X: “Not long ago, I would have gotten a step stool, patted Jesse on the head and said, “This sounds crazy, brother.” Not so much today.”
Thank you for publishing the names.
This really is quite horrifying.