AOC Votes to NOT Honor Charlie Kirk
(... and tries to rewrite history in the process, bless her hard, ugly heart.)
On Friday, the House passed a resolution to honor the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk, recognizing his “tireless work to promote unity and civic engagement among young Americans.” Despite headlines claiming strong Democratic opposition, the vote wasn’t even close—310 to 58, a resounding bipartisan majority. The measure praised Kirk for founding Turning Point USA, mobilizing a generation of conservative students, and becoming one of the most influential political voices of our time.
Naturally, some Democrats couldn’t resist turning a memorial resolution into an outrage audition. Fifty-eight leftists, in fact, actively opposed the idea of honoring a fallen hero, including—of course—Jasmine Crockett and Ilhan Omar. But the Loudest and Most Ignorant Dissenter Award has to go to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who insisted that honoring Kirk “brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.”
Sure, the man who invited conversation with anyone, anywhere was clearly a raging white supremacist. That’s probably why he hosted a Black Leadership Summit every year—an event that countless attendees claim changed their lives—just so he could mock, belittle, and suppress them… with scholarships, networking opportunities, personal support, and inspiration. What a rude and brutal slap in the face to all people of color. (BSOTD: Charlie Kirk: World’s Worst Bigot!)
AOC went further, accusing Kirk of believing “the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a mistake.” Let’s pause there. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not “grant” the right to vote to Black Americans. That right was already enshrined in the 15th Amendment—in 1870. What the Act did was outlaw segregation and discrimination. A year later, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 tackled poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory barriers.
Kirk’s critique wasn’t that Black Americans shouldn’t vote—it was that provisions of the Civil Rights Act and its modern interpretations have been twisted beyond recognition, used to justify everything from DEI quotas to men competing in women’s sports. You can disagree with him, but at least get the history straight.
Then there’s her claim that Kirk cheered on the Paul Pelosi attack. What he actually said was that someone should bail out the attacker—not because he approved of the violence (which he called awful and not right), but because he wanted the assailant questioned publicly, under oath, about how the incident really unfolded. In other words, “let’s dig deeper” not “bravo, hammer guy.” Clumsy phrasing? Maybe. A defense of political violence? Hardly.
And the “Jews run the world” accusation? Another example of AOC fishing for a headline and reeling in a boot. Kirk’s point, in context, was about elite institutional capture—universities, nonprofits, entertainment—not Jews as a people. He clarified that multiple times, but context doesn’t matter when you’re more interested in soundbites than facts.
At the end of the day, the memorial resolution passed overwhelmingly. Even plenty of Democrats could separate honoring a man’s influence from agreeing with his every word. AOC couldn’t. She framed her “no” as a principled stand against bigotry, but in reality it was a humiliating eighth-grade civics class faceplant.
Lest anyone miss the implication here, this is a woman who will likely run for President one day. And some deranged liberals will actually vote for her, based on the mere fact that she is a progressive woman of color. Sure, she’s said capitalism is irredeemable, supports defunding immigration enforcement, has proposed marginal tax rates as high as 70% for the ultra-wealthy, and constantly pushes for student debt cancellation. But she has a vagina and she’s Puerto Rican. To many of today’s Democrat voters, that combo trumps brains and a passing grasp of American history by a mile.
“Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter,” AOC insisted, “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.”
EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE: “Cool. So, how do you propose we stabilize our volatile political environment?”
AOC: “I’m going to vote to not honor that guy who was murdered for saying things I disagree with!”
Yesterday, two hundred thousand people showed up at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk. The speakers—including Carlson, Gabbard, Kennedy, Vance, Trump, and many, many more—stood behind thick bulletproof glass (why isn’t this standard?) and celebrated Charlie’s kindness, conviction, and patriotism. They spoke of God and gospel, faith and freedom, liberty and legacy. Attendees were given Kleenex—with good reason. The clips are flooding X, but one stood out to me:
“Charlie’s assassin thought that he could steal and silence his voice by putting a bullet in his neck,” said Turning Point Chief of Staff Mike McCoy. “In the words of Søren Kierkegaard, the tyrant dies and his rule is over; the martyr dies, and his rule has just begun.”
Cue the standing ovation.
I genuinely cannot count how many social media posts I’ve seen by folks claiming their lives will never be the same in the wake of Charlie’s senseless death. It’s being called the Charlie Kirk Effect. People are stepping foot in a church for the first time in decades—sometimes in their lives. They’re speaking openly about their faith. They’re announcing that they are forsaking the only political party they’ve ever supported—the one of hatred and bigotry. And they’re committed to making sure that history remembers that Charlie Kirk wasn’t just a man; he was a movement. (If the whole thing was faked—Hi, Vee!—to usher in a revival, I won’t even mind.)
Talk about a Turning Point.
“He was showing people the light,” Elon told a reporter, “and he was killed by the dark.”
Charlie’s assassins (and I believe his murder was the work of more than one person) wanted repression; they got a revolution. “You ran a good race, my friend,” JD Vance said in his tribute. “I love you. We got it from here.”
That’s the real contrast: tens of thousands—probably millions—of people have been inspired to pick up Charlie’s torch. And still you’ve got the likes of AOC, stomping her feet in a corner, twisting history like a balloon animal, and refusing to honor a man’s stolen life and undeniable legacy.
And they wonder why one side’s welcome mat is worn thin while the other side’s is still in the plastic wrap.
Please, tell me your thoughts on AOC and the memorial and the resolution in the comments.
Those millions of Americans who suffered under Jim Crow and segregation are either dead or in nursing homes at this point. And segregation was not practiced in every corner of America, either. At my junior year prom, the queen was the whitest white girl you can imagine, while the prom king was black. They slow-danced together and no one rioted, burned down the town, or marched in protest. That was 1964. So, sorry not sorry, AOC.
It is true that Charlie Kirk brought pain to millions of Americans, not great pain but some pain, because sometimes "it hurts to have to think when you don't want to."
The tide is going out and "The Fifty-Eight" standing high and dry are the core, the bedrock, of The, dying, Bigotry Industry.