Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said some things after the assassination of Charlie Kirk that I did not like or appreciate.
She also reposted some items, which, with the standard set by Democrats, is equivalent to posting them yourself.
Several Republicans in the House wanted to censure her for it and have her removed from her committee assignments, but they failed after four Republicans voted with Democrats to block the resolution.
Omar’s direct comments about Charlie Kirk were taken out of context to score some points, but that is pretty typical these days. During an interview, she stated, “Charlie was someone who once said, you know, guns save lives after a school shooting.” She continued, “You have people like Trump who have incited violence. These people are full of sh*t.”
As noted, Charlie’s comments taken out of context sound horrible, but that was one line out of a response that took him about five minutes to make, and when you hear his full answer, it was not the horrific cherry-picked statement Omar made.
The real problem here is that Omar reposted some horrible posts made about Kirk, with one of them being, “Charlie Kirk was Dr. Frankenstein, and his monster shot him through the neck.”
Now, I am biased here because I believe Omar should have been gone a long time ago, so I had no problem with censuring her just for the fact that she cherry-picked one line to spread a mistruth, simply because I believe members of Congress need to be above that. But that post, well, I think that was way over the top for a member of Congress to make.
On the posts and comments made by Omar, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) stated, “Disparaging Charlie Kirk’s legacy, a God-fearing, honorable man, for boldly sharing his conservative beliefs is disgusting.”
He continued, “The radical left has normalized meeting free speech with violence, and it must stop. No one who justifies the assassination of someone with different political views than them deserves to sit on a committee.”
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) added, “We’re filing a resolution to strip [Ilhan Omar] of her committee assignments after her disgraceful remarks on Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”
She continued, “Ilhan Omar has shown us exactly who she is: she defends political violence and refuses to condemn the loss of innocent lives when it doesn’t suit her agenda, even the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's dangerous, disgraceful, and beneath the United States Congress. She must be stripped of every committee assignment. No excuses.”
It was only a few days ago that I wrote a report saying that defending free speech when it is uncomfortable and you don’t like what was said is when you need to defend it the most, and that was the perception of four Republicans about Omar’s comments.
Reps. Mike Flood (R-NE), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Jeff Hurd (R-CO), and Cory Mills (R-FL) all voted with Dems, defeating the measure by a single vote. They all offered statements saying that while they did not like what she said and reposted, she had the right to do that because of our First Amendment.
To that point, they justified their votes by saying she should not be punished for what she said and posted, even though it was vile. And if that is their perception and argument, I am not going to call them out for it. They are doing what they believe they have to do as congressmen to protect our constitutional rights.
Having said that, I look at this from a different perspective and say that as a member of Congress, she needs to be better. You can’t repost that Frankenstein comment and at the same time say you have never advocated for political violence. You should not be cherry-picking quotes for political points. I would have voted in favor of the censure, but I will not call out these members for their votes because they believe they were protecting the Constitution. I don’t agree with them, to be clear, but I can live with their reasoning.