Hard Wire

Jasmine Crockett's Explanation For Her Vote On Kirk Resolution Is Raising Eyebrows

1.7k Views

In what can only be described as a stunning display of political tone-deafness, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) went on national television Sunday to explain why she voted against a House resolution condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk — and, astonishingly, claimed she was the real victim.

Joining CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union, Crockett made it clear she wasn’t interested in honoring a man murdered while advocating for civil discourse. Instead, she launched into a grievance-laced monologue that did more to inflame than to explain, invoking race, “confederate relics,” and a personal vendetta as reasons for her refusal to support the resolution.


“I’m not honoring that kind of stuff,” she said, claiming that Kirk’s rhetoric had targeted “people of color,” without offering any specific examples — and notably, without a challenge from Bash. She even admitted that her vote was influenced by a personal complaint: that Kirk had criticized her on his podcast a month before his death. That, apparently, was disqualifying.

Let’s take a step back.

A 31-year-old man was gunned down in cold blood, on stage, while engaging in a public debate. That’s not political theater. That’s political assassination. And whether one agreed with Kirk’s views or not, the principle here should have been simple: violence has no place in political discourse. Period.

But for Rep. Crockett, that line seems negotiable — depending on who the victim is.

Even more jaw-dropping was her lament that “only two” of the 58 Democrats who voted against the resolution were white — saying, “honestly that hurts my heart.” That’s not just identity politics — that’s weaponized resentment dressed up as moral clarity.

Then came the most absurd comparison of all: likening Kirk, a young conservative commentator, to a Confederate relic. The implication? That commemorating Kirk’s life — even by simply condemning his murder — is somehow akin to preserving the legacy of slavery. It’s the kind of moral inversion that would be laughable if it weren’t so destructive.


Crockett’s comments reveal a growing rot in our political culture: if someone disagrees with you — especially on matters of race or ideology — their life, their death, and their humanity can be dismissed outright. The tribalism has grown so deep that condemning murder now requires a purity test.

Conservative commentator Scott Jennings summed up the absurdity succinctly, saying: “Charlie Kirk targeted NOBOBY [sic]. He was not racist in any way.” And that’s the truth. Whether you agreed with his politics or not, Kirk spent his career encouraging Americans to engage in dialogue, not violence. He challenged ideas. He invited debate. That’s what he was doing when he was assassinated.

And yet here we are — watching elected officials reduce his death to an opportunity for virtue-signaling and score-settling.

Previous Man Has Been Taken Into Custody After Shots Were Fired Into Affiliate Station In California
Next Michael Knowles To Join TPUSA Campus Tour