By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Thursday, Congresswoman Nancy Mace announced a concurrent resolution to authorize Charlie Kirk to lie in honor at the U.S. Capitol. Kirk, a conservative activist, was fatally shot Wednesday while speaking at a Utah college campus event. Mace stated that Kirk’s dedication to defending freedoms and inspiring millions makes him worthy of the distinction. If approved, the resolution would allow Kirk’s remains to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda for a period of time.
Read the original article here
Rep. Mace to introduce resolution authorizing Charlie Kirk to lie in honor at U.S. Capitol, and frankly, the whole idea feels like a bad joke that’s gone on way too long. It’s a situation that just makes you shake your head and wonder what exactly is going on. The mere suggestion of honoring someone like Charlie Kirk, considering his history and the things he’s said, feels incredibly out of touch.
The democratic elected officials didn’t even get a moment of silence in Congress, highlighting the disparity. This immediately brings to mind the lack of recognition for other tragedies, like school shootings, where actual children, the most vulnerable among us, are victims. And, of course, there’s the elephant in the room: the Epstein files. The focus seems to be entirely misplaced. The proposal feels like a deliberate provocation, a calculated attempt to stir the pot.
The sentiment is echoed in Nancy Mace’s initial response. Her words, especially those used after, are more inflammatory than anything else. This choice of words is a further indication that she knows exactly what she is doing. It’s as if the goal is to inflame rather than console. It suggests a calculated effort to capitalize on the situation, to score political points at a time when decency and sensitivity should be the priority.
It’s worth remembering what Charlie Kirk himself has said. His statements about the Second Amendment and his dismissive attitude towards empathy offer a glimpse into his core beliefs. If we were to truly honor his wishes, we’d simply accept his death as a necessary price. It is a grim irony. It is a sentiment that is so detached from the reality of human suffering that it’s almost unbelievable.
The whole situation feels like a parody. The suggestion to honor Charlie Kirk feels like a step too far, an insult to the memories of those who have genuinely served this country, those who have made sacrifices. Why are they pushing this guy to become a martyr?
The proposal itself is a slap in the face to those who’ve been ignored. This is not about respect; it’s about something else entirely. This is not about commemorating a life; it’s about political maneuvering. It’s the ultimate example of how the party can’t die already.
The focus should be on remembering people, even if their time on earth was not considered worthy. It feels as though the focus is to release the unredacted Epstein files.
The fact that this is even a consideration, given everything, is astounding. Nancy Mace’s actions, in this case, are completely unacceptable. Her role in the narrative feels deliberately antagonistic.
The implications are far-reaching. It could very well cheapen the American image and inflame social and political tensions. It could even incite civil war. The whole thing feels calculated to provoke a reaction, to drive the wedge further into an already divided society. The political landscape is a mess.
The proposal to honor Kirk feels like a betrayal. The GOP is playing an embarrassing game. The fact that this is what they choose to focus on highlights how out of touch they are. The focus is always in the wrong place.
What happens next? If this is what they’re doing, it would be hard to argue there is no other recourse. It’s a case of putting their own “family” first and foremost.
The right-wing response to the situation is telling. It reveals a certain selective empathy, a capacity for genuine emotional response that seems to be reserved only for those within their inner circle.
The entire concept is inappropriate and a clear abuse of power. There’s no question about it. If you speak out against it, you’ll be labeled.
The whole premise is wildly inappropriate, and yet the voice of reason will be ignored. It’s insane. It’s a joke of an administration. Why? The idea is appalling, given who Charlie Kirk was.
The idea that he would be honored is not okay. It’s not a question. The very idea is so outlandish that it’s hard to believe anyone would even suggest it. It’s a testament to how far things have fallen, how much the focus has shifted away from genuine values and towards political gamesmanship. The answer is simple. No.