Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance reacts to the Clark County Council’s reluctance to pass a resolution to unequivocally condemn the political assassination of Charlie Kirk
Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today
Earlier this week, I provided each of the five members of the Clark County Council an opportunity to unequivocally condemn the political assassination of Charlie Kirk. Initially, only one of the five, Councilor Michelle Belkot, accepted my opportunity to do so.
“I absolutely condemn the political assassination of Charlie Kirk,’’ Belkot said. “As public servants we should hold ourselves to the highest standard, not the lowest bar. Assassinating another human being is always wrong, regardless of differing political opinions.’’
County Chair Sue Marshall responded to my email, but didn’t address the opportunity I provided for her to offer any condemnation, so I replied to her and provided her a second opportunity. Later, County Communications Manager Joni McAnally provided a statement she instructed me to attribute to Marshall.
“Violence has no place in our society. Whether it is politically or personally motivated or a random act — violence is never the answer. Clark County supports and encourages civil public discourse in our community, state and nation.” – Clark County Chair Sue Marshall
On Wednesday, Belkot provided her fellow councilors the opportunity to make the condemnation formal, in the form of a resolution. Here’s the wording of the summary of that resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDERED AND RESOLVED BY THE CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS:
The Clark County Council unequivocally condemns political violence in all its forms, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and declares that acts of violence shall never be tolerated as legitimate tools of political expression. This Council urges all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to resolve differences peacefully, and to protect the freedoms that secure our Republic.
I can’t imagine an elected official in Clark County, or the United States for that matter, who could say no to an opportunity to make that statement. But, four of the five councilors were unwilling to sign off on that language. Instead, they played the “what about this, what about that’’ game. It’s the first play in the playbook of Liberal Democrats on how to avoid an unequivocal condemnation of Kirk’s assassination.
Councilor Matt Little wondered if the victims of the recent school shooting in Minnesota could be added.
Councilor Wil Fuentes wondered if the Minnesota State Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were assassinated in June, could be added.
“I don’t see this as being about Charlie Kirk,” Glen Yung said. “To me, this is about one American willing to murder another over political views. That’s the tragedy that happened.’’
Yung also proposed that the council adds that it would be willing to promote conflict resolution.
Marshall said, “It’s regrettable that it seems to be some sort of scorekeeping of who mentions which person has been shot. That’s not the way to look at this.’’
So, a county staff member will go back to his office and try to write a new resolution that reflects the myriad of qualifiers that Yung, Little and Fuentes offered to make Belkot’s proposed resolution much more benign and confusing.
Let’s just be honest with each other. These four councilors will obviously do whatever they can to keep from condemning the assassination of a Conservative Christian whose beliefs didn’t match their own. And, the bigger picture is, Liberal Democrats are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the reality that they have spent years inciting this type of violence by calling President Trump a “Nazi’’ and a “fascist.” They’ve told their followers that they have to rise up and save our nation from this dictator and the “deplorables’’ who follow him.
Charlie Kirk was one of Trump’s most passionate supporters. Many credit him and his organization, Turning Point USA, for getting Trump elected a second time. Kirk and Turning Point USA were responsible for getting hundreds of thousands of young voters to the polls, presumably to vote Trump in as the 47th president of our country. Liberal Democrats blame Kirk for initiating “hate speech.’’ That simply isn’t true. They hated his speech, and they hated that it he was having so much success with it, but it wasn’t “hate speech.’’
In sharp contrast to the way Liberal Democrats have responded to the Kirk assassination, I offer this. In September 2020, President Trump was confronted by a reporter who informed him that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bade Ginsburg had just died. It was the first Trump had heard of the death of the woman who was a longtime nemesis and political opponent.
“She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life,’’ said Trump, after gathering himself from the surprise of the news. “I’m saddened to hear that.’’
That’s how a compassionate person reacts in a situation like that.
Murder, quite simply, is wrong, especially murdering someone because they expressed beliefs that you don’t agree with. If we can’t agree on that, there’s nothing left to debate. And, every voter in Clark County needs to know this is the way those four councilors feel about such an impactful event. They’re not willing to unequivocally say the murder of a Conservative Christian is wrong without balancing it against other qualifiers.
They are complicit through their silence and that is morally abhorrent.
Also read:
- Opinion: More taxes sadly the Washington way
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington lawmakers continue to turn to new taxes instead of addressing state spending priorities, particularly in health care policy. - Opinion: IBR administrator receives generous Christmas gift on his way out the door
Ken Vance argues that IBR leadership avoided accountability on rising project costs as Administrator Greg Johnson announced his departure without providing updated estimates. - Opinion: ‘If you tolerate lies and dishonesty from the government, you’re guaranteed more’
Lars Larson criticizes state officials for refusing to disclose updated cost estimates for the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, arguing that a lack of transparency guarantees further government dishonesty. - Letter: ‘President Trump has stopped the flooding’
Camas resident Anna Miller argues that the immigration system’s due process framework has failed under volume and backlog, and credits President Donald Trump with prioritizing enforcement to stop illegal border crossings. - Letter: ‘If we want workable immigration reform, we must first restore basic human dignity to the debate’
Vancouver resident John Ford argues that restoring human dignity to public discourse is essential before meaningful immigration reform can occur.
wpDiscuz
