lhan Omar Tries to Walk Back Praise for Video Mocking Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is facing criticism once again for her selective outrage and inflammatory rhetoric after defending her decision to repost a video that mocked the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In the video, Kirk was compared to Dr. Frankenstein, killed by a monster he supposedly created.

When pressed by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on The Source, Omar admitted to sharing the clip because “there were a lot of things in the video that I did agree with,” adding that Kirk was a “reprehensible, hateful man.” She doubled down, claiming that Kirk’s views were inherently racist and that he didn’t believe people like her could be “smart enough” to be equal to white men.

Omar’s attempt to condemn political violence rang hollow. While she made a brief statement saying she opposes Kirk’s assassination, it came only after she had already amplified content that essentially celebrated it. Her explanation? That sharing doesn’t imply agreement with every word—just the parts she liked.

This is the same tired playbook: exploit tragedy for political points, hide behind vague disavowals, and frame anyone with a different worldview as morally beneath you. Omar wants credit for saying “violence is bad” while simultaneously labeling her political opponent as someone who deserved no respect in life or death.

The double standard is glaring. If a Republican had shared a video, even joking about the death of a Democrat, the media would be in full meltdown mode. But because it’s Charlie Kirk—a conservative firebrand who challenged the left’s orthodoxy—there’s a noticeable silence from Omar’s usual defenders.

The real issue isn’t about tone. It’s about principle. Either we oppose political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric across the board, or we don’t. Omar has made it clear that she prefers to make exceptions when the victim doesn’t fit her political views.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is facing criticism once again for her selective outrage and inflammatory rhetoric after defending her decision to repost a video that mocked the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In the video, Kirk was compared to Dr. Frankenstein, killed by a monster he supposedly created.

When pressed by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on The Source, Omar admitted to sharing the clip because “there were a lot of things in the video that I did agree with,” adding that Kirk was a “reprehensible, hateful man.” She doubled down, claiming that Kirk’s views were inherently racist and that he didn’t believe people like her could be “smart enough” to be equal to white men.

Omar’s attempt to condemn political violence rang hollow. While she made a brief statement saying she opposes Kirk’s assassination, it came only after she had already amplified content that essentially celebrated it. Her explanation? That sharing doesn’t imply agreement with every word—just the parts she liked.

This is the same tired playbook: exploit tragedy for political points, hide behind vague disavowals, and frame anyone with a different worldview as morally beneath you. Omar wants credit for saying “violence is bad” while simultaneously labeling her political opponent as someone who deserved no respect in life or death.

The double standard is glaring. If a Republican had shared a video, even joking about the death of a Democrat, the media would be in full meltdown mode. But because it’s Charlie Kirk—a conservative firebrand who challenged the left’s orthodoxy—there’s a noticeable silence from Omar’s usual defenders.

The real issue isn’t about tone. It’s about principle. Either we oppose political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric across the board, or we don’t. Omar has made it clear that she prefers to make exceptions when the victim doesn’t fit her political views.