To Tom Barrett, September 13, 2025 and responses.
Rep. Tom Barrett's Newsletter:
Dear John,
Americans’ hearts are heavy after a week of violent attacks and threats: a tragic school shooting in Colorado, a bomb threat against Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist’s home, and the sickening political assassination of Charlie Kirk. Charlie was a devoted husband and the father of two young children, and I’m praying for comfort for his family as they mourn his loss.
I’m also praying for healing for our nation. Charlie dedicated his career to encouraging young people not only to engage in our political processes, but to engage with each other. He promoted thoughtful, respectful conversations with our fellow citizens, whether we agree or disagree. That’s how our system of self-government is supposed to work.
Charlie’s commitment to free speech and civility stands in stark contrast to the cowardly act of pure evil that needlessly took his life. This murderer must be brought to justice, and the political violence in this country has to stop. As Americans, we should all commit ourselves to treating each other with respect, even when we disagree. It’s time to take the temperature down and be mindful of our words. God created each of us in his image and likeness, and we need to see that in one another.
This week also marked the 24th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks and paid tribute to the thousands of innocent lives murdered that day.
At the time, I was a young private stationed in Korea, and I can still remember all these years later how this attack on American soil changed us all forever. I hope you were able to join your fellow Americans in taking a moment to honor the lives that were lost and remember the heroes of that fateful day, as we reaffirm our commitment to never forget that life and freedom are fragile.
My Response:
In your recent newsletter you wrote, "Charlie dedicated his career to encouraging young people not only to engage in our political processes, but to engage with each other." This is a lie. Kirk was a "civil" hate-monger.
He, and his Turning Point organization was one of a number of right-wing organizations funded by billionaires and in no way represented any kind of grassroots mobilization. Like yourself, Kirk was interested in promoting hate and violence under guise of "politeness." There was nothing to him except exclusion of those unlike himself.
Kirk was a racist, clear and simple. He endorsed the "Great Replacement Theory'" which is the foundation of white supremacy movements. Do you similarly endorse such racist nonsense? Please be clear in your answer.
Kirk was a misogynist who thought women were nothing but baby factories, white women in particular. Again, do you endorse this idea? Do you think reducing women to this role in society, as Kirk wanted, is "civil" and "democratic?"
It is a bitter and tragic irony that Kirk died advocating for irresponsible gun laws. He didn't ever give a damn about our children being gunned down in their schools. Is it proper to give a damn that he suffered the fate he said we should tolerate in our schools.
Kirk did not deserve to die. Neither did all those children he said should die so that his own assassin could own the rifle that ultimately killed Charlie Kirk. And you tell us how he represented our democracy. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Tom Barrett's Response to me, October 7, 2025: " The assassination of Charlie Kirk was needless, hateful, and symbolic of the turning point we have reached as a nation. Charlie dedicated his career to encouraging young people to engage in our political processes and with each other. He promoted thought-provoking, respectful, and honest conversations with our fellow Americans – regardless of political affiliation. That’s how our system of self-government is supposed to work, and I hope that all Americans can come together to honor his legacy through thoughtful, constructive, and unifying dialogue."
My response to Tom Barrett, October 7, 2025:
In your letter dated October 7 to me you claimed to support unifying the country through "thoughtful, constructive, and unifying dialogue," yet you are a supporter of Donald Trump. My question is, are these examples of Trump's rhetoric of the kind of "dialogue" we need?
--At Charlie Kirk's memorial service: " “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry.” --Fox interview: Political opponents are ""Enemies from within," "Vermin," "un-American," and "traitors." --Immigrants are "garbage," "human refuse," "the worst of the worst," and "people with poisoned blood."
Can you direct me to where you condemned Trump for this divisive rhetoric which you claim to oppose? Or do you think that your party's leader is offering "thoughtful, constructive, and unifying dialogue?" I look forward to your response.