As I was reviewing the Florida House and Senate bills, I came across various different proposals ranging from an antisemitism task force (which I wouldn't support), but also Remembrance Days.
One Remembrance Day caught my attention. There was a proposed bill to have a remembrance day for Charlie Kirk (2026 - SB 194/HB 125), a well known conservative speaker who would communicate with students and have conversations about their beliefs. Naturally, I got curious and I wanted to see how the bill was worded (you know how politics is). There wasn't anything fishy with the bill, but then I noticed that once it was in committee, one representative thought it was a good idea to inject someone else into this call for remembrance... George Floyd.
Meet Florida House Representative Dianne "Ms Dee" Hart-Lowman.
In her amendment proposal within the Committee (A 950103), she outright stated to remove the entirety of Charlie Kirk's name to replace it with George Floyd. Which is absolutely insane.
I can appreciate that individuals may hold differing views regarding Charlie Kirk and may have chosen to vote against the bill on that basis. However, this proposal is profoundly misguided and reflects a deliberate disregard for factual distinctions and basic decency.
George Floyd and Charlie Kirk are not comparable in any meaningful sense. George Floyd was a career criminal with an extensive record of serious offenses, including a violent home invasion against a Latino family in 2007 in which he and four other men forced their way into the residence of Aracely Henriquez, a Latina woman, held her at gunpoint while her toddler son was present, and ransacked her home. Floyd ultimately died years later during a lawful arrest for a crime he had committed after years of criminality.
In contrast, Charlie Kirk was a Christian conservative activist who expressed his sincerely held views in public forums, engaged in civil discourse, and advocated for his principles through peaceful means. The notion that these two individuals are equivalent is not merely inaccurate—it is offensive to reason and to the memory of the victim in Floyd’s criminal history.
The “worst” offense attributed to Kirk by his critics appears to be that he challenged certain progressive orthodoxies, including on matters of gender ideology, in ways that offended some activists. Equating that with Floyd’s violent criminal conduct reveals a profound moral inversion.
This episode further illustrates a troubling pattern among some Black Democrats: a willingness to prioritize identity-driven narratives over verifiable facts, remaining insulated within an echo chamber that resists scrutiny or dissent. Such reflexive tribalism, rooted in racial grievance rather than truth-seeking, fosters precisely the kind of distorted, grievance-based mentality that reasonable observers have long warned against regarding the rise of lodisucio mentalities that corrupt black youth with supremacist rhetoric. It undermines honest public discourse and erodes any claim to moral consistency.
Facts matter. Equating a violent felon with a peaceful public intellectual does not honor justice—it mocks it.