Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas Delivers Powerful Response After Charlie Kirk Murder and Speaker Don Scott's Condemnation
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Cam Higby Street Interviews Reveal Bipartisan Condemnation of Political Violence Following Assassination
1:16
Cam Higby Presses a College Student Who Isn't Sad Charlie Kirk Was Killed Over ICE
6:41
Victor Davis Hanson Examines The Assassin's Creed: How Political Demonization Lowers the Bar of Acceptable Violence
9:40
Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas Delivers Powerful Response After Charlie Kirk Murder and Speaker Don Scott's Condemnation
Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas refused to offer standard political condolences after Charlie Kirk's murder, instead declaring that America has become two incompatible peoples locked in ideological warfare. When Virginia House Speaker Don Scott condemned his statement, Freitas delivered an uncompromising response on the House floor, detailing how the Democratic Party's rhetoric directly contributed to Kirk's death and explaining why he will no longer pretend peaceful coexistence is possible. This exchange represents a turning point in American political discourse, as elected officials openly acknowledge the irreconcilable division that has replaced civil disagreement.
Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas issued a statement following Charlie Kirk's murder that rejected the standard political script. Rather than expressing solidarity with colleagues across the aisle, Freitas declared that Americans are no longer one people and that pretending otherwise serves no purpose. He explained that he had convinced himself for years that when the left called him a racist, bigot, sexist, fascist, and threat to democracy over innocent disagreements, it was merely hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect. But the effect, he noted, is now a widow and two orphan children because the left couldn't bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning.
Freitas stated that murdering Charlie Kirk will be remembered as the day Americans finally woke up to what this fight really is—not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen, but a war between diametrically opposed worldviews that cannot peacefully coexist. He declared that one side will win and one side will lose, noting that Kirk tried to win through argumentation, discussion, and peaceful resolution, but the other side murdered him. Not because he was extreme or inciting violence, but because he was effective, unafraid, and inspired others at the very institutions that have fomented hatred toward conservatives.
The delegate concluded his statement by saying he doesn't want to stand in solidarity with the other side of the aisle—he wants to defeat them. He wants to defeat the ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness, and murdered Charlie Kirk. Social media was aflame with leftist celebration of Kirk's death, Freitas observed, wondering if any among them understood what had just happened or if there was a Yamamoto somewhere warning that all they had done was awaken a sleeping giant.
Speaker Don Scott's Response
Virginia House Speaker Don Scott responded to Freitas's statement with his own public post. Without any proof or facts, Scott noted, an elected delegate said "the other side murdered him" regarding Charlie Kirk's death. Scott pointed out that Democrats he served with had denounced the horrific shooting and expressed condolences to the Kirk family. He found it sad that a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates would use such divisive language, particularly the statement that "it's not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen, it's a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another."
Scott stated that he knows Nick Freitas and actually likes him, admiring his service as a combat veteran who wore the cloth of the nation and his ability to connect with people. But on this issue, Scott insisted, Freitas is wrong. He must be wrong.
Freitas's Response on the House Floor
Freitas responded directly to Speaker Scott, beginning with a simple declaration: "Except that I'm not. I'm not." He reminded the Speaker that he had actually been in the legislature longer than Scott and remembered how things used to be. There was a time, Freitas recalled, when legislators could sit down and disagree with one another civilly. Yes, there were still outlandish comments made predominantly by the Democratic side, but conversations were possible. Legislators could sit in their offices and talk to each other as human beings.
Then everything changed, Freitas explained. He remembered the day when Democrats took control—winning the House, the Senate, the governor's mansion, the attorney general's office, and the lieutenant governor's position. He watched what happened next. It wasn't just the extreme legislation—allowing abortion up to the point of birth or engaging in gun confiscation—it was the way Democrats treated their Republican colleagues as individuals. It was almost as if their humanity was lost the moment Democrats gained power, because after all, there was no reason to be nice anymore when they controlled the house, the committees, and the governor's pen.
The Critical Theory Worldview
Freitas detailed how he has watched the Democratic Party fully embrace the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, the critical theory view of the world that bifurcates all of society into those who are evil by virtue of their position, race, or sex, and those who are victims. Whatever the victims have to do to achieve liberation or decolonization or whatever buzzword is being used ultimately becomes justified under this framework.
When someone calls this out for what it is, Freitas asked, what happens? The Democratic leadership spends more time and effort condemning his response—which didn't advocate for violence and didn't murder anyone—than addressing the actual violence. Once again, the real victims are always them, he observed.
The Failure of Reasonable Dialogue
Freitas shared that he spent a fair amount of his life trying to come up with good, comprehensive, coherent arguments. He listened to the other side express what they believed, read their arguments, engaged with their arguments. He believed that all he had to do was understand their perspective and then make points that would illustrate that they were all Americans and Virginians who wanted their constituents to be happy, healthy, prosperous, and free—they just disagreed on how to get there.
If he could find that common humanity and common problem they were trying to solve, they could come together and solve it. He said this many times on the House of Delegates floor when being accused of the most vile intentions without evidence or cause. But Freitas came to a conclusion: he was wrong. They don't all want the same things. They don't all want their constituents to be happy, healthy, prosperous, and free. Or to the extent that they do, they have such diametrically opposed views on how to achieve this that those views cannot peacefully coexist.
Irreconcilable Differences
Freitas challenged Speaker Scott directly: Tell me what world we live in when your party is not killing babies up to the point of birth. Tell me what world we live in where you are not handing chemical castration medicine over to gender-confused ten-year-olds. Tell me what world we live in when you are not trying at every chance to disarm me and anybody that thinks like me.
If Scott could answer that, Freitas said he would entertain the idea that these two worldviews could peacefully coexist. If Democrats were actually willing to engage in a political philosophy that says "I will live and let live." But they're not, Freitas argued. Every time they get power, they wield it against people they see as political enemies. They tell their constituents that conservatives are evil, fascists, threats to civilization and existence. And then when those constituents act on that belief, Democrats act shocked.
Who Is Actually Inciting Violence
Freitas gave Scott credit for being an intelligent and cunning man, but said he doesn't buy the shock anymore. For all the talk about the right inciting violence, Freitas pointed out, conservatives are not murdering Democratic speakers. Conservatives would universally condemn, prosecute, and imprison anyone who would do something like that, whereas Democrats would fight for opportunities to let such perpetrators out early—something they've already done.
This violence wasn't done to Democrats, Freitas emphasized. And his observation of what has taken place is not devoid of facts or evidence—it comes from very carefully following what has been taking place in the country over the last decade and beyond. He didn't want this. He wanted to believe that everyone was fundamentally American. But Democrats don't share the same worldview in the least, and to the extent they do, they seem completely unwilling to stop the extreme and vile elements of their party, movement, and ideology.
The Real Source of Their Anger
What Democrats are really upset about, Freitas suggested, is that for the longest time they were able to charm conservatives into believing they didn't really believe the extreme things they said about them—it was just for politics, just to win an election. But whether Democratic leadership believes it or not, the people who listen to them do believe it, and they're willing to act on it and celebrate it.
A Christian Response to Evil
Freitas concluded by reiterating what he said at the beginning, explaining that he owes this not only to God but to Charlie Kirk. He will not be overcome by evil and will diligently fight to overcome evil with good. He will never advocate for the killing of innocents, no matter how much he disagrees with them or their vile policies or comments. This is not who conservatives are.
But do not expect conservatives to go quietly into the night either, Freitas warned. His faith does not obligate him to stand by and watch this take place.
