
Historically, the spirit of honoring events like 9/11, the passing of Presidents, and the passing of other public figures by the lowering of the American flag has been to unite our people in the face of grief and sacrifice.
The Spirit of the Flag
This from a website:
According to the GSA, American flags are traditionally flown at half-staff in times of national mourning, following major tragedies, or in observance of remembrance days. They are also lowered in the event of the death of government and military officials.
WCNC September 15, 2025
The U.S. Flag Code, which outlines flag display rules, includes specific guidelines for honoring top political officials. However, it also grants the U.S. President the authority to order flags to be flown at half-staff for the death of other current or former officials, as well as individuals the President deems significant.
Emblematic was the honor afforded to John McCain upon his death. This was a man who risked his life on behalf of our country and endured years of deprivation as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. While I disagreed with Senator McCain on many issues, he had my deep respect. In an age when ambition is increasingly obscured by the pretense of alleged principle, Senator McCain set his own course.
The lowering of the flag was an affirmation of his life, one that all citizens could understand.
Condemnation Of Political Violence
The murder of Charlie Kirk, following the murders of Melissa Hortman and her husband (she was the Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives), is deeply disturbing. The trend of this kind of political violence is a threat to our democracy. Seeking change through violence rather than through debate is about power and not justice.
It speaks to the quality of our local community that the leaders of the major political organizations in Saratoga Springs issued the following statement:

The Troubling History Of Charlie Kirk
While I vehemently disagree with many of Mr. Kirk’s statements, I strongly support his right to free speech, which affords him the right to hold and share these views.
In fact, to his credit, Mr. Kirk thrived on spirited but civil exchanges. He was a frequent visitor to colleges and universities where he regularly engaged students with whom he sharply disagreed.
Here are some statements he has made that I find particularly troubling, though:
“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
From a talk in December 2023, at a session during America Fest sponsored by Turning Point. Mr. Kirk attributed the recent conflict over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to the passage of this legislation.
Regardless of one’s stance on the value of DEI, I believe a compelling argument can be made that DEI is an extension of America’s struggle with racism, of which the Civil Rights Act was a significant component. What is disturbing to me is that Mr. Kirk appears oblivious to the important role that the Act had in overcoming the impediments that black people had to endure to secure the right to vote.
Kirk, during the same event, characterized Martin Luther King as “a bad guy.” To the best of my knowledge, this characterization was based on the fact that King played a pivotal role in the movement that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. As I, among many Americans, believe in the positive role the Civil Rights Act played in extending the right to vote to all Americans, I naturally disagree with Kirk.
“Jewish donors have a lot of explaining to do. A lot of decoupling to do,” he said. “Because Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews. And now it’s coming for Jews, and they’re like, ‘What on Earth happened?’ And it’s not just the colleges. It’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”
While it is true that some Jews have played a role in funding progressive causes, it is unclear to me why he felt the need to single out Jews (this blogger is Jewish). It is extraordinary, verging on the bizarre, that he credits a stew of all things to his left, as created by secular Jews. This narrative smacks of a similar line taken by the Nazis that Jews were the force behind the corrupting of Germany.
According to the website FactCheck.Org:
Kirk rejected complaints that he was antisemitic, saying that in earlier episodes he had said he was “glad that Jewish Americans are reconsidering their financing of cultural Marxism, and people misunderstood it intentionally and slandered us as being antisemites.”
I do not find this a credible defense, but readers of this blog may see this issue differently.
Mr. Kirk famously observed that the 2nd amendment is worth the cost of “some gun deaths.”
This was a provocative statement, especially since he offered it only days after three children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville.
Unfortunately, mass shootings of innocent people have become increasingly common. It is difficult to assess his statement, as I am unsure how broadly he interprets the Second Amendment. What troubles me is the cavalier timing and nature of his remarks in light of the suffering of the family members and friends of those slain in the shootings that had just taken place.
The Great Decline
As noted earlier, the tradition of lowering our colors has emphasized the importance of uniting the country. Accompanying President Trump’s issuing the directive to lower the flag to half-mast at Federal buildings for Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a cringeworthy statement blaming the amorphous “radical left” for creating the atmosphere that led to Kirk’s murder.
Putting aside that President Trump expressed no similar feelings regarding the murders and assaults of Democrats during his two terms, he has degraded the spirit that should accompany the lowering of our colors. Whether you agree with Mr. Kirk or not, he is a very divisive figure. The same tradition of lowering the flag that honors the many Americans who have died in defense of this country, and those who were murdered on 9/11, should not be used to divide and sow bitterness. We are better than that.
My American flag is flying at the top of the flagpole
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not unclear why Kirk singled out Jews. He was a Christian nationalist & an anti-Semite & anti-Muslim. He spent his brief career disseminating hatred disguised as rational political discourse.
Thanks—
Jay
Jay Rogoff
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was until last week. Since the assassination, I have heard a lot about him. MAGA Republicans seem to be glossing over many of the objectionable points of view that Kirk was expressing. It is my hope that most Americans do not support his opinions. Imagine what our country would be like if the Civil Rights Act had not been passed. Imagine what the country would have missed if Martin Luther King, Jr. had not risen to prominence.
Charlie Kirk was a person who was very good at espousing very bad ideas. The national should not be honoring him by lowering flags because doing so also honors his reprehensible rhetoric.
I don’t understand the Trump Administration’s opposition to DEI. Historically, our country is richer because of diversity. How does equity threaten the USA? Who is being threatened by broader inclusion?
Donald Trump and his MAGA sycophants continue to follow the Adolph Hitler playbook of demonizing ‘others’ (for Hitler it was Jews, for Trump it is immigrants, Muslims and leftists) and of undermining anyone perceived to be opposed to Trump policies. Tonight, we learned that Jimmy Kimmel is being punished by ABC for daring to mock MAGA’s attempt to blame ‘lefties’ in general for Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another democrat comparing Trump to Hitler. Shameful. And you wonder why there is political violence on the left.
LikeLike
i agree. The comparison to Hitler is not strong.
the better comparison is Trump to Mussolini.
agree, Concerned?
LikeLike
Your considered commentary is appreciated, John. A commitment to thoughtful discussion is the best decommisioner of thoughtless rhetorical weapons.
From my reading and viewing, Kirk disliked the 1964 Civil Rights Act not from an opposition to the civil rights reforms it spawned, but for its later use (in his eyes) as a tool for Marxism-informed social revolution that introduced its own ills. I believe the Civil Rights Act was good and necessary, and honor all the men and women who advanced the US Civil Rights movement at great personal cost, but still understand Kirk’s position. Taking a stance, explaining his reasons, and inviting counter arguments was, after all, his intent through his pursuit of dialogue. If his opponents eschew dialogue and instead choose demonstration, disruption, demagogy, ad hominems and violence to achieve their fractious and dissolute social ends, that’s not Kirk’s fault.
LikeLike