MAGA Right Escalates Attack on Rep. John King: Selective Outrage in the South Carolina Statehouse
- CUBNSC
- Sep 19
- 6 min read
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC | Op-Ed
The furthest reaches of the MAGA right in South Carolina are once again showing their hand—this time targeting Representative John King for daring to speak truth to power. Their calls for his censure and removal from key committee assignments expose not only political hypocrisy but also a moral crisis brewing in the halls of Columbia.
What Rep. King Actually Said
Before the flood of attacks and demands for his censure, it’s important to highlight what Rep. John King actually wrote. His statement was not a call for violence but a rejection of hypocrisy, racism, and forced reverence for a man whose career thrived on belittling others.
King posted:
“News Flash MAGA SORRY BUT NOT SORRY
Please don’t be confused, MAGA. We, as a people, are not sorry that you’re upset. I know it’s confusing for you because, historically, Black people have always been on the front lines fighting, forgiving, and extending grace even when harm was done to us.
But let me be clear: this is not one of those times. We will not forget. We will not praise a man who openly hated our very existence, who dismissed our intelligence, who ignored our contributions to this country, and who built his platform on the idea that we didn’t belong.
And while we are strong in our faith, our Savior never expected us to be ignorant of our surroundings. So we don’t need you throwing scriptures at us to excuse hate. Maybe the Bible you read from is different than ours, because the way you’ve assaulted people who have less than you forces me to question your Christianity and your spirituality.
So no, don’t expect us to mourn Charlie Kirk or celebrate him. What you’re seeing is a people finally refusing to carry the burden of honoring someone who never honored us.”
Far from glorifying violence, King’s words condemned the idea of honoring a figure who spent his public life disparaging Black people, women, and marginalized communities. His statement was a demand for honesty — a refusal to extend unearned grace to a man who sowed division.
A Campaign of Deflection
Republicans like April Cromer, Ralph Norman, Wes Climer, and Stephen Frank have seized on King’s recent remarks, twisting his words into accusations of glorifying political violence. In truth, King merely quoted Charlie Kirk’s own rhetoric and the Bible—words that indict Kirk by his own admission. Still, MAGA leaders are eager to frame King as the villain, weaponizing selective outrage to distract from their own scandals.
This deflection is not incidental. It coincides with figures like Nancy Mace and Pamela Evette chasing political leverage in gubernatorial campaigns, tying their ambitions to a crusade against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Cromer, in particular, has built her brand on dismantling DEI—even though white women remain its largest beneficiaries. Meanwhile, her own family business has allegedly benefitted from forgiven PPP loans and lucrative state contracts.
John King Calls Out Silence on Real Scandals
The push to censure King contrasts sharply with the deafening silence surrounding scandals in their own ranks. Magistrate Judge James B. Gosnell Jr.—already infamous for his racist remarks during the Dylann Roof trial—was arrested on child pornography and exploitation charges. Representative RJ May was likewise indicted and arrested on similar charges, yet House Republicans delayed months before calling for his removal. He ultimately resigned, but only under public pressure.
Adding to the hypocrisy, Representative Stephen D. Frank has also faced ethical scrutiny. In 2024, the South Carolina House Ethics Committee unanimously fined him $2,100 for failing to file three campaign finance reports on time. Separately, RJ May has allegedly claimed that both Frank and fellow Freedom Caucus member Adam Morgan owe his consulting firm as much as $25,000 in unpaid debts—though those allegations remain unverified in public records and no formal findings have been issued.
Despite these clouds, Frank now postures as a moral authority, publicly demeaning King with remarks dripping in condescension:
“I’ll try to help you, but understand the difficulty of slowing myself down to your level of comprehension and awareness… you’re unfit for office. That’s why I call on Speaker Murrell Smith to remove you from the judiciary committee and why I’ll be filing a resolution to censure you.”
Representative Hamilton Grant has already called out Frank for allegedly using the slur “retarded” against him and other Black leaders, including Rep. King. Grant asked bluntly:
“People are losing jobs for saying far less. Will ‘consequence culture’ apply to him—or do lawmakers get a pass?”
King himself underscored the hypocrisy in a public post:
“You’ll rush to attack me for using freedom of speech, but you can’t muster one ounce of courage to condemn a Republican judge caught with child pornography.”
Attacking Public Education
The MAGA bloc has not stopped at King. They have threatened to defund Clemson University after faculty members criticized Kirk, pushing a chilling precedent of censorship in higher education. House Speaker Murrell Smith went so far as to demand immediate termination of faculty and resignation of trustees who resisted, equating dissent with disloyalty to taxpayers. This dangerous escalation signals a broader attack on academic freedom, civil liberties, and the First Amendment itself. Sadly, Clemson capitulated, and the three professors were terminated — a move that leaves the university vulnerable to lawsuits potentially costing millions of dollars.
South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver has amplified this crusade. On September 16, 2025, she issued a memorandum to district superintendents directing them to investigate and discipline educators who made controversial comments online after Kirk’s assassination. Weaver declared that any teacher who “celebrates or condones murder or political violence” should be disqualified from working with children, and urged districts to review staff conduct and social media policies. While framed as a matter of professionalism, critics see this as part of a broader effort to chill speech, silence dissent, and police personal expression beyond the classroom. The Attorney General’s office even clarified that such disciplinary action would be legally protected — a stark warning shot that South Carolina is willing to conflate constitutionally protected speech with grounds for termination.
But the question remains: how is quoting Charlie Kirk considered hate speech? The answer is simple — because Kirk himself was spreading hate speech. As Rep. John King reminded his critics by quoting Scripture, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:37).
Yet even this biblical truth has been weaponized, because it does not align with the manufactured image of a man who has been revealed as a white supremacist.
Despite Attorney General Alan Wilson rushing to defend Superintendent Ellen Weaver’s memorandum, legal experts warn that this represents a constitutional crisis. Employers who twist and distort the words of faculty or employees — as Clemson University has done in terminating professors for commenting on Kirk’s hateful rhetoric — could face enormous legal consequences.
Together, the defunding threats at Clemson and Weaver’s statewide directive reveal the depth of the MAGA bloc’s campaign: dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion, punishing free thought, and sending a message that educators and students alike risk their livelihoods if they refuse to toe the ideological line.
A Moral Crisis in South Carolina
At the heart of this confrontation lies a deeper struggle over truth and power. MAGA lawmakers deflect from white supremacist violence—the FBI and DOJ have identified it as the nation’s greatest domestic threat—by scapegoating Black leaders and communities. They rail against DEI and censor educators, even as they quietly benefit from forgiven PPP loans, state contracts, and entrenched political power.
As one critic put it, “They care more about their racist indignation than they do about protecting children and upholding the Constitution.”
The Stakes for Democracy
Representative John King is not the first Black leader in South Carolina to face censure attempts for speaking boldly, and he will not be the last. But his ordeal illuminates a disturbing pattern: when MAGA Republicans are confronted with their own failures, they lash out at those who dare to expose them.
The First Amendment was designed precisely to prevent this kind of retaliation. It does not grant immunity from criticism, but it protects the right of citizens — and their representatives — to speak freely about matters of public concern without fear of government reprisal. Even the most rigid constitutional originalists would concede that the framers, who had just broken free from a monarchy that punished dissent, never intended for speech to be policed in this way.
Rep. King’s words cut to the heart of that truth: “If you can’t call out evil when it’s right in front of you, what are you even doing in office?”
His statement, grounded in both Scripture and the Constitution, is not a threat — it is a defense of democracy itself. And the test before South Carolina is whether it will uphold those principles, or continue down the dangerous path of selective outrage and censorship.
Comments