February 03, 2025 01:03 PM UTC

Ken DeGraaf Embarrasses Everyone with Black History Month Rant

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Progress? Is that what this is?

One year ago today, Republicans in the State House of Representatives made complete asses of themselves in their (annual) opposition to what is an (annual) resolution acknowledging Black History Month. The top clown in the House Republican Caucus — Colorado Springs Rep. Ken “Dildo” DeGraaf — even voted against the resolution. Seriously.

The 2025 version of the completely non-controversial Black History Month resolution was discussed today on the House Floor. DeGraaf managed to vote in favor of the resolution this time around, so that’s nice. But DeGraaf could not restrain himself from barfing out a 10-minute speech that was breathtakingly offensive.

You can watch the entire speech below, or keep reading as we break out some of the key pieces…including DeGraaf’s belief that the “Three-Fifths Compromise”– one of the more disgusting decisions in American history — was actually a grand idea.

(Big) Word Salad

Let’s jump into DeGraaf’s opening paragraphs, which includes the kind of “I can use a thesaurus!” foolishness that has become a staple of his gibberish:

“I fully reject the Darwinian construct of race, which is actually a phenotype. So but for me today, it is difficult to consider this resolution from the majority of the body politic as it endless as this body politic endlessly imposes its aim for a more equitable servitude through ever growing compelled labor, the abolition of private property, recreate Marx’s idyllic feudal system of slavery, and the never-ending efforts of disarming its citizens. It is the imposing of overtly oppressive laws and policies designed to separate and disenfranchise in the present, while condemning it in the past, promoting the slavery of equity by destroying equality under the law and undermining the values of freedom for which our soldiers fought and died.”

Phenotype!

Blah, blah, Karl Marx…

Yada, yada, Gun control = slavery.

Look at me, I know so many big words!

Three-Fifths Compromise

If you don’t recall your American history lessons about the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the “Three-Fifths Compromise” counted slaves as only “three-fifths” of a person for the purpose of population counts and apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. You probably learned about this as an embarrassing and regrettable part of our nation’s history.

Ken DeGraaf read a different book, apparently:

“So, I’m not going to talk about everything. But we could talk about how the Three-Fifths Compromise limited democratic representation in Congress. Slaveholders wanted a “one” and abolitionists wanted a “zero.” Their compromise allowed for the defeat of slavery with the 13th Amendment. Yet I’m often told that the 3/5 compromise is diminutive.”

Yep.

Think about it: If we didn’t have slavery in the first place, we never could have ended it!

Democrats + Electric Vehicles = Slavery

Here, DeGraaf tries to explain why he voted “NO” on a similar resolution in 2024, as a way to pivot to one of his favorite dumb ideas:

So some may recall last year that I didn’t vote for History Month because I felt it hypocritical to stand alongside subsidizing slavery and equal rape in the present… and I still do. We’re subsidizing on the backs of the poor in the poorest of countries, on the backs of children, EV toys for the rich and superstitious on the backs of the working poor. EVs are subsidized at $50,000 per vehicle; the top 20% of earners get 80% of the credit. The bottom 60% get 60% of the credit. This is a form of compelled labor. And so it makes it difficult for me to stand and take this resolution seriously when we are imposing in the present what we’re condemning in the past.

The Top 20 get 80 and the Bottom 60 get 60! Righto.

Also, how is this at all similar to slavery?

Saved by the Bell Gavel

DeGraaf owes House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D-Summit County) a beer for inadvertently saving himself from…himself. This was not going to end well…

DEGRAAF: Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, a defied [sic] presentation of a single pro-slavery clause. On the other hand found to contain principles, purposes entirely hostile to the existence of slavery…

MCCLUSKIE: Representative DeGraaf you time has expired.

It kinda sounds like DeGraaf was about to argue that the United States Constitution was actually anti-slavery.

Fortunately for DeGraaf, and for House Republicans, he was cut off.