Editorial Commentary
What Happened
During a recent episode of the popular podcast I’ve Had It, host Jennifer Welch aired a clip from a No Kings March rally in which a protester celebrated the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The woman in the clip said she was “glad” Kirk was dead and replied “maybe” when asked if she’d be glad if the interviewer died too. Immediately after playing that video, Welch turned her comments toward Democratic Party leadership. “Listen up, Democratic establishment,” she said. “You can either jump on board with this … or we’re coming after you in the same way we come after MAGA.” She added, “Stop taking AIPAC money,” and called prominent Democrats “p*ssies.” While Welch never used the words kill or murder, the sequence of showing a celebratory death clip followed by a demand that Democrats “get on board” or be “come after” leaves little ambiguity about tone or intent.
Context and Implications
Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025 shocked both parties and prompted widespread concern about politically motivated violence. Against that backdrop, Welch’s decision to use the killing as a visual and rhetorical pivot is especially volatile. The implication is that ideological alignment, not humanity or decency, now defines moral standing. If a conservative figure had said anything remotely comparable following the death of a left-leaning public figure, the outrage would have been instant, the platforms flooded with calls for suspension, and sponsors pressured to cut ties. Yet, weeks later, there have been no visible repercussions for Welch or her program. That uneven response highlights what many Americans perceive as a two-tier system of civility and justice, one where political and media institutions selectively enforce outrage depending on who delivers the message.
The Broader Problem
When violence or its suggestion becomes acceptable rhetoric in politics, the line between advocacy and menace disappears. The problem is not limited to one ideology; it is a systemic erosion of restraint. Welch’s comments are part of a pattern where inflammatory speech from either side is excused if it targets the “right” enemies. This dynamic leaves ordinary citizens alienated, distrustful, and increasingly convinced that institutions apply moral rules selectively. If left unchecked, the double standard will harden into a culture where threats are normalized and accountability depends not on words, but on political alignment.
The Takeaway
Jennifer Welch’s words may stop short of a direct call to violence, but context gives them weight. Using the death of Charlie Kirk as an example, then warning Democrats “we’re coming after you,” crosses an unmistakable ethical line. That such rhetoric has drawn little condemnation underscores the very divide it exposes. The people this woman says she would “come after” are not abstract enemies; they are your neighbors, coworkers, parents, veterans, and classmates. With SNAP benefits potentially running dry if a government shutdown persists, communities face real hardship this winter. We must look after one another, not villainize each other because of political views. We live together. We need each other to survive. Until political speech is judged by one standard, no matter who says it, the public will continue to see justice and civility as privileges reserved for the powerful rather than expectations for everyone.