Leftist Podcaster Urges Dem Leaders to Back Violence Against Conservatives or Become a Target Like MAGA

Original article here

Left-wing podcaster Jennifer Welch has ignited controversy by urging Democratic leaders to publicly support activists who celebrated the killing of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

On a recent episode of her “I’ve Had It” podcast, Welch directly challenged House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), warning that failing to align with radical demonstrators would provoke backlash similar to that directed at MAGA supporters.

During the episode, Welch aired a clip of a protester—described as a “wine mom”—expressing satisfaction over Kirk’s assassination at a Sept. 10 debate at Utah Valley University.

She criticized party leaders for not endorsing progressive candidates like Zohran Mamdani and for accepting corporate contributions, urging Jeffries and Schumer to reject corporate influence and actively engage with grassroots demonstrations.

If they refused, she said, “We’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA.”

Welch’s rhetoric comes amid a nationwide wave of “No Kings” protests, which have appeared in multiple states and often include aggressive threats, incendiary language and intimidation tactics.

In Seattle, journalist Brandi Kruse recorded a participant threatening to kill White House aide Stephen Miller, prompting an FBI investigation and forcing him to sell his Virginia home.

Another protester suggested that harming Miller would be “justifiable,” illustrating the extreme rhetoric being circulated at these rallies.

In Maine, a protester openly stated a desire to wake up on her birthday to read President Donald Trump’s obituary, according to The Daily Caller.

Similar statements emerged from other cities, highlighting a growing pattern of demonstrators celebrating or threatening violence against prominent conservative figures.

These incidents reveal the extent to which aggressive rhetoric has become intertwined with progressive activism in certain circles.

The threat to conservatives extends beyond public demonstrations.

Benny Johnson reportedly received mailed death threats from a left-wing extremist, while Nicholas Ray was arrested in Texas for issuing online threats against Jewish conservative media personalities.

Nick Sortor has faced harassment from Antifa, including swatting incidents and confrontations at protests, some escalating to physical intimidation.

Property damage and other disruptive antics by Antifa further exacerbate the hostile environment in which conservative voices operate.

Analysts note that these events reflect broader tensions within the Democratic Party as establishment leaders contend with a more radical progressive faction.

Welch’s statements, which appear to condone or encourage extreme rhetoric, exemplify the pressure being exerted on party officials to embrace aggressive activist strategies and align publicly with disruptive elements.

These dynamics also raise questions about whether mainstream Democrats are being forced to choose between pragmatism and appeasing vocal extremists.

Conservative media outlets have sharply criticized Welch, portraying her as representative of a “poisonous” faction intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

The rhetoric raises concerns about the boundaries of free speech and the potential legal consequences for publicly endorsing or celebrating violence.

Democratic leaders have largely distanced themselves from Welch’s comments, emphasizing that such conduct is unacceptable, yet internal pressures persist as radical voices push the limits of political discourse.

Observers warn that tolerating or amplifying threats against political opponents endangers public safety and undermines the integrity of political debate.

The combination of hostile rhetoric, targeted harassment and coordinated disruptive actions illustrates a growing challenge for policymakers attempting to balance activism with accountability.

Conservative leaders and voters alike remain cautious as the party navigates the influence of increasingly radical elements, with implications for governance, elections, and public trust.

WATCH: