The GOP Ousts Ilhan Omar: A Partisan and Bigoted Move

BY: Conor J. Kelly

By Kristie Boyd; U.S. House Office of Photography –, Public Domain,

Nobody should be surprised, and yet nobody should pretend it wasn’t a bigoted and partisan attack. In a brazen act of retaliation against Democrats, the House GOP stripped Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich) from the Foreign Affairs committee, citing her comments on Israeli foreign policy.

The vote, which went entirely along partisan lines, was supported by GOP leadership by Omar’s alleged “antisemitic and anti-American remarks,” which Republicans argued made her unfit to stand on the foreign affairs committee.

Ironically, anti-semitism has not stopped the GOP from supporting the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene. It didn’t stop them from putting her on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, much less the Committee on Homeland Security. Comments about Jewish Space lasers don’t seem to concern the GOP.

The comments by Omar are far from perfect, but when it came to taking responsibility, Omar was willing and ready to apologize for her remarks, crude and inappropriate as they were. Compare that to the haphazard defense and apology that Marjorie Taylor Greene gave to keep her committee, and the distinction becomes clear.

Omar apologized because her tweet, “it’s all about the Benjamins,” was fundamentally wrong. Greene apologized because she wanted to hold onto power. 

But in the face of newly established, albeit weak, GOP control, the American public should not be surprised at all that antisemitism has been used and will continue to be used as a tool in a larger political game. It should also not be surprising that one of the first members of congress that said the tool was deployed against was a Muslim woman who the GOP loves to hate. 

Biden and Trump’s Classified Document Scandals Are Not the Same



This morning, the FBI searched President Biden’s home in Delaware, prompting a firestorm of media coverage and new attention on the ongoing investigation into the President’s handling of classified material. The search, though consensual and not requiring a warrant, has inevitably created comparisons between how the Justice Department responded to Biden and Trump. Those comparisons are beyond weak and are downright deceptive. 


Already Republicans are falsely claiming equivalence between the search of Mar-A-Lago and the investigation into Biden. House Chair James Comer (R-Kentucky) complained on Fox News that the National Archives and the General Counsel held “a double standard…” for how Trump was treated and how Biden was treated.

Others, however, have attempted to sell the idea of the investigation being far more significant than it actually is, Texas Congressman Ronny Jackson seemingly arguing that Biden had a significant amount of classified material and that perhaps his son, Hunter, had access to those documents.

It is far from surprising that Republicans have capitalized on the investigation into the President’s handling of classified material. It would be political incompetence if they didn’t, as the investigation into Biden serves as a perfect distraction from the still on-going inquiry into Trump and his possession of classified materials.

Such a distraction is perfect for Republicans, as they hope the American public forgets that some of the stolen materials at Mar-A-Lago contained nuclear secrets, as I noted last year. With the new search of Biden’s home, Republicans will wail about the supposed injustice of Trump’s treatment while actively disregarding the actions which put Trump into the position to be raided in the first place. They will rehash all their conspiracy theories and pretend that Hunter Biden’s laptop is somehow connected to the mishandled documents in Delaware, all while attempting to establish a supposed equivalence that doesn’t exist.


While it may be tempting for some of my readers to assume that this defense is meant as a partisan argument, it must be stated that under no circumstances am I attempting to argue that Biden had a right to hold these documents and Trump didn’t. In both cases, classified material was handled improperly. That said, how the documents were found and how two public figures interacted with them couldn’t be more distinct.

Right off the bat, the scope of the documents retrieved is beyond comparison. When the Justice Department searched Mar-A-Lago last year, over 300 documents with classified markings were recovered. The documents retrieved in the Biden investigation doesn’t come close to that number.

Even if the volume of documents retrieved were equivalent, the response by the two men would still justify the difference in treatment by the DOJ. When Biden and his lawyers found out about the documents, they contacted the National Archives and began cooperating with the investigators, actively allowing the DOJ to access multiple locations without resistance. This is why today’s search of Biden’s home didn’t require a warrant.

Trump provided no such cooperation and had been subpoenaed for the documents as far back as May of 2022. Additional reporting by the DOJ showed that some of the documents were moved from a storage area at Mar-A-Lago, seemingly to obstruct the subpoena. As a result of this alleged obstruction, the Justice Department was forced to get a search warrant and seize documents from Trump’s home.

The department is also investigating three potential criminal acts, including an alleged violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Far from a mere search, the investigation into Trump was a response to the severe disregard by Trump and his team for national security and the federal government’s property. It is an investigation into the theft of government property and secrets by a former president.

This isn’t to say that Biden is off the hook. Holding onto classified material, even unintentionally, is a serious issue and merits a thorough investigation. Worse still is the revelation that former Vice-President Mike Pence also had classified documents at his home. He is also cooperating with investigators.

If anything, the holding of these documents by Biden and Pence demonstrates the inadequacy of the federal government’s policies relating to sensitive materials, but it is far from comparable to the criminal investigation into Trump and those who helped him. Biden may have been negligent, but Trump could be downright criminal.

NEW VIDEO: Interview with Dr. Andrew Schmookler

Hi everyone,

In this recent video, I talk with Dr. Andrew Bard Schmookler, a twice-published author, former radio host, and Democratic congressional candidate. I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Schmookler about the nature of America’s broken spiritual and political culture and how that corrupts and weakens our political system.

I hope you enjoy it!

Chris Cuomo Follow-Up Video Upcoming!

By: Conor J. Kelly

Hello everyone,

I hope you are doing well! I mentioned it before, but I wanted to remind you all that I plan to do a video essay to go over just how disgusting it is that News Nation hired Chris Cuomo.

For those unfamiliar with my views on Chris Cuomo, you can find my original commentary in the video linked below.

Please consider checking out the channel itself and turning on the notifications so you can get updated when I release the video.



New Video Upcoming!

By Senator Chris Coons –, Public Domain,

Hello everyone!

A bit of an update for you all! After my recent video on Kanye, I was thinking I would do another video essay going after the bad behavior of high-profile of other media personalities. I made a video a while back responding to CNN’s firing of Chris Cuomo, pointing out that their hesitation to deal with him undermined an already weak public trust in the media.

Unfortunately, some companies have yet to get the memo, and another media company, NewsNation, has hired him as one of their contributors. So, that will be addressed in my next video. Branding and time of release will be released soon!

Cowardly Prejudice: Candace Owens and Lauren Chen’s Pathetic Defense of Kanye West


Hello everyone. It has been a while. I hope you all are doing well. Today’s video, though delayed, is a response to Candace Owens and Lauren Chen, both of whom have played defense for Kanye West’s infamous anti-semitic tweets, all while cowardly hiding behind feigned ignorance. Through their deceptive attempts at playing innocent, Owens and Chen play into West’s racist views of Jewish people while taking none of the responsibility for said comments. 

While most of my audience is likely familiar with Candace Owens, there are some who may not be familiar with Lauren Chen. She’s a Canadian far-right commentator, youtube host, former BlazeTV podcaster, and a self-described Christian nationalist.

She has also been on various different conservative outlets, such as Tim Pool, and has previously interviewed and ran a defense for the infamous Neo-Nazi, Richard Spencer. To say she has a history of extremist politics is a massive understatement.

While Owens has not been so brazen as to interview Richard Spencer, she has previously made videos about slavery that I responded to last year, pointing out the many problems with her presentation of that incredibly sensitive issue. She has also made some horrific comments about black voters within the democratic party, insisting that they are on a so-called plantation.

 So, it is perhaps unsurprising that these two far-right figures have contributed to the defense of Kanye West and his anti-semitism. 

Far from merely defending West, Owens and Chen use evasive and downright deceptive rhetoric to not only provide cover for West, but also protect themselves from criticism and responsibility for their commentary. 

On October 8th, Kanye West posted a now infamous tweet in which he claimed that he was going to “go death con 3 on Jewish people” and that he couldn’t be antisemitic because Black people are the real Jewish people. The comment itself reeks of anti-semitic prejudice and Black Hebrew Israelite propaganda, which falsely asserts that African Americans are the true inheritors of Jewish heritage. 


Such comments would merit condemnation from any decent observing the comments being made. That was not the case with Candace Owens, who released a video several days later where she defended him, arguing that no reasonable person would view West as anti-semitic for this post. She starts this by attempting to argue that talking about Jewish people and money should not be forbidden and that nobody can actively criticize certain business interests because of it.


Moving forward from her initial framing, Owens connects her view of an individual Jewish person in her life being cheap with Kanye West’s tweet by arguing that she herself was misrepresented for her comments about Adolf Hitler and that such misrepresentation presents itself in how the media reacted to his tweet. 

Needless to say, whether or not her comments on Hitler were taken out of context is irrelevant. It is not exculpatory for West and it does absolutely nothing to change the nature and context in which West spoke about Jewish people as a group.

Mind you; West had previously accused fellow rapper Diddy of being controlled by Jewish people, comments which he proudly posted on his Instagram. That context is critical to understanding his comments as well as his previous forms of prejudice.

This was not the first time Owens misrepresented the nature of Kanye’s comments. For example, during her coverage of Kanye’s interview with Tucker Carlson, she deceptively framed Kanye’s commentary on the Kushners as being merely an example of him being harmed by his friends and not as part of a larger pattern of anti-semitism.

{Show clip}

What she did not mention in her review of West’s comments on Tucker Carlson is that West explicitly connected wealth to Jewishness, something that Carlson actively omitted from his work. Granted, this was released a few days after her video, but Owens never updatde her viewers about that information once it was revealed to the public, demonstrating that she was never truly interested in informing her audience. 

{ Clip}

Even worse, Owens follows this absurd framing by attempting to gaslight people by suggesting that, for some strange reason, the presence of genocidal intent somehow is required for something to be anti-semitic. Never mind that Kanye specifically targeted Jewish people in general and not individuals who allegedly wronged him. 


The fact that Owens went through multiple levels of obfuscation and deception to hide the full extent of West’s bigotry should tell you everything you need to know about her commitment to honesty and preserving the dignity of Jewish people, as well as the dignity of her audience. 

Owens dedication to protecting Kanye and her unwillingness to acknowledge the full context of his racist commentary is just another example of how morally bankrupt she is. But when it comes to comparing her commentary to others, Owens does take some semblance of a stance on the issue. The same can’t be said for Lauren Chen.

Not long after Owens released her ridiculous comments, Lauren Chen released her own video, titled Should The Right Cancel Kanye? For some reason, she also needed to have the thumbnail say “The Kanye Question,” which totally isn’t an antisemitic dog whistle. 

Starting off her view, Chen, unlike Owens, evades the issue of whether or not the comments are prejudiced by effectively chalking it up to a difference of opinion, allowing her to protect herself from being labeled an antisemite herself. 

{Clip of Chen defending Kanye}

Such an approach creates a false sense of equivalence between the two sides, which allows  Chen and others like her to establish themselves with a feigned sense of supposed centrism. It’s worth reiterating that Chen is the same woman who gave Richard Spencer a platform and did not push back on a single thing he said or did on her podcast. 

Moreover, Chen also went out of her way to bring Candace Owens back into the limelight, defending her lies about the nature of West’s comments and pretending that Owens’ commentary merely represented a desire to know more.


As I pointed out earlier, the nature of Owens’ commentary is inherently deceptive because it implies a level of ambivalence into the nature of Kanye’s tweets and comments, as if there wasn’t the previous commentary by West that would show he had a prejudiced history against Jewish people. 

In 2013, Kanye West was on the Breakfast Club, where he said, “Let me tell you something about George Bush and oil money, and Obama and no money. People want to say Obama can’t make these moves or he’s not executing. That’s because he ain’t got those connections. Black people don’t have the same level of connections as Jewish people…” This is how he has thought consistently about Jewish people; it is only now that he is no longer holding back that ugly side has become clear as day. Chen could have done a modicum of research into West’s comments or even bothered to consider what Owens’ commentary actually implied. 

Instead, she created an absurd proposition of supposed controversy when the reality was clear as day. Kanye was being anti-semitic and has been anti-semitic for a long time.

What more does a person need to know about a person if they are actively tweeting that they are going to attack an ethnic group? What restraint should a person have when the group in question has an extensive history of subjugation and genocide? The burden is not on the rest of society to wait for West to clarify his absurdity. It is incumbent on him not to tweet antisemitic garbage. 

But I digress. Chen continues her bad-faith approach to this news by bringing in every far-right commentator’s favorite talking point, censorship. Pointing to the removal of the tweet West made, Chen argues that the removal of the antisemitic tweet constituted censorship and by extension, made it impossible for people to get to the truth of the matter about whether or not West is a bigot. 


This moment is just an example of bold-faced lying and blatant gaslighting. Chen read the exact tweet in that same video mere minutes before she said this. She knew exactly what he said and why it was such a problem. 

This intentional obfuscation is nothing more than an attempt to portray West as a victim. Through Chen’s framing, removing or condemning West’s comments is portrayed as being part of some left-wing ploy rather than what it actually is, basic responsibility. People like Chen and Owens, who pretend that the hostile reaction to West is anything but reasonable, are contributing to the legitimization of unmitigated hatred of Jewish people. 

Finishing up, Chen finally argues that to attack Owens for her refusal to condemn West’s comments is nothing more than guilt by association, asserting that the right and, by extension, those who are considered close to it, should avoid such an approach.


 The fact of the matter is that whether Chen or Owens like it, they are responsible for how they conduct themselves online and in their careers. It is not a mob mentality to suggest that two commentators with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and supporters should be careful with how they conduct themselves. And Kanye’s descent into anti-semitism should serve as a perfect example. 

Now that Kanye has been outed for praising Hitler, neither Candace Owens nor Lauren Chen should be in any way pretending that their original positions still hold.

And yet, both of them have gone out of their way to avoid discussing Kanye’s conduct or beliefs when it comes to antisemitism.

Going through Chen’s videos, I have found that she has not once uploaded anything since her initial response to the Kanye scandal. Owens, by contrast, has actively asked people to stop asking about Kanye West, not because he praised Hitler but because of a clothing company he associates with. 

If there was ever any doubt that these two commentators have little to no concern about antisemitism, it is gone now. Under no circumstances should their hesitation in condemning West’s positions be taken as anything less than a complete moral failing to defend their fellow human beings from prejudiced thinking.

At a time when antisemitic attacks are getting worse, condemning and fighting back against this disgusting prejudice is critical to ensuring the safety of Jewish people around the world. Through their cowardice, Candace Owens and Lauren Chen have done nothing to assist in that fight, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Though considering who they are, I sincerely doubt they know what shame is.


Cineas, Fabiola. 2019. “Inside Candace Owens’ Misinformation Campaign.” Philadelphia Magazine. (December 21, 2022).

Is Kanye West Anti-Semitic? | Ep. 21. 2022. (December 8, 2022).

Jacobs, Matthew. 2013. “Kanye West’s Bad Week.” HuffPost. (January 2, 2023).

Kanye West Is Courageous. 2022. (December 8, 2022).

“Kanye West Praises Hitler on ‘InfoWars’: ‘I Love Jewish People, but I Also Love Nazis.’” The Grio. (January 2, 2023).

Kinery, Emma. “Virulently Antisemitic Comments by Kanye West Spark New GOP Criticism – POLITICO.” (December 21, 2022).

“Lauren Chen.” Wikitubia. (December 21, 2022a).

“———.” Evie Magazine. (December 21, 2022b).

“Lauren Chen on Twitter: “My Journey so Far: Libertarian Atheist Neo-C….” 2020a. (December 21, 2022).

“Lauren Chen on Twitter: “Separation of Church and State, Equality of ….” 2020b. (December 21, 2022).

Please Stop Asking Me To Comment On Kanye And Everything Else | Ep. 53. 2022. (December 8, 2022).

“Post Politics Now: Schumer Downplays Impact of an Independent Sinema on Democratic Powers.” 2022. Washington Post. (December 9, 2022).

Richard Spencer Interview | What Is the Alt-Right? (Pt. 1). 2017. (December 21, 2022).

Should The Right CANCEL Kanye West? 2022. (December 8, 2022).

“Ye’s Twitter Account Suspended a Second Time after Swastika Post.” NBC News. (December 21, 2022).

Zimmerman, Amy. 2018. “Elon Musk Breaks Silence After Twitter Votes for His Resignation.” The Daily Beast. (December 21, 2022).

———. “Meet Candace Owens, Kanye West’s Toxic Far-Right Consigliere.” (December 21, 2022).

House Republicans Already Embarrassed Themselves

Photo by Kendall Hoopes:

In a historic embarrassment for a major political party, the House Republicans have officially failed to choose a Speaker of the House. The failure, which occurred earlier this Tuesday, saw the most likely choice, Kevin McCarthy (R-California), bringing a vote to the floor for the speakership only to lose the vote three times.

The historic nature of this moment can’t be understated. The last time a party’s chosen candidate lost was a hundred years ago. The rarity of a party rejecting their most likely candidate is so extreme that it suggests a fundamentally weak party leadership.

While most of the GOP supported McCarthy, 19 Republicans voted against the California Republicans in the first two rounds, and 20 voted against him during the third round, demonstrating just how ineffective McCarthy is at organizing his base. Say what you will about former Speaker Pelosi, but she has never demonstrated the pathetic lack of control that McCarthy demonstrated today.

While it is extremely unlikely that Democrats will be able to make much of the current Republican dysfunction if the current state of affairs is indicative of how House Republicans will govern for the next several years, Americans can look forward to a petty and ineffective Congress.

Ginni Thomas is Not Happy She Has to Answer Questions


By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America – Ginni Thomas, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Ginni Thomas is in the news again. This time for being belligerent and entitled before the January 6th committee after they questioned her over texts she sent to Mark Meadows. Said texts encouraged Meadows to overturn the 2020 election and falsely argued that said election was stolen. Thomas’s belligerency and unwillingness to face consequences for her actions is just another example of conservatives presuming that power belongs to them instead of being earned. If anything, Thomas’ response is not surprising, but it is no less concerning.

The report on Thomas, posted by Talking Points Memo, showed that Thomas not only expressed regret that she sent those texts but also was upset that they were released in the first place.

In his cross-examination of Thomas, Committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked her if she was more concerned about the release of the texts than she was about the point of the texts themselves, to which Thomas responded:

“I think it might be a unanimous view of everyone on this call and in this room that I don’t know how many of you would want your texts to become public on the front page of the Washington Post….Certainly I didn’t want my emotional texts to a friend released and made available.” 

Ginni Thomas to the January 6th Committee

It is unsurprising that a woman whose texts went so far as to advocate for “standing firm” against then-President-Elect Joe Biden would also find the release of those texts to be an afront to her position and personhood.

Nevermind that her texts demonstrate a complete disregard for the electoral system or the will of the people. Thomas’ partisan position is what matters to her. It didn’t matter that she admitted she had no evidence that the election was stolen she still believed it and demanded respect for that position.

Throughout her interview, Thomas repeatedly demanded to know if the interview was over, and at one point, she lambasted the Washington Post for coverage surrounding her work for the Heritage Foundation and when questioned about her emails that sought to swing lawmakers in several states to overturn the election, she snapped, blurting out, “Can we agree that the media completely messed this up?”

Nobody should be surprised by Thomas’ disregard for decorum or her presumption that questioning her actions constitutes an insult to her character and dignity. She has operated in a manner that is much like the grifters who propagated the lie that the 2020 election, presuming to be right without having any reason to think so. Ginni Thomas’ conduct, and general behavior is just one more example of conservative arrogance.

Trump’s A Business Failure: His Tax Returns Prove It


Image by John Hain from Pixabay

After years of fighting, drama, and controversy, former President Donald Trump’s tax returns have finally been released. The release of Trump’s returns, authorized by the House Ways and Means Committee, serves as a reminder that Trump’s fog of deception can be overcome with the right leverage and pressure. But more than that, the returns themselves show just how little of Trump’s grandiose business acumen was tied to reality.

The infamous fight over Trump’s tax returns began in 2014 when then-candidate Trump seemingly promised to release his tax returns in an interview with Irish TV. The issue would return in 2016 when NBC’s Chuck Todd where Trump reiterated his desire to release the returns, saying:

“Well, we’re working on that now. I have very big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we’ll be working that over in the next period of time, Chuck. Absolutely…”

Then-Candidate Trump to Chuck Todd, 2016.

Trump’s promise to release his tax returns was not solely tied to the 2016 presidential race. In 2011, when Trump was considering a presidential bid, the supposedly successful businessman promised to release his tax returns when “Obama does his birth certificate…”

After he was elected in 2016, Trump made multiple excuses for his refusal to release his tax returns. Among the most ridiculous excuse was his assertion that he was under audit and, therefore, couldn’t release his tax returns. It is worth noting that IRS Commissioner Rettig confirmed that there is no such rule preventing the release of tax returns during an audit in 2019.

It is perhaps unsurprising that Trump would want to keep his returns, especially when it demonstrates that his glorified past was just that, glorified lies. According to The Washington Post:

“The returns show that Trump paid little, if anything, in income taxes compared with his gross income over six years, including the four in which he served as president. Trump lost thousands of dollars in income from 2015 to 2017, largely due to net losses tied to real estate and other businesses. On his 2017 tax return, Trump claimed business expenses and other losses and deductions in excess of $279.5 million, significantly reducing the amount of tax he owed. Those deductions included “helicopter expenses” and foreign taxes paid.That year, he paid $750 in federal income taxes. Due to significant business losses in 2020, Trump paid no taxes.”

Marianna Sotomayor et al., House panel releases Trump tax returns in another setback for former president, The Washington Post, December 30, 2022

The returns also demonstrate that Trump’s claims of giving his presidential salary to charity were, at best, a lie. According to those tax filings, Trump paid very little in charity, and in the case of 2020, the year when much of the economy was upended by Covid-19, he paid nothing at all to charity.

This release of these returns, of course, elicited a strong and angry response from the former president, as he railed against the idea of his tax returns being released, saying, “The Democrats should have never done it, the Supreme Court should have never approved it, and it’s going to lead to horrible things for so many people. The radical, left Democrats have weaponized everything, but remember, that is a dangerous two-way street!”

Regardless of Trump’s threats, his tax returns are public. They once and for all show that there is nothing about Trump’s supposed financial greatness connected with reality in any way. His charitability was a lie. His success was a lie. Everything about his claimed strength in business was a lie. There can be no denying that Trump’s supposed strength in business, which Republicans used as a justification for his presidency, was nothing more than a smoke screen for what they really wanted: a partisan tool in the White House. And we are all paying the price for this lie.

Libs of Tik Tok Calls LGBTQ Community a Cult


By Libs of Tik Tok – Public Domain,

Libs of Tik Tok, perhaps one of the most annoying accounts to spread its presence on the internet, has come back into the news. This time for a horrid interview she conducted with the equally disgusting Tucker Carlson, in which she argued that LGTBQ people are part of an evil cult.

The presence of this infamous account is relatively young. Created by Chaya Raichik, a former real estate agent, the Libs of Tik Tok Twitter account began to post anti-LGTBQ content starting in 2021. Starting in March of that same year, Raichik began campaign to target sex education, particularly involving LGTBQ people, claiming that her targets were groomers. This approach would be the defining approach by Raichik going forward and would be the key framework that would guide most of its work.

After nearly a year of posting anti-LGBTQ content, Raichik had amassed a massive following, restring at a comfortable 1.2 million followers. She received a boost in viewership thanks to an endorsement by Joe Rogan in August of last year, pushing her account to over 900,000 followers, a number that has continued to rise.

Screenshot from Twitter

Much of this content was able to go unmolested and without strong opposition, thanks to Raichik’s anonymity. That would change in April when The Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz used publicly available website registration data, which Raichik failed to conceal, along with her real estate agent’s license, to identify the infamous provocateur.

The result was a full profile in a major newspaper and absurd accusations of doxxing, but more than that, Lorenz’s reporting shed a light on the woman who was responsible for extensive amounts of suffering and lies surrounding the LGBTQ community.

Raichik would continue her rampage of anti-LGTQ content, falsely claiming that children’s hospitals were performing hysterectomies on children, which led to threats against Boston’s children’s hospital, including a bomb threat. Other hospitals have also been targeted in similar incidents involving Raichik’s comments.

Needless to say, Raichik’s comments and conduct serve only to abuse LGBTQ people and smear them as a threat to the public. To treat her content as anything but a smear campaign is absurd. Unfortunately, absurdity seems to be all too present these days, and that was on full display when Raichik went on Tucker Carlson.

In a strange and disturbing interview Tuesday, Tucker Carlson welcomed Raichik onto his show, allowing her to portray herself as a superb reporter who speaks the truth, a proposition that merits an eye roll or two.

Carlson was far from a passive interviewer, make no mistake, but it was the moment where Raichik revealed her true self that should draw the most attention. As Carlson pressed Raichik for her view of the supposed spiritual problems of the LGBTQ community, Raichik responded, saying that:

“{the} LGBTQ community has become this cult… It’s extremely poisonous…They’re just evil people, and they’re out to groom kids. They’re recruiting.”

Chaya Raichik to Tucker Carlson, 12/27/2022

That comment alone is a revealing moment. Whereas Raichik has claimed to oppose the grooming of children or supposed pedophilia in public schools, the overt willingness to portray all LGBTQ people as evil is a massive shift in rhetoric.

Far from the faux defense of children that Raichik has previously held to, this shift in rhetoric serves a remarkable change that explicitly denies people their humanity. To suggest something or someone is evil is to deny their ability and right to be treated with respect or credibility. From there, no action against that target group can be opposed as the target’s very dignity as a human being ceases to exist.

If one accepts the framing provided by Raichik is accepted, then violence can be justified. Atrocities, violence, and abuse all become possible. Such a position is intolerable in a pluralistic republic as it justifies the rejection of universal protection under the law and treats subsections of the community as undesirable.

What Raichik has done should not be taken lightly. She has set the tone for violence against LGBTQ people even more so than she previously has. If people are not careful, innocent people could die.