Becky Chapman retweeted
Put on a show 🍿
#GoCards
Becky Chapman retweeted
Has any MAGA evangelical leader suggested that the election was God’s rebuke to their embracing of Trump and silence about the way it allowed corruption to pollute the faith? Serious question.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Turning Point endorsed Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in February 2026.
Ken Paxton lost Texas by 12 points, leading a statewide collapse of the Republican party in the most important Republican state.
Young voters swung 49 points against Republicans in Texas—more than any other state.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a heinously evil act of political violence.
Turning Point is still an active political organization that can be fairly criticized.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Lol. You just can't stop lying. So, if someone believes that regime change in Iran would be a good thing, that means they supported Trump's war? Jonah never supported it. He's been clear about this from the beginning. People have explained this to you. And you just keep lying.
"I might as well say it clearly: I'm for regime change in Iran." -Jonah Goldberg, February 24, 2026.
And falsely accusing me of antisemitism here is cheap and disgraceful. It's the kind of smear that not only demonstrates low character, but makes it harder to fight antisemitism.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Goldberg’s quoted statement appeared in a Feb. 2026 column that supported regime change in Iran as a goal in principle but argued any U.S. action requires congressional approval, lacks a clear plan, and would be unconstitutional if unilateral.
latimes.com/opinion/story/…
thedispatch.com/article/iran-t…
Becky Chapman retweeted
No, a 'tasteless smear' is using Kirk's death as a prop to defame people you don't like, who weren't even talking about him.
Becky Chapman retweeted
I feel like I should explain my participation in this expose of bad behavior.
I have known Megan to some degree for around four years and have been friendly, even distantly, professionally friends. She did what looked like very good work in 2022 on issues of Woke in Christianity, and I was impressed and grateful.
Later, skipping ahead a bit, I met Megan in person, and at a dinner with five or six of us at the table, we got to know each other some. We were pretty quick friends. I'm trying to remember what year this was--2024, I think--and it was in West Palm Beach.
In between, like several other associates of mine, I saw Megan being pulled into the recruitment of the very Christian Nationalists and New Right guys I was dedicated to warning about, upon which I have been strongly vindicated. I spent some time, but less than others, in long conversations with her (overwhelmingly by text/DM), trying to explain why I thought these guys were trouble and would lead her to playing into a deceptive dialectic. One such frustrating conversation was in early spring 2023 while I was in the St. Louis airport waiting for a flight.
I spent much of that time, if you can believe me, trying to explain to her what the dialectic is, and my explanations were simply inadequate. Some of the spiral graphics you've seen me and others share about the dialectic were ones I created specifically for her to communicate what it is and how it works.
I watched her drift further and further into this, more to the frustration of my Christian associates than my own, but I found it disappointing. Later, when I met her, I found her likable, despite the disagreement, which was not significant between us.
Some time later, she shared with me that she considered me a friend but was "done" with the others at one point because of their attempts to talk to her about the issues, her colleagues, the path she was on, and problems in her book. I kept communication open, though it was always infrequent, like normal.
Her accusation was always the same when it came up: these people, who were trying to steer her away from the path she was on with those colleagues, were trying to ruin her career, which is simply untrue and unfair. It might have been the case that the people who had made her would destroy her if she changed course (ask me how I know), but the intentions were never malicious or harmful like that.
Later, however, she got further into this line of thinking than I could tolerate, but she had also fallen seriously sick. I had no intention of criticizing a friendly while she was dangerously ill, so I didn't. I was distantly supportive but made no particular efforts one way or the other. She said many things I normally would have said something about, but I left it out of respect, even though it kept getting beyond my own tolerance.
Finally, though, the behavior documented in this thread, which has been a constant for many months and especially through the last month, crossed enough of a line where I said something. Thus, I became implicated. I tried to be firm but gentle and respectful, maintaining a solid boundary: no misrepresentation. That's it.
The reason I stepped in was, in fact, that. She would frequently pile on smaller accounts, many who respected her, many others who had become critical but who are good people doing good work, and go full attack-dog. I abhor unfairness. It was extremely frustrating to watch, but I stayed out of it, trying to maintain friendship and peace.
The moment I stepped in, which was in response to further vigorous misrepresentation of people she was arguing with online--again, mostly good people with small accounts--it was immediately my turn. The public record is available. I set the boundary in advance and asked her not to do it with me. She said something to the effect of "we're going to do this." Ok.
Since then, I have been questioned many times, in person, on the phone, and my message, about why I "attacked" Megan, which means someone is telling that story because I most certainly did not attack her. Another misrepresentation. It's intolerable.
When this thread appeared, I therefore shared every one of the posts and many of the posts by people who have chimed in. That's my story and my explanation.
I tried to dissuade her from taking a bad path, but it failed. I made a friendship and kept it, and I tried to keep the peace for a long time, even after it crossed several red lines. The moment I said anything, I became the bad guy. Like I said, ok. So be it.
That's my piece.
Look, there is no right time to post this series I'm about to post. Before the midterms was definitely not the right time, and immediately after isn't either, but it's less wrong. So, without further ado, here we go…
𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗺 (@megbasham) 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆.
Does anyone need the backstory?
On October 7, the Fantastic Four delivered some highly problematic speeches at NatCon Jerusalem, for which they were rightly criticized. One of the speakers was Amanda Milius (@AmandaMilius), who is friends with Megan. Over the following weeks, Megan went on an X crusade to defend, among other things, her friend's speech. In doing so, she repeatedly demanded that others adhere to moral standards that she herself failed to uphold in the slightest.
𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝟭: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗢𝗽" 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲…
Megan repeatedly criticized people for seeing an "op" behind every disagreement, arguing that accusing others of being part of an op simply because they hold different opinions is paranoid and conspiratorial. Yet she herself suggested that people creating divisions within the right-wing coalition ahead of the midterms were part of an "op."
𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻:
"I think the people who are suddenly very interested in creating massive fights within the rightwing coalition right before the midterms are the people you should suspect of being an 'op.'" [1]
𝗔𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻:
“I am so sick of people who don’t know how to debate any policy or election result without calling things an “op.“ It’s the last refuge of idiots and grifters.” [2]
“Yes, I’m sure Mollie and Matt and me and everyone else who is saying that he is behaving out of his mind with this stuff are ops of some fashion.” [3]
“They’re not running a dialectical hegemonic op or whatever.” [4]
“And they call anyone who doesn’t agree with them part of an op.” [5]
“Everything ends up in an 8000 word insane rant about ops and dialectics and not just a normal discussion.” [6]
“Just because people disagree does not mean its an ‘op’.” [7]
“The problem is you. Not secret ops.” [8]
“I have to have been bought. I have to be part of an op.” [9]
“Exactly.” (Reply to: “…denouncing everyone who disagrees with them as secret Marxists or ‘woke right’ ops.”) [10]
Becky Chapman retweeted
Well, transplants DID flip Texas!
Ken Paxton is from North Dakota.
Dan Patrick is from Baltimore.
Elon Musk is from South Africa.
Joe Rogan is from Jersey.
All contributed to the GOP downfall in Texas!
All this "transplants flipped Texas" stuff is serious cope.
Ted Cruz is Canadian.
Ken Paxton is from North Dakota.
Dan Patrick is from Baltimore.
Elon Musk is from South Africa.
Joe Rogan is from Jersey.
Talarico: Native Texan. Ginajosa: Native Texan.
As of 2023, the percentage of citizens living in Texas who were born there is actually higher than the national average. It's not even top 25 in percentage of transplants.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Replying to @christopherrufo
Did you read the rest of the column or just stop at the AI search?
Becky Chapman retweeted
What @JonahDispatch said was not about Charlie. It was also accurate. But some would rather silence the people who told the truth than be held accountable. Same people blame Iran but offer no name to be fired for a botched war.
New: Turning Point has thrown big money into the race to boost Andy Biggs’ bid for Arizona governor. Now, local GOP strategists are questioning their strategy.
“In all likelihood, the top statewide seats are going Democrat. And Turning Point owns it,” said a GOP operative working on Arizona races. “They wanted to be the player. They wanted to be the guy. Guess what? They are.”
w/ @sambbenson
politico.com/news/2026/10/29…
Becky Chapman retweeted
This is a timely exposé of Meg Basham. She’s been a toxic individual for a while, & Leah brings the receipts. And this doesn’t even touch on Basham’s dishonesty in “Shepherds for Sale”, her affiliations w/ Steve Bannon & Doug Wilson, & countless other disqualifying behaviors.
Look, there is no right time to post this series I'm about to post. Before the midterms was definitely not the right time, and immediately after isn't either, but it's less wrong. So, without further ado, here we go…
𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗺 (@megbasham) 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆.
Does anyone need the backstory?
On October 7, the Fantastic Four delivered some highly problematic speeches at NatCon Jerusalem, for which they were rightly criticized. One of the speakers was Amanda Milius (@AmandaMilius), who is friends with Megan. Over the following weeks, Megan went on an X crusade to defend, among other things, her friend's speech. In doing so, she repeatedly demanded that others adhere to moral standards that she herself failed to uphold in the slightest.
𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝟭: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗢𝗽" 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲…
Megan repeatedly criticized people for seeing an "op" behind every disagreement, arguing that accusing others of being part of an op simply because they hold different opinions is paranoid and conspiratorial. Yet she herself suggested that people creating divisions within the right-wing coalition ahead of the midterms were part of an "op."
𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻:
"I think the people who are suddenly very interested in creating massive fights within the rightwing coalition right before the midterms are the people you should suspect of being an 'op.'" [1]
𝗔𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻:
“I am so sick of people who don’t know how to debate any policy or election result without calling things an “op.“ It’s the last refuge of idiots and grifters.” [2]
“Yes, I’m sure Mollie and Matt and me and everyone else who is saying that he is behaving out of his mind with this stuff are ops of some fashion.” [3]
“They’re not running a dialectical hegemonic op or whatever.” [4]
“And they call anyone who doesn’t agree with them part of an op.” [5]
“Everything ends up in an 8000 word insane rant about ops and dialectics and not just a normal discussion.” [6]
“Just because people disagree does not mean its an ‘op’.” [7]
“The problem is you. Not secret ops.” [8]
“I have to have been bought. I have to be part of an op.” [9]
“Exactly.” (Reply to: “…denouncing everyone who disagrees with them as secret Marxists or ‘woke right’ ops.”) [10]
Becky Chapman retweeted
We were called RINOs, traitors, who had TDS - when in fact, we were the ones actually trying to save the Republican Party, but you wouldn’t listen:
Becky Chapman retweeted
The majority of Americans approve of border security, but disapprove of the admin's harsh ICE policies. So who just got a big promotion? The mastermind behind the harsh ICE policies.
It's almost like he wants to lose 2028, too.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Jonah's statement has nothing to do with Kirk's murder and you are stretching to take offense. You are a wholly unserious person.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Jonah is getting massive grief for this tame post.
His snarky point is that the youth vote swung hard to Dems. TPUSA, a youth-oriented organization, didn't succeed in its mission. That's totally fair.
But because Turning Point was run by Charlie Kirk until his assassination last year, critics claim that Goldberg is attacking Kirk.
This is ridiculous. Turning Point is a political organization with political goals. They are not the Sacred Church of Charlie Kirk. They are not above criticism.
And before you accuse me of hating Kirk, read what I tweeted when he was shot. "Political violence in America is a threat to us all. Hoping for a quick recovery for Charlie Kirk." (I hadn't seen the horrible video.)
So Kirk's death was awful, and people who expressed glee about it were wrong, but it's completely reasonable to criticize the organization he founded.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Dishonest people are pretending Jonah is dancing on Charlie’s grave. TPUSA is not above reproach. We are allowed to criticize its work, goals, and associations.
You’re bitter over massive losses and lashing out. It looks an awful lot like the behavior of the left.
Grow up.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Unlike Jonah’s tweet, this one is actually offensive and mocking someone in their death.
But don’t mistake the people losing it over Jonah’s tweet for people who are honest and decent in their assessments.
Becky Chapman retweeted
Clinton, Bush, and Obama all acknowledged the voters rejecting them in midterms. Trump, instead, held a ballroom press conference and is now on social media blaming the voters.


































