Up Next
College Student Parker Challenges Charlie Kirk on Gender Definitions Using Biblical Arguments on Jubilee
8:17
Trans Creator Refuses to Mourn Charlie Kirk, Condemns the Violence, and Explains Why Centrism Enables Fascism
18:40
Tim Miller Confronts Pastor Doug Wilson on Iran War and Political Christianity on Piers Morgan
17:01
Hadi Rahim's Progressive Commentary Critiques Charlie Kirk's Views on Islam and Muslim Immigration in America
A progressive political commentator Hadi Rahim examines Charlie Kirk's statements about Islam and Muslim Americans, particularly his criticism of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Rahim analyzes Kirk's claims that Islam is incompatible with Western values, comparing Islamic and Christian texts on violence, examining historical examples of religious tolerance in Muslim societies, and noting parallels between Kirk's conservative Christian views and the Islamic fundamentalism he critiques. The commentary argues that Kirk's positions reflect Islamophobia with racial components rather than legitimate policy concerns.
Charlie Kirk's Rise to Prominence
Charlie Kirk has transformed from a figure known primarily to online political enthusiasts in the late 2010s to a recognizable name among American teenagers with social media accounts. Kirk follows a debate format similar to Ben Shapiro, engaging with college students at university events. The progressive commentator claims to have debated Kirk at their own college, asserting victory based on not being featured in Kirk's viral clips.
Controversy Over New York Mayoral Race
Kirk drew significant criticism for his commentary on Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who won the New York City mayoral Democratic primary by 12 points. Kirk tweeted that New York City electing a "Muslim socialist" as mayor represents "one of the biggest threats to our country." He later posted that "24 years ago, a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now, a Muslim socialist is on pace to run New York City."
Fox News panelist Jessica Tarlov called the tweet "gross and Islamophobic," urging Kirk to take it down. Kirk responded by challenging her to "debate me on the merits" and asking "What Muslim country do you prefer to live in, Jessica? What's western city or country has improved as the Muslim population has increased?" He argued that America's largest city was attacked by radical Islam and that "a similar form of that pernicious force is poised to capture city hall."
Tarlov responded that while she disagrees with Mamdani's policies on issues like defunding police and supporting BDS, none of that relates to him being Muslim. Kirk countered that Mamdani's support for boycotting Israel is connected to his Muslim faith. Tarlov pointed out that many white Christian and Jewish progressives from Brooklyn also support BDS, arguing "It's not that he's Muslim. It's that he's wrong."
Claims About Muslim Immigration
Kirk has made broader claims about Muslim immigration threatening American cities. He shared a video of Shia Muslims celebrating Ashura in New York, adding the caption "This is New York. We are being conquered and they are rubbing it in our face. Islam is steadily enveloping the West." The video showed Muslims dressed in black walking through New York streets holding banners.
The progressive commentator argues this public religious celebration is no different from Chinese New Yorkers celebrating Chinese New Year, Irish New Yorkers celebrating St. Patrick's Day, or Jewish New Yorkers celebrating Yom Kippur. The video suggests that singling out this particular celebration as threatening constitutes Islamophobia.
Kirk's Arguments Against Islam
Kirk has articulated specific reasons why he believes Islam is incompatible with Western values. In an appearance on GB News in England, he stated that "macro Islam" is incompatible with the West for three major reasons: Islam does not believe in freedom of speech, Islam does not believe in freedom of religion, and Islam does not believe in separation of mosque and state.
Kirk has also claimed that "conquest is an Islamic value" and that "they seek to take over land and territory." He stated that "Europe is now a conquered continent. It is not what it used to be. It's a husk of its former self which is increasingly Muhammadan." He argued that Islamic texts "spend so much time about people who do not share their values" with "direct calls in Islam of what to do for those that don't believe."
Comparison of Religious Texts
The progressive commentator challenges Kirk's characterization by comparing Quranic and Biblical passages. The video cites violent verses from the Quran, such as Surah Al-Anfal calling to "strike their necks," and Surah Al-Baqarah stating "Kill them wherever you come upon them." However, it then reveals that an apparently Quranic verse about stoning was actually from Deuteronomy 17:2-5, with only "Allah" substituted for "the Lord" and "Arabia" for "Israel."
The commentary also cites 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, which states that anyone who would not seek the Lord should be put to death. The argument presented is that both the Bible and the Quran contain calls for violence against non-believers, yet Kirk downplays violence in the Bible while emphasizing it in the Quran.
Historical Religious Tolerance
When Kirk asks for examples of Jews living peacefully under Islamic rule, the video provides several historical examples. These include the Fatimid Caliphate, which was generally religiously tolerant of Christians and Jews, and Al-Andalus (Muslim-ruled Spain), which became a hub for Jewish intellectuals. Many historians identify a golden age of Jewish culture in Spain that occurred under Muslim rule.
The Ottoman Empire is cited as very tolerant of Jews during most of its history, often more tolerant than European societies. In many Muslim societies throughout history, Jews were considered dhimmis—non-believers given special protection and tolerance in exchange for paying a tax. The commentary argues that Jews lived peacefully in many Muslim nations for thousands of years, with scapegoating only intensifying when Muslim countries faced decline and hardships.
Modern Military Intervention
The video challenges Kirk's claim that Islam has conquest values by examining modern military interventions. Since World War II, countries like Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Iran, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, and Tunisia have invaded zero countries. Meanwhile, the United States has invaded eight countries using a strict definition of invasion that doesn't even include Korea, Vietnam, Syria, or the Dominican Republic.
The commentary also addresses the religious dimension of American foreign policy, citing General William Boykin's statement that he defeated a Muslim warlord in Somalia because "my God was bigger," George W. Bush referring to the war on terror as a "crusade," and Bush reportedly saying God told him to invade Iraq.
Separation of Church and State
Kirk's claim that Islam doesn't believe in separation of mosque and state is contrasted with his own stated positions. The video shows Kirk explicitly saying "there is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication. It's a fiction. It's not in the Constitution." He has argued that "of course, we should have church and state mixed together. Our founding fathers believed in that."
More recently, Kirk has framed the issue differently, asking whether there should be separation between morality and state. He argues that the church should influence morality, which in turn should inform lawmaking. The commentary points out that the Quran also serves as a moral guide, just as the Bible does for Christians, with most religions having moral codes that prohibit murder, adultery, and other harmful behaviors.
Parallels Between Ideologies
The video concludes by drawing parallels between Kirk's conservative Christian views and the radical Islam he criticizes. Both demonstrate intolerance of LGBTQ people, with Kirk calling to "ban trans-affirming care in the entire country." Both support rigid patriarchy, with Kirk telling high school girls their top priority should be to get married and have kids, and suggesting bringing back the "MRS degree" where women go to college primarily to find husbands.
Additional parallels include justifying civilian casualties in war (Kirk's comments about not differentiating between Hamas militants and civilians), believing religion should be deeply involved in government, viewing the opposing religion as a fundamental threat to society, and showing intolerance toward non-believers. The commentator concludes that while this doesn't make Kirk a radical Islamic terrorist, it does make him "a far-right conservative and a racist."
Video Transcript
Charlie Kirk is a racist and an idiot
and one of the largest voices on the
right. His fame is a relatively new
thing. He went from being known only by
online political junkies like myself in
the late 2010s.
>> I live like a capitalist every single
day. Chank. I live as a capitalist.
Okay. I live what I believe.
>> No. No.
>> What do I do? I get charity every single
year.
>> Hold on. Hold on. My salary less than
Jake. Let's go.
>> What are you doing? Sit.
>> Take a seat. psycho
>> to being known by basically every single
teenager in America with a Tik Tok
account.
>> A fetus is in uterero.
>> What does fetus mean in Latin?
>> What the I'm sorry. It's the same.
>> It means it means little human being.
>> He even does the thing that Ben Shapiro
does where he debates random college
students.
>> So, you're comparing abortion to the
Holocaust?
>> Absolutely I am. In fact, it's worse.
It's worse. He went to my college last
year where I debated him and won. How do
I know this? I didn't get clipped. Now,
over the past few weeks, Charlie's been
going on racist tirades online over
Muslims in the United States. Um,
actually, Islamophobia isn't racism. Eh,
it is, though. People who look vaguely
Arab or brown get profiled as Muslims
all the time. Seikhs get hate crime
because people think that they're
Muslims because they're brown, wear
turbans, and have beards. Charlie
literally did this himself on Twitter
when he mistook the mayor of Calgary for
being Muslim when she was sik because
she was brown. So yeah, there is
absolutely a racial component. But even
if he wasn't racist and just
Islamophobic, Islamophobia is still
bigotry. So how is Charlie Kirk
Islamophobic? That's what we'll be
finding out on today's episode of
Progressive Primers. First, take a look
at his commentary about New York City
mayoral candidate Zoron Mdani. Mdani,
who is a self-described Democratic
socialist, surprised even progressives
when he not only won the New York Mel
Democratic primary, but won it by 12
points. Mdani is also incredibly based,
so naturally Charlie Kirk would have a
problem with him. Although the way he
criticized him was interesting. He
tweeted, "New York City is likely to
elect a Muslim socialist as mayor. This
is quickly becoming one of the biggest
threats to our country. Pay attention.
Hm. Interesting that Charlie thought it
was important to highlight that he was
Muslim. He could have just called him a
socialist and his audience would have
already had a reason to dislike him. Can
you imagine if Kirk called someone a
black socialist? How about a Jewish
socialist? He would have been cancelled
even by the right. After Mumani won the
primary, Charlie tweeted this. 24 years
ago, a group of Muslims killed 2,753
people on 9/11. Now, a Muslim socialist
is on pace to run New York City. Now,
obviously, this is an absurdly
Islamophobic thing to say. Zoran Mani is
not a terrorist or even remotely has the
same world view as al-Qaeda. And this
tweet got a lot of push back. Jessica
Tarlov, the liberal panelist of Fox
News's The Five, tweeted this in
response. Charlie, this is so gross and
Islamophobic. Take it down. Charlie
responded, "Debate me on the merits.
Don't just throw out petty,
thought-terminating cliches. This isn't
2015. That doesn't work anymore. What
Muslim country do you prefer to live in,
Jessica? What's western city or country
has improved as the Muslim population
has increased? America's largest city
was attacked by radical Islam 24 years
ago. And now a similar form of that
pernitious force is poised to capture
city hall. Be courageous enough as a
liberal to call it out. I know deep down
you are worried about what he will do.
You were just too afraid to say it.
Jessica responded, "I'm not afraid to
say that I don't think Mamani's vision
for the city is a good one, and I think
a lot of his policies are crazy. New
York City is the home of capitalism, not
socialism. I want more police funding,
not to defund. BDS is repellent. We
can't freeze rent, make everything free,
but none of that has to do with him
being Muslim." Charlie responded, "So,
the guy that's about to be NYC's next
mayor wants to boycott and sanction
Israel. First ever major candidate to
say so. But that has totally nothing at
all to do with him being Muslim. You
know it does. You are just terrified
about the social cost of saying it
publicly. It's okay. I'll do it for you.
Jessica then finished with, "Have you
seen all the white Christian and Jewish
hipsters from Brooklyn that support BDS?
It's not that he's Muslim. It's that
he's wrong." Okay, so a lot to unpack
there. First off, Jessica, um, we can't
freeze the rent. What do you mean we
can't freeze the rent? New York City has
froze the rent a bunch of times within
the last 10 years. They literally have a
board that is dedicated to freezing the
rent. It's not about can we do it, it's
about if we should do it. Also, make
everything free. Yeah, like free at the
point of service, not literally make
everything free. Zoron has literally
gone line by line and explained how he's
going to pay for everything, but
whatever. It seems that Charlie thinks
that Zoron's ideology is in quote
similar form to al-Qaeda, which is
absurd. Zoran Mamani is one of the most
progressive politicians in the country.
No person who says that they're for
queer liberation is a radical Islamic
fundamentalist. You're just being
racist. And again, there is a racial
component. If Zoran was a white Muslim,
the attacks wouldn't be nearly as vile.
Charlie also implies that Muslim
immigration is ruining America's cities.
How? He provides no evidence. So, I did
some digging. A few weeks ago, he
tweeted out this. This is New York. We
are being conquered and they are rubbing
it in our face. Islam is steadily
enveloping the West. Then there's a
video of a Tik Tok that shows Shia
Muslims celebrating Asher in New York.
The Tik Tok adds intimidating music to
scare the viewer.
[Applause]
But then the music stops playing.
>> Wow.
So scary. Look at all those brown
people. I mean, Muslims dressed in
black, casually walking the streets of
New York and holding up a banner. So
scary. Look at that guy. Look, that
guy's drinking. He's drinking something.
What is he drinking? That could be a
threat. This is definitely enveloping
the West. It's hilarious to think that
this is scary. It looks no different
from Chinese New Yorkers celebrating
Chinese New Year in public or Irish New
Yorkers celebrating St. Patrick's Day or
Jewish New Yorkers celebrating Yam
Kapoor. To say that this one is somehow
uniquely scary above all others is
Islamophobia. And Muslim immigration
isn't ruining America's cities. Strict
zoning policies and nimism are ruining
America's cities by artificially
restricting the housing supply and
making them unaffordable places to live.
New York City, like America in general,
is a melting pot that has had waves of
immigrants come from all different parts
of the world, and it's made America
better. But for some reason, Charlie
thinks Islam and Muslims are uniquely
incompatible with the West. Why is this?
What are Charlie Kirk's problems with
Islam? For anyone that has eyes to see
and ears to hear and actually reads the
Kadith and reads parts of the Quran, you
know that conquest is an Islamic value.
Islam has conquest values. They seek to
take over land and territory.
>> Yes. Because Christian countries
definitely do not have a history of
conquest. Absolutely no Christian
majority society has ever done conquest
in the name of God. But Hadti, these
aren't recent examples. I mean, Islam
wants to conquer the West in the modern
day. So true. So let's look at the
modern day. Since World War II,
Afghanistan has invaded zero countries.
Algeria has invaded zero countries.
Bangladesh has invaded zero countries.
Egypt two, Iran zero, Iraq 3, Jordan 1,
Lebanon 1, Malaysia zero, Morocco zero,
Oman zero, Pakistan 1, Saudi Arabia 1,
Somalia 1, Syria 3, Tunisia zero, Turkey
1, Yemen 1. Meanwhile, the peaceful West
with the United States has only invaded
eight countries. And if that number
seems low, keep in mind that I'm using a
very strict definition of the word
invasion. This list doesn't even include
Korea, Vietnam, Syria, or the Dominican
Republic, which while technically not
invasions, were offensive conflicts with
American boots on the ground. But no,
it's definitely Islam that's rapidly
taking over the West. Europe is now a
conquered
continent. It is not what it used to be.
It's a husk of its former self which is
increasingly Muhammadan.
>> So true. I mean look at this map of
Iranian military bases in Europe. Oh
wait, sorry. No, this is a map of US
military bases in the Middle East. But
Hottie, these wars weren't caused by
religion. Really? During the Cold War,
American propaganda played up the
narrative that the struggle between
capitalism and communism was also a
struggle between the Christian West and
the atheist eastern block. Or how about
when General William Boyin gave a speech
recounting his confrontation with the
Muslim warlord in Somalia in the '90s
and saying that he won because quote,
"My God was bigger." Or how about when
George Bush referred to the war on
terror as a crusade? this this this this
this crusade,
this war on terrorism
uh is going to take a while.
>> Or how about when George Bush said that
he invaded Iraq because God told him to.
>> In the Islamic texts, they spend so much
time about people who do not share their
values. There there are like direct
calls in Islam of what to do for those
that don't believe. And I it's it's a
it's a very pernitious preoccupation.
>> This is true. The Quran does call for
violence against non-believers. Like
look at Surah Al- Unul which says,
"Remember, O prophet, when your Lord
revealed to the angels, I am with you.
So make the believers stand firm. I will
cast horror into the hearts of
disbelievers. So strike their necks and
strike their fingertips." Surah Albakra
verse 191 says this about non-believers.
Kill them wherever you come upon them
and drive them out of the places from
which they have driven you out for
persecution is far worse than killing.
And do not fight them at the sacred
mosque unless they attack you there. If
they do so, then fight them. That is the
reward of the disbelievers. And of
course, most infamously, surah al Janine
verse 37, which states, "If a man or
woman living among you in one of the
towns Allah gives you is found doing
evil in the eyes of Allah in violation
of his covenant, and contrary to my
command has worshiped other gods, bowing
to them or to the sun or to the moons or
the stars in the sky, and this has been
brought to your attention, then you must
investigate it thoroughly. If it is true
and it has been proved that this
detestable thing has been done in
Arabia, take that man or woman who has
done this evil deed to your city gate
and stone that person to death. Horrible
stuff. Except that last quote was
actually from Deuteronomy 17 2:5.
Instead of Allah it says the Lord and
instead of Arabia it says Israel. Then
of course there's 2 Chronicles 15:12
which states, "And they entered into the
covenant to seek the Lord, the God of
their fathers, with all their heart and
with all their soul, but that whoever
would not seek the Lord, the God of
Israel, should be put to death, whether
young or old, man or woman." Huh. It
seems that both the Bible and the Quran
have called for violence against and the
murder of non-believers. But Charlie
downplays calls for violence in the
Bible. Christianity spell spends a fair
amount of time of it, but nowhere near
Islam though.
>> But plays up calls for violence in the
Quran. In May, while in England, Charlie
Kirk went on the conservative GB news
and talked about the decline of
Christianity in the West. And he said
some crazy things.
>> Can a civilization continue when it cuts
off what gave it life?
Probably not. And that's what modernity
is flirting with right now. And so then
you get all these counterfeit religions.
You get environmentalism. Why do you
guys think you guys are doing this
insane netneutral carbon stuff by 2050?
So you get rid of Christianity and then
you get a substitute form of earth
worship.
>> Yes. Because caring about the
habitability of the planet we all live
on is earth worship. I care about having
a house, Charlie, but that doesn't mean
I'm praying to Bob the Builder.
>> You get rid of Christianity and then you
get a substitute form of anti-racism.
>> Okay. Anti-racism is obviously not a
religion. I don't know why Charlie would
say such an idiotic thing.
>> You get rid of Christianity and then
even more dangerous, you go from
secularism than to Islam because then
you're like, well, we have to believe in
something and then you you bring in a
completely different ideology that's at
odds with Western values.
>> Charlie, people watching this now would
say it's just Islamists who are the
issue. Islam as a as a religion is
peaceful by nature, so on and so on.
What's your response to that?
>> I know a lot of great individual
Muslims. My primary doctor in America is
actually a Muslim and he's amazing.
That's not the point. You could walk the
street and meet a great Muslim in
London. The question is, is macro Islam
compatible with Western values? Macro.
Of course, it's not. There are three
major major reasons why. Islam does not
believe in freedom of speech. Islam does
not believe in freedom of religion. And
Islam does not believe in separation of
mosque and state. Those three things are
antithetical to the West.
>> Let's break these down one by one.
>> Islam does not believe in freedom of
speech. Well, while the Quran doesn't
have a blanket verse either promoting or
condemning free speech, neither does the
Bible. Sure, the Quran says that lying
is a sin and gossiping is a sin, but
these are both sins in the Bible as
well. So, are you saying that the Bible
is against Western values? Sure, many
Muslim countries don't have freedom of
speech, but that's not because of
religion. It's because they have
authoritarian governments that punish
dissenters. That's politics, not
religion.
>> Islam does not believe in freedom of
religion. Well, this point plays into
one of Charlie Kirk's arguments as to
why Palestinians shouldn't have a state
that Islam is a barbaric religion that
can't tolerate others. In fact, a lot of
his Islamic arguments seem to center
around one thing, Israel.
>> Can you show me an example of Jews
living peacefully under Islamic rule?
>> Uh, I can. The Fatimid Caliphate, which
was generally religiously tolerant of
Christians and Jews. There's also Aland
Andelus, Muslim ruled Spain, which was
very tolerant of Jews. In fact,
Alandelus became a hub for Jewish
intellectuals. And many historians say
that a golden age of Jewish culture in
Spain took place under Muslim rule. The
Ottoman Empire was also very tolerant of
Jews during most of its history. In many
cases, way more tolerant than Europe.
There's a lot more examples. In many
Muslim societies throughout history,
Jews were considered dimmies,
non-believers who were given special
protection and tolerance in exchange for
paying attacks. Jews have lived
peacefully in many Muslim nations for
thousands of years. It was really only
until Muslim countries declined and
faced hardships when Jews started to get
scapegoed. But blaming minorities for
social ills is very common in every
society. Charlie Kirk is doing it right
now. Anti-semitism isn't just a Muslim
problem. It's a human problem. Now, of
course, the Quran doesn't actually
believe in a true freedom of religion,
but neither does any religion. Pretty
much every major religion thinks that
it's the correct religion and that
believing in others is heresy. So far,
all of Charlie Kirk's arguments as to
why Islam is incompatible to the West
also apply to Christianity or any other
religion. But finally, Charlie Kirk says
Islam is against the separation of
church and state.
>> And Islam does not believe in separation
of mosque and state.
>> H okay, but Charlie, you don't believe
in separation of church and state
either. Charlie Kirk used to straight up
say that he doesn't believe in the
separation between church and state.
>> Again, there is no separation of church
and state. It's a fabrication. It's a
fiction. It's not in the Constitution.
It's made up by secular humanists. It's
derived from a single letter that Thomas
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist
Convention. Of course, we should have
church and state mixed together. Our
founding fathers believed in that. We
can go through the details of that. They
established literally a church um in
Congress. Anyway, separate issue. Okay.
So, first of all, while the Constitution
doesn't explicitly say there shall be a
wall of separation between church and
state, it basically all but does because
it does say Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress can't establish religion. Hm.
Seems like separation of church and
state to me. And also just because
Congress may have a church inside of it
where individual politicians can go and
worship doesn't mean that the US
government and US law is religious.
Politicians can have their own religion
but government can still be secular. His
point doesn't prove anything. Again,
Charlie Kirk used to explicitly say
separation of church and state isn't a
real thing. But now he's more weasly
about it. He says stuff like, "Well, it
depends on what you mean by separation
of church and state. Do you believe that
there should be a separation of morality
and state? No. And where do we get
morality from? The Bible.
>> More importantly, let's forget church
and state.
>> Can we both agree there is no separation
between morality and state?
>> I agree. It's just lawmaking.
>> That that's cool. That's where I really
live in. What I'm saying though is the
church should influence that morality.
That's what I mean by that. Because at
some point, people are going to have to
make a decision of what is good and what
is bad, what is permissible and not
permissible. And I think the church or
Christianity should inform those
decisions.
>> Okay. But then the Quran is also a moral
guide. Christians and Jews have the ten
commandments. Muslims have surah al-
Isra which among other things bans
murder, adultery, arrogance, tells
people to honor their parents, the poor,
and the stranger. Most religions have
moral codes. Charlie, why are you
pretending that Christianity is the only
one or the only one that says good
things like murder is bad? So to recap,
Charlie Kirk doesn't like Islam and
Muslims. Why? Because they have a
culture of conquest even though
Christian countries have had the largest
empires in the world because they kill
non-believers. Even though the vast
majority of Muslims and Christians are
peaceful people. And even though the
Bible also says to kill non-believers
because they're against the freedom of
speech. Not really. The Quran doesn't
say much about the subject at all. Islam
isn't against the freedom of speech.
Dictators and authoritarians are against
the freedom of speech. It's because
they're against their freedom of
religion, even though plenty of Muslim
societies throughout history have
tolerated non-Muslims. And finally,
because they don't believe in separation
of mosque and state, even though Charlie
Kirk himself doesn't believe that church
and state should be separate. And that's
a common trend that you'll see a lot
from the far right. Every accusation
about what they think Islam is is
actually a confession of what they truly
believe. Let's do a comparison of the
views of Charlie Kirk and radical Islam.
intolerance of LGBTQ people.
>> We must react politically. We must ban
transaffirming care the entire country.
Donald Trump needs to run on this issue.
>> Check supports rigid patriarchy.
>> Hi Charlie, I'm Addie and I'm 14. I'm a
freshman in high school and I was
wondering as someone who has uh like a
different opinion on college. Um what
would you say the pros and cons are?
Because I'm interested in political
journalism. Let me also speak to some of
the young ladies here in high school
where your top if you who's here where
your top priority your top priority is
get married and have kids. Raise your
hand. Okay.
Interestingly, I think there is an
argument to bring back the MRS degree
and no seriously and just be clear
that's why you're going to college,
right? Don't lie to yourself like don't
like I'm going I'm studying sociology.
No, you're not. we know why you're here
and that's okay actually and that's a
really good reason to go to college
actually if you think about it like I
say college is a scam but if you're
going to find your life partner like
that's actually a really good reason to
go to college
>> check justifies war crimes
>> how how do you differentiate between an
innocent civilian and a and a Hamas
militant
>> yes this is part of the tragedy of war
that they did not invite but Hamas did
>> check thinks that religion should be
deeply involved involved in government.
>> Of course, we should have church and
state mixed together.
>> Check. Thinks the influence of the
opposing religion is a fundamental
threat to society. Large dedicated
Islamic areas are a threat to America.
Check. And finally, intolerance of
non-believers. Well, that one's obvious.
Check. Does this mean that Charlie Kirk
is a radical Islamic terrorist who wants
to bring Sharia law to the United
States? No. He's just a far-right
conservative and a racist.
Hey everyone, thanks for watching. If
you like this video, please like,
subscribe, comment, all that stuff.
Thanks to all my new subscribers who
came here from the soy pill. Your
support got us over the 500 subscribers
milestone, and I'm so happy that we
finally achieved that. Once again, thank
you so much to The Soy Pill for picking
my video to shout out in his segment,
Oops, all ladders. It's a massive honor.
I've been a huge fan ever since I
discovered his channel, and it's
honestly just a huge compliment to think
that my videos are worthy of a shout out
on his much larger channel. Thanks to
him, my trans rights video is low-key
kind of blowing up. Let's keep this
momentum going. If you like this video,
share it with other people. Let's try to
get to a thousand subs. I also wanted to
say how touched I am by all the trans
people who came out in the comments
saying how much my video meant to them.
It's moving. And I just wanted to say
that you guys are always welcome in this
community. Until then, I'll see you in a
few weeks for my next video. Not sure
what it's going to be about yet, but I
have a few ideas.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.