Up Next
Victor Davis Hanson Exposes Why the January 6 Narrative Was a Complete Fabrication From the Start
9:12
Matt Walsh Calls Charlie Kirk Assassination an Act of LGBT Terrorism Demanding Federal Crackdown
25:26
Niall Ferguson Explores Two Competing Historical Narratives of Donald Trump's Political Legacy and Impact
6:40
Steven Crowder Returns to Change My Mind After Charlie Kirk Assassination with Bulletproof Security
Steven Crowder brings back his Change My Mind series for the first time in years, asserting that political violence predominantly comes from the left. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk and multiple close calls requiring increased security measures, Crowder sits down with students to discuss polling data showing stark differences in how conservatives and liberals view political violence. With bulletproof glass and a security team, he argues that rhetoric from Democratic leadership labeling Republicans as fascists and Nazis has created a climate where over 60% of liberals find political violence somewhat acceptable, compared to only 23% of conservatives. The conversations explore soft-on-crime policies, self-defense rights, and whether America can find an offramp from escalating political tensions before civil conflict becomes inevitable.
The Return of Change My Mind
After years away from college campuses due to escalating security risks, Steven Crowder returned with his signature Change My Mind series, this time with a premise that political violence is predominantly coming from the left. The setup required bulletproof glass, no prior announcement, and what Crowder described as "basically a small army" of security personnel. Unlike previous iterations that sometimes drew large, hostile crowds, this popup format focused on genuine one-on-one conversations without the performative pressure of an audience.
Crowder explained that the ideal scenario for Change My Mind has always been two people sitting at a table having an authentic discussion where someone might actually change their mind. The conversations would be uploaded in their entirety, not edited for viral clips or "dunks." This approach aimed to restore the original intent of the series before it was copied and morphed into something designed more for entertainment than education.
Defining Political Violence
Before diving into discussions, Crowder established working definitions of political violence using standards from The Economist, TPP Project, and Cato Institute. These definitions included violence committed in the name of political ideology or as a means to a political end, even if charges haven't resulted in convictions. The key distinction: if someone who votes Democrat commits a hit-and-run, that's not political violence. But if they run someone over because they're Republican, that qualifies as political violence.
Crowder cited several examples he considers political violence that haven't been officially categorized as such, including the shooting of Aaron Danielson in Portland by Michael Reinoehl, who was subsequently shot by police before conviction. He also referenced shootings at ICE facilities and bomb threats at another ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, all done in the name of anti-fascism.
Conversation with Jacob: Confronting the Statistics
The first substantive conversation was with Jacob, a student who admitted he wasn't familiar with recent acts of political violence beyond the Kirk assassination. Crowder walked him through various incidents while Jacob questioned whether threats should count as political violence if they don't result in actual violence. Crowder argued that the same standard must be applied to both sides when categorizing political violence.
When Jacob expressed skepticism that most people on the left support political violence, Crowder presented polling data. According to a YuGov poll, 77% of self-identified conservatives said political violence is unacceptable always, while only 38% of leftists held that view. This means 62% of those on the left found political violence somewhat to completely acceptable. Additional snap polls showed liberals supporting political violence at ratios of 6:1, 8:1, and even 12:1 compared to conservatives.
Jacob remained skeptical of these numbers, saying his personal experience suggested most people on the left don't support political violence. However, he acknowledged being troubled by seeing members of the left support groups like Hamas and not condemn the Kirk assassination. Crowder challenged him to name one Democratic leader in a national position who hasn't accused Republicans of being fascists or compared them to Hitler. Jacob couldn't name one, though he suspected such politicians must exist among the 530-something members of Congress.
The Security Reality
Crowder explained why he stopped doing Change My Mind events years ago: every single time resulted in serious violent action. Rocks thrown, concrete milkshakes, people trying to slash tires, Molotov cocktails. He emphasized that Charlie Kirk had security before he was assassinated for a reason, noting there were many close calls before the one that succeeded.
The bulletproof glass and security platoon weren't unnecessary precautions but learned responses to consistent threats. Crowder pointed out that before the most recent assassination, people argued such security was unnecessary. He noted that there's a reason he's one of only two people who truly understand what it's like to sit in that chair, with Charlie Kirk being the other, even though their approaches were different.
The Rhetoric Problem
Crowder argued that Charlie Kirk was killed because people actually believed he was a fascist, citing that Gavin Newsom had recently made such accusations about the Republican party and Stephen Miller. He challenged the notion that Democratic leaders aren't responsible for this rhetoric, listing Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Gavin Newsom, and Gretchen Whitmer as all having lobbed fascism accusations against Donald Trump and his voters.
The concern, Crowder explained, is about what happens when people genuinely believe half the country are fascists. If that's true, how do you deal with fascists? You can't do it at the ballot box. This creates a dangerous logical progression that justifies violence as the only solution to a fascist threat.
Jacob pushed back, noting that the right also uses inflammatory rhetoric, calling people communists and socialists. Crowder distinguished between these terms, arguing that calling someone a communist for supporting communist-style policies is descriptively different from calling someone a fascist who must be stopped by any means necessary.
The Aftermath and the Missing Offramp
Crowder described what he saw as the crucial missed opportunity following Kirk's assassination. There was only one offramp to prevent escalating conflict: if Democratic leadership and a majority of the left had said the rhetoric had gone too far, that labeling people as fascists, Nazis, and genocidists over policy disagreements led to tragic consequences, and offered an apology while toning down the temperature.
Instead, Crowder observed gleeful celebration. Every single vigil, memorial, and mural put up for Kirk was desecrated, spit on, with assaults occurring when conservatives tried to honor the dead. People from the left came into conservative spaces to commit more crimes and celebrate the assassination. This told Crowder there were too many on the left who supported the violence, not just a fringe minority.
Crowder noted he'd never seen more people change their political persuasion outside of COVID than after Kirk's assassination. People who identified as liberal were shocked by the celebration and justification from friends they thought were moderate, leading them to delete social media connections and distance themselves from the left.
Solutions and Accountability
When asked about solutions, Crowder stated there can be no solution until there are structural changes to the makeup of the Democratic party. The left needs to tone down the temperature, take ownership, and apologize. This means both leadership accountability and individual responsibility from regular people on the left to champion the cause of rejecting political violence within their own circles.
Beyond rhetoric, Crowder argued the left needs to change soft-on-crime policies that facilitate violence. He cited examples like the case in San Francisco where Kamala Harris tried to prosecute a man who defended his home with a flashlight against an intruder with a history of sexual violence who had been released from San Quentin. He mentioned D Carlos Brown Jr., who was released 14 times before killing Iryna Zarutska on a subway, and noted that the average murderer has been released 11 times before committing murder.
These soft-on-crime policies exist, Crowder argued, because keeping people behind bars or requiring bail is labeled as racism by the left. Every proposal from the right is called racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic, and now people are dying as a result.
Conversation with Connor: Faith and Self-Defense
The second major conversation was with Connor, a Christian student from San Francisco studying at Southern Methodist University. Connor could agree that there had been significantly more violence from the left recently, though he questioned the line between violence on the left versus the left as a whole being violent.
Crowder explained that progressivism and leftism are inherently violent as ideologies because seizing the means of production and distribution requires force, in comparison to traditional conservatism. However, he acknowledged that individual ideals can exist outside of violence.
Connor raised concerns about Crowder's call for "righteous lawful violence" following the Kirk assassination, asking how to be firm without setting back their own rhetoric. Crowder clarified he meant ruthless lawful violence in self-defense, strictly within the bounds of the law. He used a hockey analogy about enforcers who protected star players like Wayne Gretzky, noting that having enforcers on the bench who rarely had to fight actually reduced injuries because the threat of consequences prevented opposing players from taking cheap shots.
The Temperature Must Change
Crowder explained that in the past, when people threw rocks or committed violence at his events, his team would de-escalate, ask them to stop, or move locations. This sometimes put his team at risk even when he was within his lawful rights. Now, the approach has changed. If someone lifts a rock to hit him over the head, they won't be asked to put it down—they'll be tackled.
The goal isn't to seek violence but to change the temperature so potential attackers are deathly afraid of coming into conservative spaces and assaulting people. Crowder emphasized he hopes that liberal content creators like Destiny can continue doing their copycat Change My Mind events with no security for the rest of their lives. But the left needs to understand that conservatives aren't sitting ducks anymore.
Crowder said he feels like an unwilling shepherd who didn't do his best to protect his flock. The culture of passivity is why no one helped Iryna Zarutska when she was stabbed on a subway by a man who had been released 14 times. She died in public but died alone, and Crowder doesn't see that passivity as empathy.
Faith, Duty, and Protection
When Connor expressed conflicted feelings about the possibility of having to harm someone in self-defense, even an intruder, Crowder separated feelings from duty. He asked Connor: if you have a wife, if you have children, if you have a flock, is it your duty as a shepherd to protect that flock? When Connor agreed, Crowder said simply: "Go fulfill your duty. And don't feel bad about it."
Crowder shared a story about his father confronting someone who claimed they couldn't take a life even if an intruder was in their house. His father asked what if that intruder was actively assaulting their wife, then said, "What kind of a man are you? I don't count you amongst us." Crowder emphasized that the most dangerous man is one who has actively avoided violence and has been brought to his front door.
He argued there's nothing Christian about someone committing a violent crime and not facing justice, noting that God is a God of justice. The left's soft-on-crime approach isn't based on Christian redemption but on wanting people scared, dependent, dumb, and numb—people more easily controlled.
Replacing God with the State
Crowder argued that the left wants to replace God with the state. God says men are men and women are women, that He made woman from man's rib because it was not good for man to be alone, and that men and women have distinct roles. The left says there's no such thing as men or women and pushes for equality in all facets, even removing pull-ups from military requirements.
God says you were fearfully and wonderfully created, that He knew every hair on your head before you were born. The left says life doesn't begin until birth, and not one Democrat on a national platform will put any limits on abortion whatsoever. When asked if nine months is too late, they refuse to give a definitive answer, though they'll give definitive answers about gun rights.
Crowder told Connor that the left doesn't want America—they want something else. If you're not entitled to protect your family, that's not American. If you're not allowed to raise your child as you see fit, that's not American. He cited Joe Biden calling it "evil" not to affirm a child's transition, Kamala Harris supporting taxpayer-funded sex surgery for transgender inmates while wanting to disarm the populace, and Tim Walz's Minnesota being a sanctuary state where a child wanting to transition can flee and the state will hide them from parents.
Why Return Now
Connor asked why Crowder would return to doing Change My Mind after Kirk's assassination, noting it seemed illogical. Crowder explained he's different from people like Charlie Kirk or his friend Andrew Wilson, who love debating and wake up excited to engage. Crowder described himself as a very unwilling participant who did it because he felt it was necessary.
It was actually a relief when security costs became so expensive that it didn't make financial sense to continue. He had always wanted students to take on doing these conversations themselves. The events were designed to highlight the failure of institutions—showing students this was the first time they were hearing opposing viewpoints despite attending prestigious schools.
Unfortunately, many people who copied the format morphed it into something about dunking on and making fun of uneducated students, whereas Crowder has a heart for students who have been failed by their institutions. But now it's important that the left knows conservatives aren't afraid. When the left says to tone down the temperature, Crowder asks, "Do you mean like sitting down at a table and having a conversation?" Because the only way to tone it down further than that is silence.
The Double Standard
Crowder pointed out that liberal content creators like Destiny and Hasan have a much harder time holding calm conversations, yet they do so with no security or very little. They don't need the same safety measures that conservative speakers require. That disparity needs to change. The left needs to understand that when they come to conservative spaces to celebrate assassination or desecrate memorials, there will be consequences.
The goal isn't civil war or conflict, but Crowder warned he thinks it could be in the cards within the next decade if things don't change. People like him and Kirk sat down at tables and talked with anyone who would listen, managing to avoid all kinds of violence. They took Kirk's life anyway, and they've tried to take Crowder's. He's not playing that game anymore.
A Call for Honesty
Throughout the conversations, Crowder emphasized he tries to be careful with his language and meticulous with his sourcing. He provides QR codes at events so people can access all references and sources, attempting to be as responsible as possible. He doesn't want to softwalk the reality of the situation, but he also doesn't want to be reckless.
He acknowledged the problem of clickbait culture where people say things just to get views, noting that influencers with far less credibility haven't done their research and take things too far. But Crowder and his team try to be remarkably consistent, always saying "predominantly the left" rather than making absolutist claims.
The conversations ended on relatively positive notes, with both Jacob and Connor showing willingness to consider the evidence and engage respectfully. Crowder praised both for sitting down in good faith, noting that Connor in particular seemed to have his heart in the right place and a good head on his shoulders. These are the types of conversations Crowder believes are still possible—but only if both sides are willing to separate those who actually want to have conversations from those who simply want chaos and violence.
Video Transcript
Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about all of it. Okay? Then you say it might be a fringe uh uh minority who say fascists, for example, um who say racist. Here would be my challenge to you. Name me one member of the Democratic party in a national position of leadership. One who's run for office, either been president, vice president, or ran for the office, who hasn't accused our side of being fascist, of comparing us to Hitler. Name me one. [Music] My fans, I have arrived. >> Welcome to part two of this installment of change my mind. The premise, the left is violent. >> Click the link in the description to see the entire hour and a half first installment from yesterday. Now, before these, it had been more than a few moons years since I was last on campus. And uh for obvious reasons, it was an everinccreasing risk that required more security and a lot of students were carrying this on and doing it themselves on campus. But as a lot of that stopped as a semi reluctant participant uh felt compelled to bring this back. Luckily, this go around the team around me was top-notch. I can't thank them enough. Was basically a small army and we were able to do it in this climate with minimal risk. That means no prior announcement. That means really no um interaction with the crowd that can get riled up. And in a lot of ways, that's what Changed My Mind was originally meant to be. It's two people sitting at a table having a genuine conversation where hopefully no one feels pressured to be performative. The true goal by the end of this is that someone maybe actually changes their mind. Maybe me, usually not, but maybe. And the good news is the popup crowd was respectful and the conversation was highly productive. >> What part of progressivism do you think comes with that? I mean like >> racial division, racial division, gender division, classist division, >> right? >> Um I mean you don't see the right saying, hey, these people are fascist and they want to genocide you. >> No. Um >> okay. Well, mostly >> when Markx wrote his communist ideologies, it was conservative based. Now, now I know out of context that may seem uh pretty bad, but if you click uh the link in the description to yesterday's full hour and a half installment, uh you'll see that in context it's worse. But I do appreciate her willingness to sit down and talk. And I was hoping that part two would be just as productive. And in a lot of ways, uh it was. And um in some ways, um it was. It was not. It seems like it's a higher percentage of these parties on both sides which have these extreme abuse. >> I don't think that's the case. >> But assuming I'm not lying, right? >> What all those polls are lying. I don't think you're lying. >> But I'm assuming I'm not lying. So sit back, perhaps grab a tasty beverage if you will, and enjoy what was mostly a constructive change my mind. And of course, you can tune in to the daily show live streamed on Rumble every weekday at 11 a.m. Eastern. That's really my bread and butter. And uh this is the first comeback of Change My Mind. Do you want to see more of these? It's up to you. Let me know in the comments. First up, here's Jacob. Pleasure to meet you. >> Hey, Jake. Nice to meet you, sir. Grab a seat. >> And do you mind moving in so I can uh hear a little bit? Don't get cozy. Get cozy. Come on. Move on in. So, Jacob, uh you prefer Jake? >> Jacob's good. >> Okay. I don't know how uh familiar you are with uh this segment or or this kind of piece of content what we do. Let me explain to you first what it's not. >> Um and I mean this genuine. It's not gotcha. It's not designed for reals, clips, dunks owned. Our conversation will be uploaded in its entirety. The ideal scenario is that we actually have a productive civil discussion. That's not always possible. >> I mean that's that's what I would like. So >> yeah. Okay. Good. Um and uh the premise today is and I would assert that predominantly the left is responsible for uh a large portion of the political violence in this country and the tenor and tone. >> Um to a point that I think needs uh to be dealt with or certainly at least conversationally. Um that's not to say that there isn't political violence across the board but again predominantly coming from the left. And if you disagree with me you are more than welcome to change my mind. if you wouldn't mind just when we start I just want to make sure that we go through right here the definition and just if you agree to the definitions of political violence from the economist and Kato >> so in effect the idea >> I'm not sure if I understand this definition so >> okay let me yeah and this we're we're using this because these are often the numbers that are being cited right now from the economist of TPP project in Kato basically violence committed in the name of or as a political means to an end right >> even even if it's just a complaint or an indictment and it hasn't been they haven't been convicted or it hasn't been confirmed. >> Yeah. Political violence, acts of violence being committed, right? Um I understand too if there are charges, convictions of difference, but we agree as far as in principle political violence, for example, >> I don't know how you vote. >> Um >> but let's say you vote Democrat and you hit and run today. >> Okay, >> that's not political violence just because you vote Democrat, right? >> Of course. >> But if you were to go run someone over because they are a Republican or vice versa, that would be political. Do we agree? >> I I agree with that. >> Okay. And on that premise, I believe it's predominantly coming from the left. Um, and you are welcome to change my mind or tell me where you disagree. >> Sure. Um, so I guess I just want to first ask obviously, you know, the Charlie Charlie Kirk thing is massive. I'm not super familiar with what other acts of political violence have occurred recently. Maybe you could tell me like cuz other than the Charlie Kirk >> I don't know what else is >> right up the road here. ICE people were shot. >> Three were shot. One was killed at an ICE facility done in the name of anti-fascism. There were bomb threats at another ICE facility in Alvaro, Texas. You want to go through? >> Well, that's why I asked about the complaint. So, is it political violence to to threaten something if there were bomb threats? Like, is that count as political violence? >> We would have to Well, I would say this. We'd have to apply the same standard to both, right? So, uh I'm just using examples according to the standard where rightwing political violence has been included. I understand in the ideal, right, you'd be going through a conviction. Um, but for example, let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say that someone walked up to somebody in the street and said, "Are you a Trump voter?" And the person said, "Yes." Said, "You're a Trump voter. Are you sure?" Bang, bang, shot him, killed him point blank, and then said, "I got him. I got the Trump voter." And then was shot by the police. We would still consider that political violence if there's documentation of that, right? On camera. Okay. So, you would agree with that? >> Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, I'm just >> Okay, I want you to watch this cuz this she just has >> It's in Portland. >> That's obviously terrible. >> Yeah, that was Aaron Danielson and that was a uh Mr. uh Michael Rhino in Portland. That wasn't listed according to the current stats as political violence because the police shot him before there was a guilty conviction. >> Okay. >> We would agree though that's political violence, right? I would agree um based on what you're telling me and again I just want to clarify what you're saying is these acts of political violence are done disproportionately by the left compared to the right >> as a method. Yes. >> Okay. I mean maybe I don't disagree with that. I mean the the sign out front just said the left is violent which I >> don't agree with especially as a whole. I mean I think there are a lot more incidents of peaceful protest and very and moderate and people who are on the left who it's a very very small isolated segments and we're talking about >> but what if you were wrong about that? >> What if I was wrong that most people who lean left or on the left >> are peaceful? What if I were to tell you that a majority of today's political left >> view violence against either political adversaries, people of political persuasions as acceptable as somewhat to what if it's over 62% somewhat to completely acceptable? What if those on the left actually support political violence at a ratio of 5 to 8 to 12:1 to conservatives? What if that was a fact? That doesn't mean that you are, >> but it again would be reflective of the whole of the left much more so than the right. >> If that was a fact, >> it would support what you're saying. And I I don't not trying to hear not trying to say that that doesn't exist. I mean, I would be skeptical if I saw something as to what you said. I think 62% I think there's no way that 62% of people who vote left, who believe left, support violence. Have I seen instances, you know, >> so it's a recent Yuggov poll, Yuggov, not a conservative poll. 77% of self-identified conservatives said political violence is unacceptable always. >> Okay. >> Only 77 >> 77 only 38% of leftists. 62% answered somewhat to completely acceptable. Some answered I don't know. And then there was another snap poll before that that had a again at a ratio of 6:1 self-identified liberals supporting political violence in comparison to conservatives. It doesn't mean you or all, but if we're comparing those demographics, it is stark. It is consistent. I could point you to another one. After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, over 60% of the left said it is somewhat to completely acceptable. I mean, again, I'd love to, you know, see these polls. And if those are representative, I totally agree with you. I I don't think it's okay to support political violence. I'm honestly a little shocked at how low the conservative, like if only 77%. I would have think it'd be like 99%. >> You think it'd be 99% of the left according to your premise, right? But it's 38. >> I would think, well, that that is what I would think. And it's not been my experience that most people who are on the left do support political violence. I will say, and this has troubled me, is I have seen members of the left support, for example, Hamas. I have seen members of the left not condemn Charlie Kirk assassination or who have spoken out as being happy about it. Um, I just don't think that that is a majority of the population. I would be very curious to see these polls, but my experience, >> someone um, one sec, can we have the QR cuz we actually have a QR code so you can see all the sources. >> That'd be great. Uh >> yeah, great. They should have had that uh earlier. >> I can look at this later. I mean, we're just here. >> No, but I want to give it to you so you can access it. And by the way, I do think, just to be clear, I think that your heart is in the right place. And I think you're >> I think you're honest um in that this is your perspective because you probably think it's abortant as I do political violence, >> right? >> Um and here's why we're having this conversation. Okay, for example, see we have bulletproof glass and basically a small platoon here. >> Yeah, it's scary. >> Uh I can imagine it is. But before this last event, people would have argued it's unnecessary and we've had to take increasing security measures. I can tell you that the reason I stopped doing this for years is because every single time, every single time >> there were some serious violent action carried out. There were rocks thrown, concrete milkshakes, people trying to slash tires, Molotov cocktails, and no one would listen. There's a reason that Charlie Kirk had security before he was assassinated, right? There are a lot of close calls, and you saw the one that got through. And the rhetoric was always, "You're fine. You're fine until you It's like until you shed blood. >> Look, I I completely agree. I mean, there there's definitely extreme political violence. I've seen it happen. We just The whole country just saw it happen. I just think >> to Can I just finish that one point that the entire left >> Yeah. >> is violent. >> No, the left is violent as an ideology and as a majority, >> which you'll see with the stats that I present to you. But here's the thing, >> and this is a genuine concern. >> There's no offramp here. Let me explain to you what I mean. I think we both want to avoid any type of civil war or serious conflict. Right. Right. We both >> I don't think we're close to that. >> I'll tell you why. I think it could be in the cards within the next decade. Okay? And I've not said this before these last two years. Um there was only one offramp when the left, a member of the left assassinated Charlie Kirk in cold blood in the name of political leftism, of radical trans ideology leftism, right? justified it through Charlie Kirk being hateful, which he's not. Uh him being prejudiced, which he's not. The only offramp would have been if the leadership on the left and if a majority of the left said, "Hey, look, this has gone too far. We've labeled these people fascists, Nazis, racists, genocidists because of their trans policy, and my god, some people out there are actually believing it. We're sorry. Let's tone it down." Instead, there was a very surprising, gleeful celebration thereafter. And you can say not all the left, but every single vigil, every single memorial, every single mural that was put up was desecrated, spit on, there were assaults from the left when people on our side, and by by that I mean conservative Christian America by and large, have one of ours attacked and then they pursue our spaces to honor the dead and celebrate. That tells us, oh, there are too many. >> So, you think because of this, you think we're trending towards some kind of civil war, civil conflict? >> I can tell you this. I have a pretty large sample size. And this would be anecdotal in addition to the empirical. I've since co I would say that's number two. >> I never saw more people change their political persuasion uh outside of CO in my lifetime. People who were self-identified liberals who couldn't send their kids to school, right? They thought, "Okay, it's going too far." I've never had more people reach out and say, "I was so shocked at the celebration and justification, the assassination of Charlie Kirk from my who I thought were moderate liberal friends that I've had to delete them from social media. I I can't be included amongst them. There's an exodus taking place because of the reaction. And you can't point me to one of an example like that on the right. It doesn't exist." >> Look, I I mean, you're making good points. I I don't see how this is leading to civil war, but I totally agree with what you're saying. I have seen people have the exact reaction that you're discussing. I I think it's wrong. I just in my experience from anecdotal evidence, that's why I'm curious to see the empirical studies, I don't think that represents a majority of the left. The incident you're talking about about uh memorials being desecrated, this is >> and you've seen it, right? >> I've seen it, but this isn't coming from like the Democratic leaders. Like this isn't coming from the majority of >> Sure it is. >> I I wouldn't say the You're saying Democratic leaders. >> Yeah. Let me explain to you. Charlie Kirk was killed because people actually believe that he was a fascist. And Gavin Newsome just said it about the Republican party and Steven Miller not more than 24 hours ago. >> So you would blame the leaders for saying >> I would I would say they're responsible if they are going to say that Donald Trump's rhetoric is responsible for Black Lives Matter which preceded him by two to three years under Barack Obama. I certainly would say the ongoing rhetoric from the left that Republicans and Donald Trump are racist, that they are fascist, comparing them to Nazis, Hitler, that they are genocidist because they don't believe that children should I think that that rhetoric because let me ask you this. The people who have committed this violence, for example, right here at ICE, Charlie Kirk, right, Anta, this man you just saw, they believe that I, that Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump are fascist. If that's true, how do you deal with fascists? If half the country believes that we're fascist, how do you deal with fascist? You can't do it at the ballot box. >> Let me break this down one more time because that was that was a lot. >> Okay. >> Um, first thing >> I think people have I think you can't 100% blame people for the things that they say inciting for inciting violence. People have their own agency and their own decision making. >> They campaign on them. It's the DNC campaign platform. It's fascism. Not >> Camala Harris, Joe Biden, Gavin Newsome. You can't name one. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. fascism comparisons to Hitler. They say that we want to oppress blacks. They say we want to erase trans people. >> I mean, I I've seen it happen. It happens occasionally. I don't think the majority of Democratic leaders say this or believe this, and even some of the ones who do maybe not believe it, but if we're just talking about rhetoric, >> what if they all What if they all do? >> If we're talking about rhetoric being dangerous and inciting violence, >> I I mean, I think the right shares some blame in that, too. I don't think the right is completely without blame for speaking for speaking poorly of the other side. Like I mean Donald Trump is certainly not the uh you know the idol or the model of uh manners or you know not being >> manners are different from labeling your opposition as fascist who won't relinquish the the reigns of power. Airgo you need a violent revolution. >> But here's my point. >> Yeah. My point is, yes, some Democratic leaders have said things, have called other people fascists, have called them racists. Some people on the right as well have said things about members on the left, you know, called them communists, have called them socialists. Similar type of rhetoric. And I don't think >> I don't think it's similar. I don't think it's right to blame the leaders for violent acts that a small minority of extreme supporters commit. I I don't think that means the entire party is violent. I don't think that means that the leadership is violent. I think there are simply a small group of extremes. And is it I agree with you. Is it are we seeing it more from the left than from the right? I think we are. I I think if I had I think if I were to do some research, I'm sure I would be able to find some acts of political violence from the right. >> I'm not disagreeing with that. >> But maybe there are more from the left and that is what I've seen and I agree with you there. >> I appreciate your but I >> I do not agree that it is the entire Democratic party that it is the leadership of the left that is the belief of the majority of the left that these acts are okay. I know there is a higher percentage of >> Sorry, I know this bug keeps coming. It's it's a it's a isn't it? >> I've definitely seen people from the left and Democrats who have not condemned what happened to Charlie Clark and have not condemned these political acts of violence, who have not condemned what's going on in Israel. Um, >> no, >> I don't think I don't think the majority >> Okay, but what if let's assume I'm not lying to you. Okay, let's assume that there's a Yugov poll. Let's assume there's a Reuters poll. Let's assume that you've got 62% somewhat to okay. Let's assume that you have a 6:1 ratio of political violence being okay from the left. Let's assume that after Donald Trump's uh the attempted assassination that over 60% of the left said that violence against Donald Trump would be somewhat to completely justified. Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about after the Tesla bombings that a majority of the left said it would be somewhat to completely justified in contrast to rep. Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about all of it. Okay? Then you say it might be a fringe uh uh minority who say fascist for example um who say racist. Here would be my challenge to you. Name me one member of the Democratic Party in a national position of leadership. One who's run for office, either been president, vice president, or ran for the office, who hasn't accuse our side of being fascist, of comparing us to Hitler. Name me one. >> I mean, this is tough for me to answer because I'm not like super familiar. I couldn't even name that manyist political leaders. But I I'm very certain if I looked hard enough I would find Democratic leaders who have not called other people fascists who have not called other people racist. I have seen a lot of them and again I've seen on social media and like obviously I've seen the usual suspects doing it but >> like Biden, Camala Harris, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Whitmer, every single one of them has lobbed the fascism accusation against Donald Trump and his voters. >> I I agree with you and I've seen that. I'm just saying there are 530 something members of Congress. I am 100% sure that there is a Democratic one there that >> I'm sure there is one. >> Well, right. I just don't know their name cuz I have >> But you can't point me to a single person in the right. Go Donald Trump, Vance, all all the way down who've said, "Hey, by the way, they're never going to relinquish power. The enemies are fascists who can't be dealt with at the ballot box." You can hear Donald Trump say shitty things >> specifically, but I've seen >> Yeah. comparable things said from Donald Trump >> like >> I I can't remember off the top of my head, but he I he has definitely not been the model of rhetoric. And again, part of this rhetoric, I mean, it's politics. It's people appealing to their base. It's people appeal appealing to some of the extreme members because also you got to remember that most people don't even come out and vote. It's like what 30 something% of people who come out and vote. It depends on the year. >> It depends on the year. >> I think it's been closer to 50 in recent years. >> The people who vote are usually tend to be feel very strongly and are tend to be more extreme. >> So these leaders they from a practical perspective have to appeal to these more extreme voters >> which is why it seems like it's a higher percentage of these parties on both sides which have these extreme abuse. >> I don't think that's the case. >> But assuming I'm not lying, right? >> What all those polls are lying. I don't think you're lying. I'm assuming I'm not but but let's assume that those polls exist, right? Let's assume that you take this QR code and you go >> I assume they do exist. I just don't know if they're representative >> difference between that. You know, you could poll 100 people and you pull a different 100 people. You pull >> how many polls would you need of selfidentified liberals versus selfidentified from leftleaning polling sources. How many would you need to go and I think you've already agreed that it's predominantly coming from the left. >> Um I guess at this point what we're talking about is okay if we both agree that there is more violence coming from the left right now. Right. Right now. And I think we agree on that. Well, more more political violence. >> More political violence from the left. >> Yes. Right. Now, I think we agree on that. >> Yes. >> It begs the question why, right? >> And I don't think that it's uh productive to kind of both sides that because it's not a both sides. It's a disproportionate percentage on one side. Also, I think, you know, if we both, for example, you and I can find common ground. I think this has been hopefully respectful. I think so, too. >> Uh you seem like a very nice gentleman. This right here, >> not listed in the stats, right? Cuz right now the media also goes out and says there's more violence on the right wing which obviously you don't see that >> that's not registered as >> I'm not like watching but that's not registered as political violence. >> Isn't that crazy to you KO? >> If if what you say is true then yes that should be registered as political violence. I see >> it's not nor the summer of love the George Floyd riots none of those deaths none of the arson uh the January 20th protest where people were arrested right after Donald Trump became president. None of those included political violence. I it the problem is and you say and I hope I hope that we can find Congress and I hope we have an off-ramp to some kind of civil upheaval genuinely but when one side gets backed into a corner where they need security to go out and express their opinion for sitting at a table when one side says hey hold on a second we are effectively being targeted and hunted if we are public figures or for example even if we're not public figures if we're working at an ICE facility we're working at a police precinct and something needs to be done and people go ah Uh, no, no, no. It's both sides. And then you have the media saying, "Actually, it's the right who's more politically violent." You back them into a corner. And I think there, you know what the endg game is there. And so I hope that you do spend time >> know what the end game is there. >> The end game there is if people are at the receiving end of political violence and it's gleefully celebrated thereafter and then they are accused of committing the political violence, >> they're going to start not just defending themselves, they're going to start fighting back. And I hope it doesn't come to that. >> I hope I hope that I hope they fight back peacefully or in the proper channels. I I >> you can't ask them to fight back peacefully if they're being killed in record numbers. That's the issue. If they're being killed and assault in record numbers and that's that's the reason for this is we need to deal with this problem. We need an offramp. >> So what's what's your solution to the political violence coming from seemingly coming from the left? >> Well, I can tell you this. There there is no solution until there's a a structural changes to the makeup of the Democrat party. In other words, you can't have over 60% in poll after poll after poll supporting some kind of political violence. You can't have the summer of love in those riots. You can't have the Tesla bombings. You can't have Charlie Kirk and people coming out and people in the Democratic party saying, "Well, even though I condemn the violence, he was hateful. He wasn't. His rhetoric." That needs to change >> for us to be able to find common ground. It needs to come from the left. The left needs to tone down the temperature and they need to take ownership and apologize. And they haven't. That means the leadership and that means anyone who went out there and justified or celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. There needs to be such a chorus from let's say let's assume that you're more left-leaning. >> It's not enough to not condone political violence. You have to be championing that cause in your own right cuz we're not seeing it. That's the only way. >> So you would like to see from the Democratic leaders some sort of >> condemnation, apology, >> accountability. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then how do we so how do we stop this uh I guess violent rhetoric or the kind of rhetoric that's inciting violence? >> Well, that would be the left. The left needs to stop it, right? >> The the leaders can the leaders can come out and they can condemn it and they can apologize. >> But assuming these polls are correct, how how does that how do we change the 62% who are okay with political violence? >> Well, right now, again, this is why the why matters. The reason that you have 62 and some polls 60 and some polls more is because of the leadership and the temperature in the Democrat party. So that alone maybe brings it down to 50 doesn't bring it down to conservative levels, but it brings it down pretty low. And then the left needs to be on board with such harsh on crime policies and realities. For example, before Charlie Kirk, we had Arena Zeruska right there in North Carolina, the woman who was stabbed. >> I don't know about that. >> White woman who was stabbed by a black man who was released 14 times. Stabbed her on a subway. She bled to death in >> Was that that was political violence you're saying or that? >> No, what I'm saying is >> political violence thrives in blue districts where you have catch and release and I owe you no cash bail policies. This guy was released on an IOU deemed mentally unfit to stand trial by a leftist judge, by a leftist court system. 14 times. Do you know the average amount of times that a murderer has been released before they commit a murder? >> I do not. >> 11. >> 11. >> I would have to see something on that. I'll I'll again the QR code will make all of it available. So the left not only fermentss violence through rhetoric but then they also facilitate it by soft on crime policies with the same rhetoric because keeping people behind bars having actual bail needed to be posted uh is considered racism. Every single proposal that comes from the right is racist, it's fascist, it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's transphobic, and now we have people dying. >> So those two things need to change. Crime policy and the rhetoric from the top down. Do you think that would make a difference? >> Um, I mean, I personally support some of the crime changes you're discussing. I I guess I do have a followup question, which is you mentioned that >> and there's a QR code, by the way, with the sources >> that the that average murder is released 11 times. Is there like do those murders commit more, you know, acts of violence when they're released? Is there some kind of statistics on that? Cuz like does that actually >> Well, I mean they've been brought in for serious crimes 11 times. >> But are they when they're released? Are they under house arrest? Are they under like like they're not committing more crimes when they're on trial for >> Well, I would imagine between crime six and seven and between crime seven and eight they're committing more crimes all the way up to 11. I think we can agree on that, right? That's pretty self-explanatory. This guy was released 14 times, including already committing armed robbery. And this this is not the only example. You know, George Floyd, >> what about him? >> Nine times. He robbed the woman at gunpoint with her daughter in the house. This was a serial violent criminal, >> right, >> who had no business being on the streets. I'm just picking it because an it's an example of someone you would know, >> right? I mean, I look, I I'm totally with, you know, the justice system and >> locking them up. >> If they commit violent crimes, 1 2 3 4 5 6 >> If you're convicted of a crime, violent crime, then you should be convicted according to, you know, whatever the state's penal code is. Um and >> the problem is a states where left is still in charge is very soft. You don't need to have any. >> But you think the solution to political violence and the problem with the left right now is we need the left and the right to work together on crime policies. No, you don't want >> No, not on the Well, first on the crime policies, here's what needs to happen. >> Uh before that, the rhetoric. The left needs to take full ownership and accountability. >> Okay? And not just the leadership, but people like you who seem like decent people. We need to see you calling out your own the same way you would see conservatives call out their own here if someone were to be violent. We need to see that that rhetoric be toned down and changed completely. We're not fascist. We're not racist. We're not transphobic. We have disagreements of opinions. >> I agree with you. >> And then as far as crime, um we need to go back to the crime policies that we had that worked and the left altered. We don't need to work together. We need the left, these judges, these DAs to go back to punishing. >> Question for you. Isn't crime sort of a state issue? I mean, you have state judges. You have state penal codes. These state judges are elected by popular vote. What does the federal government what can the left even do? What is what can even do? >> So that that would need to that would need to come from those in charge in these blue districts. For example, these judges who let people go 10 15 times. Uh for example, in New York where DA there's no cash bail. There's catch and release. It's literally an IOU. Hey, will you come back to court even though you committed armed robbery? Yeah. Yeah, I promise I will. Free to go. And they murder somebody. The left needs to fix this. We can't because you don't have the same political violence on the right and you don't have the same revolving door of crime in red districts. These are facts and it's not working and people are getting tired of it. So, those would be the two solutions, but here's a QR code if you'd like to look that up. And Jacob, I really do appreciate you sitting down and having um a civil discussion. I appreciate you having >> and please please do go anytime you see it condemn it and let people see you condemning those kinds of action because I think I think you can make a at least you can make a big impact in your circle of friends. I mean it mean >> thank you. Thanks for having me on. >> Thank you, brother. Appreciate it. Be well. >> You know what? Jacob's all right by me. That was a solid conversation. Even though we didn't agree on every detail or maybe even most details, you can tell that he sat down in good faith, has a good head on his shoulders, heart seems like it's in the right place. We were able to engage. And up next was this strapping young gentleman, Connor from San Francisco. I know, I know what you're thinking, but it's not entirely that. Hear him out. >> So, the premise that I'm asserting today >> Mhm. discussing is of course there's violence that takes place on all sides but the tenor tone temperature today the increasing we haven't gone more than three days we have a serious violent attack >> uh is predominantly coming from the left um that's not by accident >> and it's becoming unsustainable for us in the country if you disagree >> you're more than welcome to change my mind >> so I guess just to quickly clarify I can agree that there's been significantly more at least from my perspective violence on the left as of late 100% but throughout history I think there's there's been violence that has occurred from right-wing ideology, leftwing ideology. And so I wonder what's the line just to kind of clarify before I get into my main claim of what's the difference between there being violence on the left and then the left as a whole being violent. I guess that's where I want to understand the line. >> Well, that's fair. And um and before you get to a claim, because we had a lot of people make claims outside of the topic, I do want to try and stay on uh the topic today. Um >> an act of violence would be, for example, someone on the left, >> Charlie Kirk, >> being assassinated. Would we agree? Absolutely. >> Left his father. Okay. >> Here's the reason that this is such a boiling point >> is because not only a non-elected official, Charlie Kirk was assassinated in cold blood publicly. Um, directly inspired by the rhetoric of the leadership from the left, the mainstream leadership from the left, to be clear, fascist Nazi, right? If he's a fascist than a Nazi, then I'm Himmler >> because he was much more moderate than I am. Don't let the demeanor fool you. I will sit down and talk with anyone, but I am not moderate by any means. I agree. >> And then the so the gleeful celebration thereafter >> I can tell you I've never seen more people leave the left. Uh co would be number two. >> Mhm. >> People said I didn't realize that my friends would celebrate this kind of blood lust. Uh and then poll after poll for example after the assassination in cold blood of Charlie Kirk. The yuggov poll showed that 77% of self-identified conservatives opposed political violence in all forms only 38% of liberals. And there were other snapshot polls that show that the left supports political violence in one degree from varying degrees at a ratio of six to1 to conservatives. And after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, over 60% of those on the left said that it was somewhat to completely acceptable. You do not find an equivalent on the right. Does that answer your question? >> Uh to an extent. I think I think I guess where I'm I kind of want to further clarify is so I can agree that the current climate and the current rhetoric has definitely pushed people towards violence, but we can I think we can agree that certain ideas can exist outside of the current climate, right? certain maybe um things in the left or like >> like higher marginal tax rates. >> Higher marginal tax rates or maybe like someone being like let's say progay marriage or just something some traditionally leftwing policies. >> Sure. I I would say that progressivism and leftism is inherently violent as an ideology because seizing the means of production and distribution requires force >> in comparison to uh traditional conservatism. But yes, the ideals for example can exist outside of violence. Yes. >> Okay. I guess that that clarifies it. And I guess then I want to ask because I'm a Christian myself. I know you are as well. Yeah. >> Um >> I saw watch your show and I you know I was really really frustrated with the whole Charlie situation. I was kind of distraught about it and I didn't know how to kind of move forward and I know you said on your show that as a right we need to have correct me if I'm wrong righteous lawful violence against the against people who want to perpetrate you know events like this. And I guess I just wonder how do we deal with that to be firm and call a spade a spade but then also not and set our own rhetoric back because I think that I see how I'm from San Francisco so >> I'm sorry. >> It's okay. Yeah. First flip. >> How many poop piles have you had to physically avoid? Or are you far away from downtown? Just the Bay Area. >> Um I'm I'm I'm I'm in the city but I'm not close downtown. So I'm a little bit ways from it but a few. Actually the first political video I ever watched was your video over here at SMU. Okay. And I didn't even know but so all right. But um I guess what I'm trying to say is I guess yeah, where is that line? Because I do worry again as someone who wants to be Christian, who wants to, you know, evangelize and bring people to my point of view. Yeah. How do I do that without again being like ostracizing, I guess? Sure. You know, >> um I'll tell you where the line is right now. It's the law. >> Yeah. >> And what I mean is um and I've talked to people about this quite a bit, you know. Um uh and and and Charlie did his his own thing and his own version, which was very different, you know, but um I started this in 2016, 2017. there really only two people who know what it's like to be in that share, >> right? >> Um even though they're different, but I'm saying it's the most comparable thing. Um and this is not the first time we've had to have this kind of security. Um I don't know if you saw we had a highlight reel of >> the attacks, the rocks, the punches, uh the milkshakes. And here's the thing, there have been times in the past where I have put myself and my team at risk when I would have been well within my lawful rights to not. And what I'm saying is >> uh you're so you may not be super familiar with hockey. Are are do you >> a little bit I've seen a few games. >> So let me draw an analogy for you. What I'm talking about is within the bounds of the law and the term I used I believe my words were ruthless lawful violence in defense of our righteous on accident. >> Uh no it was worse. I said ruthless. Uh and I don't run from it and I and I stand by it. >> Changing the temperature and tone. So the last time we were at SMU >> or that first time I should say uh one of the camp uh There are two genders changed my mind. Is that that one? >> I believe so. SM was one of the first ones that was >> the some of the first ones I was with a sandwich board in a morph suit because it wasn't it didn't start on campus. >> I remember I remember you'd walk around the >> Yeah. And then and then I had someone shoved me and I was like oh I can't defend myself. I'm basically a mascot. Um there was someone who worked there at SMU who said why do these guys this was back then. Why do these guys need all this kind of security? My dad was my security back then. >> He said my Angela spoke here. She didn't need that. >> Mhm. And my dad said to him, he said, "And why do you think that is?" >> Yeah. >> And you could see his face change and he got it. And he said, "We'll get you what you need." >> Then unfortunately, we had faculty and we had people in the administration who made us move. That put us at risk. We had the right to be there. >> Um, we had people come up and commit acts of violence. We had people pick up rocks. I don't know if it's SMU, TCU, try and hit me over the head with it. And what we did was we said, "Hey, hey, hey, please stop." We would move locations. Um, and I've had members of my team um, assaulted as a result. And what I'm saying is we need to change the tenor and tone. Let me really clarify this. Hopefully this helps. I hope that people out there like uh, what's his name? Destiny. >> Yeah. >> I hope that he is able to do his copycat, change my mind with no security as he does now for the rest of his life. >> Right. >> And I have never called anyone to go commit acts of violence. >> Right. >> I want them to be deathly afraid of coming into our group >> and assaulting our own. I feel like a shepherd, an unwilling shepherd who didn't do his best to protect his flock. >> Right. And would you sort of lean on I know I know Charlie talks about this a lot, but the commandment of >> it's not thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not murder. And so are you you're saying that we should again be able to use the law just you're just saying to defend. >> What I'm saying is today if someone lifts a rock to come hit me over the head, >> um he won't be asked to put it down. He'll be tackled. >> Right. And if there are enough of those, there'll be less rocks being thrown for the same reason that we see lower gun crime uh in areas where we have higher gun ownership. Let me use an example for you. Hockey. So, I don't know if you know this, but in hockey, there were people who were called enforcers for a long time. >> They didn't score any goals their entire career. They just fought. >> Uh and it was very important. Here's why. >> Yeah. >> Because let's say Wayne Gretzky, he wouldn't allow himself to be traded unless he had Dave Seamano and I believe Msurley traded with him because they protected him. The reason why these guys just fought >> is because a penalty from the ref, the government, putting you in a penalty box is worth it for a player on the other team if he breaks Wayne Gretzky's knee and he can't play in the playoffs, right? >> The consequence was Samco or Mcurley is going to come out and beat the out of you, >> right? They're going to enforce it. So, what happened is >> there were fewer injuries. >> Uh there's a player named Crosby who had more concussions in one season when they changed those rules than Gretzky had his entire career. Having those enforcers on the bench as rarely as they had to fight set the tone where there was self enforcement >> and we do have laws that allow us to protect ourselves and unfortunately we've foregone them to the point where now you have liberal prosecutors DAs and judges where you have someone like D Carlos Brown Jr. who was let out 14 times before he killed Zerutka on the subway. And you know what else? The culture of passivity is why no one helped her. >> And she died in public but she died alone. And I don't think that's empathy, >> right? >> That's I hope that clarifies. It's changing the temperature where they they don't think we're sitting ducks. >> Yeah. No, I can agree on that. I think you've changed my mind on the the understanding of that. I guess I guess where I'm still like my minor disagreement is again I know people who are maybe more classical liberal or moderate to San Francisco standards. So take that as you will. um who did mourn the death of Charlie Kirk but won't change their mind and go to the right but I still wouldn't call those people violent even though they're on the left. I could agree maybe extreme leftism is violent. I could you know >> no I'm not calling them violent >> so but I I understand that but I guess my concern is then with the again I think you're a very intelligent person. I think you're very thoughtful and I think you think about things have your sources but I know a lot of people aren't. >> You give me too much credit sir but thank you. But let's just say again, I know people on campus who will uh quote, you know, I don't want to name drop these influencers, you know, who say things online and they have far less credibility, haven't done their research, and then they take something with this and run with it to an extent that I think could then backfire. And that's why >> I agree with you on that. And I think I'm I I will say uh intelligent. I don't know. I'm smart enough. Okay. >> I'm very careful with my language and I'm very meticulous in my sourcing. >> Yeah. >> This show and by the way, guy who deserves credit is there are people back here. We make so you can scan the QR code. We make all of our references available for every show >> because I'm trying to be as responsible as possible. >> And the reason I try and be clear as response and as responsible as possible is because I also don't want to softwalk it. >> I also want to when I say righteous, ruthless, lawful violence, I am not saying that those people are violent. But here's the thing >> and I've talked to Sorry. I do have I have with this bulletproof vest, it causes >> belching hip and chest quite a bit. >> Yeah. Is that what it is? Oh, you are San Francisco, sir. Uh, if you're a heterosexual, you must it must be annoying in San Francisco because you must get you must get people making pass at you all the time. Uh, I come on, you're a young guy. We all know. Let's not act like we don't know what we're talking about here. Um, >> I I agree with you. I think there's a a real problem and we call out clickbait culture >> um quite a bit um and people will say things to get clicks. I think that you will see with us we're remarkably consistent and I am consistent in this. saying predominantly the left and I don't think there's an offramp. Here's why. You can't point me to a single example on the right at all recently comparable to Charlie Kirk. Meaning a non-elected official being assassinated as an act of terrorism in cold blood and every single vigil memorial afterwards being desecrated by people on the left. Well, people from us. >> People from us. Sorry. So the left collectively >> killed one of our guys and then came into our they're so unafraid came into our spaces and committed more crimes. >> That temperature needs to change. And here's the thing. If your friends are truly peaceful, if those they would have no problem with it. >> Yeah. >> Just like I have no problem with someone else owning a gun, >> right? >> I want I hope that everyone everyone here who can lawfully carry is carrying because I'm not concerned with them. >> Yeah. It was actually something you changed my mind on when I was you know from San Francisco. So you can imagine where my default view >> I was raised in Canada where we didn't have it was the magical closet of mystery and it was a disassembled shotgun. Yeah, I get it. >> So I guess I guess that I guess so do you think that inherent to the left this idea of no guns, no, you know, kind of self-defense is sort of like looked down upon in San Francisco. Um we had a family friend of ours who I won't go into it cuz I don't want to like you know give their information away, but they self out of self-defense. This is when Kamala was um in charge and she wanted to persecute this man for beating up somebody not with a gun with a a flashlight who came into his house who was escaped from or not escape just got released from San Quinton who had a history of violence uh sexual violence and he was in his house looking at his daughter's room and tried to persecute her or prosecute her >> um and so I can see where that line is dangerous but I guess again how do we if there I don't see a world where we can change that ideology fully so how do we get them to maybe agree on like we need to uphold the law. Yeah. >> On our own as well as again change people's mind how you're doing. >> Sure. They won't agree. Now, it's funny that you bring that up because there's an example of um and I have dual citizenship. I was born in Detroit but raised in Canada from 3 to 18. >> Um a man beat a home intruder at 3:00 a.m. in his house. No, in in Canada. >> Okay. >> Uh beat him and then he was brought up on charges because I said it was excessive. In my opinion, killing an intruder in your house at 3:00 a.m. who was there to cause harm is not to is not extreme. I don't even think it's immoral. Um, he beat him up. So, this is not an accident. You mentioned in San Francisco, Camala Harris. That's by design. The man was released 14 times before uh killing Zerusa on that subway. Not only that, you know who else we could say that about? >> George Floyd. >> George Floyd. I can't remember. Sixes and nines. I have like this weird dyslexia. It was either six or nine times that he was caught and released. He robbed a woman at gunpoint with her child present. And so the left disarms people. >> You pregnant or did you have a child? >> She wasn't pregnant. That was that was misinformation that a lot of people put out there and we clarified and that's part of the problem that we're discussing. People go >> the truth is not. >> It was a three or fouryear-old toddler there. That's awful. >> It's sexier to say she was pregnant. And so people believe a lie and then when you go out, not you, but when people go out and argue a lie, someone on the left goes, "See, you believe the fake news." >> Yeah. Yeah. which is why we try and be accurate. But systemically, the left >> needs to take accountability of their rhetoric. >> Your friends need to call out their ranks the same way that we do on the right. Um, and we also need to change the systemic soft on crime policy that we have seen. And the reason for that is because >> if you keep someone in jail, it's racism. If you, for example, force them to post bail, it's classism. So we have repeat offenders committing crimes. to the left will say they're peaceful, >> right? >> But invariably they always enable crime and violence. >> Yeah. So is the issue that the policy enables it or is it that is inherent to it? Cuz I can see, not that I agree with, but I can see the perspective of okay, >> you know, you can even stand on a veiled Christian argument here. We say, "Oh, well, everyone's worth redeeming, everyone's worth redemption." So therefore, maybe we be a little bit softer because we want people to be in society. We want people to reform. I don't I agree it's not working. But do you think that that idea >> I think there's nothing Christian about it. >> Can you explain that? I don't think there's anything Christian about someone committing a violent crime, and not facing justice. We serve a God of justice. >> Yeah. >> Um I I I and I don't think that you'll find anything in the Bible, Old Testament or New, that justifies uh Kid Glove's treatment of violent criminals. >> I will say this, the left wants you um scared, dependent, dumb, and numb. Right? That's what they want if they could have their policy because it's a people more easily controlled. That sound like a good portion of San Francisco? >> No. >> Really? It doesn't considering considering that we've enabled drug culture in San needle exchange. You're a criminal. Uh you know we're going to punish the person who protects their house. I'm saying >> San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago. You see what the left wants and they want that for the rest of the country. >> Do you think they do want that? I guess that's where that's where I'm I'm struggling. So I I think possibly that there are certain politicians who I can name or I think that are doing that. I think want genuinely want the what was worse for America. I don't think Ilan Omar wants something good for America. But I do think there are people who I meet like I've I've seen the mayor of San Francisco around. I don't think that person um Daniel Luri wants those things to happen. But I think he comes from a place of this sounds nice. Oh, like let's be nice on crime. And then it leads to an extremist view that isn't again inherent with the left, but it's because it sounds like a nice idea. It sounds to me at least it sounds like I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying it sounds oh sure at a cocktail party. Oh, like why don't we why don't why why doesn't everybody just get out of jail and be kaya and swing right? Like that sounds nice, but I I I guess that's where I'm wondering. Like I do think some people in their heart of hearts believe that that is what they're trying to advocate for, but it leads to more extreme people who do have maybe nefarious. >> I don't think it's extreme. I think it's mainstream leftism. And here's where I here's where I think >> cuz I used to be more like you. >> Um I will tell you the difference between the the difference between 2008 me where you can see me with the blue bed sheet on YouTube. There were no Christians on YouTube. there were no conservatives in 2012 me 2015 and today >> is um it's gotten worse and I'm willing to have conversations but I think it's important to separate those who actually want to have conversations and those who simply want chaos and violence and I will say that is a fundamental precept of the left you say you think they want what's good for America they don't want America they want something else >> if you're not entitled to protect your family and your own that's not American >> if you're not allowed to raise your child as you see fit Barring abuse, >> that's not American. The idea, let's look at, hey, Joe Biden, he said it's an act of evil to not affirm your child's transition. >> Yeah. >> Does that seem like we just have a difference of opinion? He said it's evil. Let's look at Camala Harris. Transgender inmates, taxpayer funded sex surgery, as well as disarming the populace. Walls, his state is a sanctuary state. where if you have a 9-year-old wants to transition and you say no, they can flee to his state in Minnesota and they will hide your child from they will hide your child from you to protect them because of the abuse of not allowing their child. Does that seem like these people want America? They want a fundamentally different country. >> Yeah. >> They don't they don't want what's good for America. They want something other than America. >> And that's why you need to be disarmed and that's why you need to be made passive. >> Do you think that the does it does it's a really good point. I didn't know the thing about some walls. >> Oh, it's e it's evil. Yeah, >> it's not even the only state. So, do you think that again I I wonder I I often think I want to again see okay you have these lefting policies or views or whatever you want to call it um if you're not a policy or views if you're not a politician and let's say you know you're very like protransgenderism I I sometimes argue that well it's very difficult to have that stance because if I can't say 100% of the time that you're a man then how am I going to say how I can treat a man or how can I treat a woman because we need to have a society that can first observe a universal truth and then therefore so do you think those those maybe like secondary ideologies are coming in place or oh sorry they come maybe sorry they don't come in first like you start with something like a Medicare or Medicaid and then gay marriage and then now it's now it's where it is today. Do you think that um the point of that is to get to a place where we can't say anything is wrong and that we can kind of you know do what we want or I guess what your thoughts >> No, I think you're on the right track. I think they want to replace and I see the the crucifix that you have um replace God with a state. I agree >> because God says men are men and women are women, >> right? >> God says that he he made women uh women from man's rib because it was not good for man to be alone. And he says that men have a role and women have a role. >> The left in this country says there's no such thing as men or women and we're equal in all facets. By the way, let's get rid of pull-ups from the military. That's how extreme they go. Uh God says that you were fearfully, wonderfully created and he knew every hair on your head before you were born. The lip says it's not a life until it leaves the vaginal lips. And I don't say that to be shocking. I say it because they're not just talking about in utero. They're not just talking about the uterus. Literally a 9-month old, you have not found one Democrat >> on a national platform who would put any limits on abortion whatsoever when asked, "Hey, is 9 months too late?" They always say, "We won't give a definitive answer." They'll give a definitive answer though on your right to own a firearm. >> Right? >> I think it's f here's how you deal with it. Here's how I deal with it. >> People who are willing to sit down and have a conversation, great. >> I try and be respectful, polite, but I think that bluntness is a more valuable tool at this point. um because we've allowed it to go too far and anyone who raises a hand in violence needs to be dealt with >> within the fullness of our lawful right to self-defense. >> I think it's it's an A or B. There's a gray area, but not everything is as nuanced as the left wants you to believe because if everything is nuanced and nothing is true, >> then we don't know up from down. >> Yeah, I agree. >> And uh and I I don't want to see you uh I don't know what you what you're studying, but you understand Charlie Kirk was hunted. >> Yeah. Just as I have been hunted, just as my father has been hunted, there's a reason he's not. He used to be my security. He's not here because he's too recognizable and people have taken shots at him. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You're one viral expost or one good video where you make a good point away from being hunted as well. >> That's not America. >> Yeah. >> That's not America. >> Yeah. >> I guess last question. I don't disagree enough to honestly have to go on. But um as someone who I think again like I think the most fun one of the most fundamental values to like my Christian beliefs are that every human is equal and created in the image of God. >> Yep. >> So I guess I have something in again if I someone broke into my house and I had to come balance against them. Something against and within myself is a bit scared of that possibility. A bit like sad for that possibility. And so I guess again like how do you from a biblical or from a spiritual or I would say biblical but some people say spiritual perspective. >> Yeah. The San Francisco white ladies. I'm not religious. I'm very spiritual. Oh, I am just as a demographic. It's okay. >> I don't want to I don't want to point fingers. Someone watch this and I know a few of those. But uh uh >> All right. I'll point them for you. >> How do you how do you how do you deal with that? And how do you >> I'm not sad at all. >> Yeah. >> You know why? Cuz I have a child sleeping in that house. >> Yeah. >> It's my duty. Let's separate this into feelings and duty. >> Yeah. If you have a wife, if you have children, >> if you have a flock, is it your duty as a shepherd to protect that flock? >> Yeah. >> Go fulfill your duty. >> No. >> And don't feel bad about it. >> That doesn't mean that you go out and kill other flocks. >> Yeah. >> It's your duty to protect that flock. I had a Christian, someone who spoke Christianes very close to me. Now, I don't want to point fingers. Uh who said, "You know what?" And I watched my dad have this conver dad's the best man I've ever known. I use him as an example because I grew up and he always had these conversations. She said, "I wouldn't be able to I wouldn't be able to take a life if that man was in my house." My dad said, "Yeah, what if he's currently mounting your wife?" He said, he said, "Well," my dad said, "What kind of a man are you?" >> Right. >> He said, "Cuz I don't count you amongst us." >> And that's what I believe. I don't think I don't think that you go out and you seek violence. >> Absolutely. >> The most dangerous man is one who's actively avoided violence and has been brought to his front door. >> Right. I think Charlie I think Charlie Boy this certainly qualifies. I'm not saying that in the uh reference to Charlie Kirk. That's a quote from the film The Edge. This certainly qualifies where we are >> and as long as no one comes here and tries to eradicate us, attack us, >> they can sit down just as you. But the thing is Charlie Kirk and myself, we've managed to avoid all kinds of violence. >> People like us sat down at a table and would talk with anyone who would listen. They took his life anyway and they've tried to take mine. >> Yeah. >> So I'm not playing that game anymore. What uh I I mean I know you stopped for a little bit, but why seems a little bit illogical. Someone gets assassinated, then you go back. Why what gave you the courage to do that? >> I'm different from uh people, funny enough, people like Charlie and I have friends, for example, I have a friend Andrew Wilson who goes out and debates. His head pops off the pillow. It's like, who can I debate today? >> Yeah. >> Um I don't like it. I'm a very unwilling participant. >> Yeah. >> I did it because I felt that it was necessary. >> Um And honestly, I'll tell you, it was kind of a relief when it got to the point where it was so expensive uh because of the security risks where I kind of alleviated myself. I was like, you know what, okay, it doesn't make sense. And I always wanted students to do it. >> Um it was always taking >> it was always designed to highlight the failure of the institutions. In other words, having these conversations Yeah. because I would ask students, why do you think this is the first time that you're hearing this considering that they're going to these great schools? Right. Yeah. >> And then unfortunately a lot of people and I'm not talking about Charlie Kirk who did his own thing that was separate but there were a lot of other people who copied it and morphed it and it became about dunking and it became about making fun of uneducated students whereas I actually have a heart for them because they've been failed. >> Mh. >> And so because of the security risks I kind of thought you know what I don't I don't need to do it anymore. People have taken it on themselves. I can do what I'm best at which is a daily show that's largely comedy. >> It's important now >> that the left knows we're not afraid. >> Yeah. Cuz when they say tone down the temperature to us, I said, "Do you mean like sitting down at a table and having a conversation?" Because the only way to tone it down further is silence. It's >> true. >> That's the reason I'm back here. For better or worse, >> when I do think when you see Destiny or Asan one of these guys going out, they have a harder time doing for some reason, I don't know what it is, maybe, but they have a harder time holding a conversation without being so calm >> and with no security or very little. >> Yeah. >> They don't need the same kind of uh safety measures that we do. And that needs to change. That needs to change. What thing was it? Uh what was your name? Connor, >> I have a mug at home. I wish I would let you mind if I get a picture really quick with you. >> No, absolutely. That's fine. Just slow motion so that the security guys, you know, you don't want them jump. >> Absolutely. Conor, >> I'm a really big fan of yours. So, >> thank you, Connor. I appreciate it. You think you're going to settle in Texas or go back to California? >> Uh, it depends. I mean, I'm I really like tech and like AI, so I'm I'm drawn to that for the job purposes, but I like living here a little bit better. >> Okay. Few reasons. >> Well, maybe split the difference in Austin and live on the outskirts. Uh, >> Austin, I don't want to live in Austin. >> No, I know it's gross, too. Thank you, brother. I appreciate it. Thank you. Be well. You know, at San Francisco aside, I'd vote for Connor for governor of California. There'd probably be fewer piles of human feces requiring an app to track. Up next, and this one's a little bit of a flyer, but we thought we should include it anyway because why not? >> Attakus. >> Attakus. >> Nice to meet you, sir. G
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.