Steven Crowder discusses dangerous mainstreaming of pedophilia

Glenn had Steven Crowder on his radio program Tuesday to discuss an article on Salon.com by a self described pedophile, who said, "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?"

When Glenn first read the article, he said he thought the author must have had a really horrible childhood.

"You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it," Glenn said "As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster."

Crowder, who wrote a rebuttle to the article, put it in a slightly different way.

"I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet," Crowder said. "If you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Steven Crowder is a good friend of the program. And been with us since really we launched TheBlaze. And has gone off and done his own thing. And is on with Dana an awful lot. He is really funny. Really, really smart. And we're honored to have him on the program with us. Steven Crowder, from LouderWithCrowder.com. Now doing a show in Detroit on WAAM. You don't have to be in Detroit to do that, do you, Steven?

STEVEN: No, thank God, I don't. How dare you with that lofty phrase before bringing me out here. Now people are going to have actual expectations.

GLENN: Right. So, Steven, you read an article on Salon. And I've been fascinated by this because I was fast food by the story on Salon where they have a pedophile who said, "I'm a pedophile, but I'm not a monster," which is interesting. "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?" Now, I read the first article. And I should say, I didn't sit down and read it. I read it while I was on the air, so I read it quickly. But what I saw in it was, okay, you've had a really horrible childhood. Really horrible. You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it. As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster.

STEVEN: Yeah, you know, I still think -- you're not quite monster, you're like Alice Cooper transitioning. It's sort of your stage at that point. Because if you're having sexual thoughts about kids and impulses, you know, it becomes incredibly problematic.

So I did write a response. And, listen, Glenn, I won't walk it back at all. Let me give some context to people. I said, I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet. I'm not going to walk that back. Now, what I did say was if you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building. Now, that's symbolism, Glenn, and I'm a comedian. So you shouldn't take it literally. What I'm saying is, you deserve a mental institution. You need to be locked away. Because for me, my priority is making sure the kids are not sexually molested. Making pedophiles feel good about themselves occurs way down the list, like into the seven digits.

And I wrote a rebuttal at Salon.com. My week in the right-wing hate machine didn't get my name right. So I'm thinking, what kind of a cosmic bunny hole did I fall into that a pedophile gets to call me a right-wing monster without even getting my name right?

He compares me to Nazis, Glenn. And his plight to that of the Jews in Auschwitz. So Salon gave him this platform. Now, you know me -- I'm up there in your wonderful affiliate in Detroit. Of course, I do it remotely. Thank God.

But I will admit, I do not in any way -- I'm not the guy who calls for boycotts. I don't believe in them. But in this case, I'm going, okay, the guy is calling me out. He's comparing me to Hitler. I might do a little bit of digging.

It turns out, this guy has had a lot of information out there for a long time. You know, allegedly, from what he has written, he has groomed children. Now, grooming is a pedophile term used to mean introducing them to sexualization. And he directly contradicts what he wrote in Salon.

GLENN: Okay. How do you say he groomed people? What evidence do you have on that?

STEVEN: From his own user name on a message board where he repeatedly talked about being a pedophile and he referred to one of his companions as Kay. The code name he used was Kay. All available information I have confirms that this is the guy without a doubt.

GLENN: And what did he say about grooming?

STEVEN: Here's the thing, it's kind of like if you go on to drug message boards, they use the term "swim." I don't know if you know that. Like, someone I know, not me. I don't know what it stands for. So he was saying, you know, I wouldn't quite say I groomed Kay, but I brushed her hair out of her face on occasion.

Now, grooming is a pedophile term that often includes introducing them to pornography, establishing a romantic relationship, giving romantic gifts. And there is him directly saying -- in Salon, he said I would never act on this. That was the linchpin. That was what provided the propriety to post it on Salon. Well, this guy wants pedophiles to get better.

But we found a post from him where he directly said, if we lived in a much more sex friendly society, of course, I would engage in a sexual relationship with a young girl. And he argues that he's more qualified, pedophiles are more qualified to determine consent than parents because they're more in tune with the romantic needs of children. So this is the thing, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STEVEN: I want to be really clear. People can go to LouderWithCrowder.com. We're going to set up a website where people can sign a petition. All I'm requesting -- because I'm a web guy. This shouldn't occur on message boards. But I do think it warrants some kind of investigating from the FBI. Because if Salon is giving an actual pedophile a platform and he is saying these things, that goes beyond the realm of friendly combat and politics on blogs. And I think it's something that requires some serious addressing.

GLENN: Wow, I would agree with that. There's no harm, no foul in looking into something.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: You don't think they will actually look into it, do you?

STEVEN: Salon. I don't know.

GLENN: No, I mean the Justice Department. Is this going to the Justice Department?

STEVEN: Well, I know people have been investigated for far less from the FBI regarding child pornography.

GLENN: No, hang on just a second. They will investigate you for far less, but they're not going to investigate Salon for far less.

STEVEN: Well, I want them to investigate this guy, and hopefully Salon can provide some information.

Listen, you're right. You're right. I'll be audited like clockwork. Believe me, I'm expecting it. But maybe Salon didn't know this about this guy that he could be a more active pedophile than they knew.

So the petition is really just to get either Salon to investigate. And if they don't want to do that, get the Justice Department. Hopefully they do. I don't know, Glenn. I could be ignorant. You could be right. Maybe the Justice Department has no interest in finding who is a pedophile, who is not. I could have five on my block, and I would never know. You never know. That's the problem.

And it ruins everything. These people ruin everything. Because you know what the problem is? You and I can't play with like the neighbor's kid anymore. You can't just say hi and make stupid faces. You're worried. You don't know who is a sex offender, and we don't prosecute them.

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com is where you'll find this.

STU: You would think with the way it's presented -- let's give Salon the benefit of the doubt, which they do not deserve in any way. But someone comes to them and says, I'm a pedophile. I want to make a case that this should be accepted. And because I'm not acting on it, it's okay. And they don't know about these postings. Maybe they post this as obviously they are the biggest click bait people in the universe. So they are dying for anyone to click on anything. So maybe they post it without checking it out. But when you're giving them the information that this guy has actually admitted this in the past, it's a totally different standard for them. They should look into it themselves. If they don't, what does that say about their organization?

STEVEN: I think you're right. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the best scenario. Let's say a pedophile comes to TheBlaze. Glenn, obviously I'm not.

GLENN: Let's use another website. Let's say a pedophile comes to LouderWithCrowder.com.

STEVEN: Okay. And it's much more likely. You should see the private messages I get. I wouldn't put it past some of the people who request to contribute.

So someone comes to LouderWithCrowder.com and says, hey, I'm a pedophile. I say, well, what does that mean? They say, well, I'm sexually attracted to children, but I don't act on it. And I would like to write about it on your site. Okay. Let's assume that's the scenario. I can't imagine any parallel universe in which any answer could possibly be appropriate other than no.

(laughter)

STU: That's a fair point.

PAT: It is. It is when you put it like that. You make it sound bad.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Steven, let's play devil's advocate here. And actually devil's advocate.

STEVEN: Okay.

GLENN: Somebody who says, "I am tortured by this. I had a horrible childhood. I was molested as a kid, and I don't act on it -- I have these feelings. I want them to stop. I want them to stop. And I want people to know what it's like being trapped inside of me."

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I think that is actually an interesting story to read. However, let me just say, if it is happening at theBlaze.com, I do a personal investigation myself. I mean, I have everybody -- we have -- we investigate you inside and out to make sure that you are who you say you are and you haven't been on websites, you know, grooming children or anything else. And we as a company would be very, very clear. We don't endorse him, his activities. We are -- he's approached us with this particular story. And we think this particular part of the story is interesting.

STEVEN: Okay. Well, I don't want to speak for TheBlaze. I'll speak for myself. That situation occurred. The molester said, I think my story is important and I could help people. Speaking on behalf of Louder with Crowder, I would say, have you read the comments section? This is not the place to tell your story. This is not a friendly audience. You better go on a couch with a qualified therapist because my platform is not the one for you.

Now, let me give you another comparison. I hate how people bandy about the Nazi comparison. I think if you're talking about an active pedophile, it's getting into the realm of evil that's comparable to the worst evil.

If Hitler walked in. Let's say he was in the cryogenic freezer. You know, Austin Powers. Came out. And he came to me and he said, "Listen, I screwed up. I was very wrong. I would like to come to your barbecue." I would say, "Hey, listen, Hitler, sorry man. I'm glad -- sounds like you've made some real progress. Let's try to create some momentum with that. But you won't come to my barbecue. It's not the place for you."

(laughter)

PAT: I like that you're going to create some momentum with that though, just to help him out on the side.

(laughter)

GLENN: You are truly a funny guy. You are really funny. It will be too bad when we have to have you destroyed in Detroit.

(laughter)

And left by the side of the road at night. Steven, let me change the subjects with you.

STEVEN: Yes.

GLENN: Let me go to Donald Trump. Where do you stand on Donald Trump?

STEVEN: Are you really going to do this to me right now? You know what you're doing.

STU: Big time conservative, right?

GLENN: Big time conservative, right?

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: I would love to make you even more popular. Pedophiles and Trump people are going to love you.

STEVEN: Yes, exactly. Well, let me tell you this, Glenn. As someone who works at TheBlaze, I'm not a big Trump fan. Here's something that is very interesting to me. And new media is great. And I'll bring it back to Trump really quickly. So new media is great because it gives someone like me the same kind of a platform as, you know, someone like you, someone like Fox News who has been around for a long time. I'm able to reach a lot of people, so I'm grateful. Here's the problem, particularly with Facebook, right? Facebook curates what you like. They go, here's your feed. Social media says you like this. You're sharing this. We'll show you more of this. We'll not show you the stuff you're not engaging with.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: So the problem with Trump. I think there's this myth that Fiorina is the establishment candidate compared to Trump. And for all of her faults compared to Trump, who gave hundreds of thousands to the Clintons, who had the Clintons at the family wedding, who supported her in her Senate race, who got up there and supported liberal policies time and time again. Here's the problem, people are so dead-set on selling Trump because like you used the term earlier, click bait. Right? I know Trump is great for ratings to websites.

So these conservative websites, many of them now, let's be honest, work alongside Trump, have been giving people a steady diet for five, six, seven months of nothing but pro-Trump. And anything even remotely critical of Trump -- here's the thing, Glenn -- doesn't even show up in people's news feed. So you want to talk about an echo chamber. The people who are on board with Trump, I get why he exists. I understand it's backlash to the establishment Republican Party. I get it. That's valid. The problem is they've become like the Obama supporters. It's a cult of personality. And you can't even get any remote criticism no matter how valid of Trump in their news feed.

So there is a group of people for whom nobody but Trump will do. So my problem doesn't rest so much with Trump, but for conservatives and conservative media -- and I know you're not among them, so please don't think I'm lumping this with you, but there are some of them out there that have a vested interest in maintaining clicks. And I know for a fact that some of the top conservative websites out there have policies out to their writers, nothing negative of Trump because they don't want to risk the backslash or the boycotts. And I hate to see ball-less conservatives. I hate to see it.

GLENN: Steven, great to have you on. We'll talk again. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.