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.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?