Greetings, dear reader.
So, let’s talk about a certain vehicle. I really hope things settle down, but who knows? Let’s dive in.
Your disapproval doesn’t matter.
This morning, my newsletter touches on the topic of when self-defense might justifiably become violent. I’d say it was a pretty intense call for action, though I still think that no one should experience violence for their views or expressions. That’s precisely why I’m advocating for self-defense.
It seems like violence is often weaponized as a means to suppress political opposition. Recent events illustrate this well. Just look at what’s happening in Manhattan and at Tennessee State University. In many cases, officials tasked with upholding the law instead turn a blind eye, and this inaction seems to lean heavily in one political direction.
If I have any regrets, it’s that I might have stirred up trouble for the good folks at Daily Caller. I was part of that brand for eight years. It’s clear some liberal groups want to dismantle that legacy, so I get the feeling many are keeping a close watch on it.
I had a brief chat with Neil Patel, the majority owner, later that day.
“I’ve got your back,” he said, which felt rather supportive.
In layman’s terms, it seemed like he was saying I shouldn’t make things more complicated.
Now let’s get creative.
The same day I released my column, Greg Lukianov faced a case that inspired me to coin my thoughts.
During a public discussion, pro-life journalist Savanna Craven was violently attacked on camera. District Attorney Alvin Bragg, known for his controversial indictment of Donald Trump, ultimately dropped the case against her assailant.
Bragg’s office claimed they missed submission deadlines, which feels a bit like dodging responsibility.
Lukianov, from FreeSpeech Org Fire, summed it all up succinctly.
“If you refuse to prosecute violence against a political opponent, that violence starts to seem like an accepted part of the system,” he noted on X.
What he implies is that when a specific type of aggression, often from the left, is ignored, it starts to normalize as an acceptable practice.
From a more artistic angle, I believe that conservatives looking to lawfully assemble not only have a responsibility to bolster their security but also a moral obligation to challenge this troubling trend of endorsing leftist violence.
“Street Blood.”
This phrase from my column resonated with many. I admit, I was furious. The intensity of my anger hasn’t felt this profound since my first tour in Iraq, at least not regarding something that felt so personal.
There’s already blood staining the streets. Just ask Erica Kirk. Or ask Craven. The same goes for anyone like Billboard Chris, or even Jewish students trying to attend classes at elite universities following the October 7th attack.
I wish I could ask Iryna Zarutska what happened, but sadly, she can’t answer anymore. She fell victim to a man with multiple prior arrests, released by a judge seemingly indifferent to the law.
Consider Mark Crosby, aged 73, and Richard Schafer, 84. Both were hospitalized after being assaulted by Patrick Blythe, 28, in an act of sheer aggression.
Blythe was initially looking at 30 years but instead got what could be seen as a “get out of jail free” card and was put on probation.
The grim reality is that bloodshed continues unabated, and authorities seem to be turning a blind eye. This lack of action forces citizens to take their defenses into their own hands.
But that perception can be problematic from the standpoint of liberal governance.
“Your booing doesn’t bother me; I’ve seen what supports you.”
In the same environment where some celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an act that many considered morally reprehensible, I quickly received a death threat.
Though most expressed their disdain anonymously, a few were bold enough to confront me directly on my former Instagram account.
The threats were chilling, especially when they involved images of my one-year-old son.
These booers serve as obedient foot soldiers, casting their speech as a form of violence yet quickly seeking to prosecute acts of self-defense.
Two quotes leap to mind. Barack Obama has called for a “wide range of bills,” equating illegal immigration to a serious issue, claiming that speech can qualify as violence. Using terms like this gives activists a “permission structure” to target conservatives who express mainstream views.
Nicole Hannah Jones of the 1619 Project recently asserted that Kirk’s public discourse was essentially a form of “terrorism,” framing it as “violence.”
This kind of conflation, where dissent from the left is labeled self-defense, has become disturbingly acceptable. Of course, this idea is deeply flawed and harmful.
The second quote belongs to Tucker Carlson.
“Self-defense is the cornerstone of all freedom,” he stated. “A healthy society cherishes and uplifts individuals like Jose Alba—a man with a family and dignity. Most importantly, a healthy society should protect the right to self-defense for such individuals.”
Alba, a 61-year-old bodega clerk, defended himself one night against a criminal attack. Rather than retreating, he fought back and ended the attack, ultimately killing his assailant.
New York City’s authority attempted to charge him, but the release of security footage led to public outcry, and eventually, the case collapsed.
This isn’t the first instance where liberal bureaucracy has sought to render self-defense illegal.
Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse, who faced life imprisonment for defending himself. Or Daniel Penny, who was also targeted for standing his ground during a tense situation.
“A society that prioritizes violent criminals over law-abiding citizens cannot endure,” Carlson concluded.
My argument today boils down to this: We need to uphold the right to self-defense not as a tool for attacking opponents, but as a way to restore a sense of public trust. We’re not looking to vandalize or harm; we seek to protect.
Self-defense can disrupt the accepted norms that forgive or ignore violence directed at us while facing calls for justice.
For me, the decision seems straightforward.
When it comes to advocating for self-defense, it also feels clear-cut. It’s a moral imperative. If healing is our goal, this is the action we must take.
It’s not violent to force a recognition of free speech; we have a duty to ensure prosecution against those who harm us to speak freely.
Our responsibilities as citizens demand courage. It’s time to establish boundaries.
What I’m reading
Is this genuinely being considered? Richardson has Dietz!
What’s truly needed to overturn Obergefell?
–
We are gaining ground.
Those who skipped Charlie Kirk merchandise are showing up before Oregon’s matchup.
–
I was completely baffled.
A Democratic Congressional candidate chuckles at the “sarcasm” surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death.
–
Learn how to be expelled from a protest:
