Dan Crenshaw’s Second Texas A&M Event: Two More Groypers!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 5, 2019

We covered Dan Crenshaw’s afternoon event at Texas A&M yesterday, wherein two Groypers were able to get through. Everyone reporting from the ground was saying that the line was being stacked with fake questioners asking these retarded, boring questions about taxes.

The evening event, where the Zionist Cyclops appeared with the disgusting Jew rat Jonah Goldberg of The National Review, was not any better. We got two guys through.

Note that neither the afternoon nor the evening event was filmed by any official source, which is obviously an attempt to keep video of the confrontations off of the internet. So remember, they are probably going to keep this policy in the future, so we need all of our guys filming the Q&A.

Anti-BDS Legislation is a Violation of the First Amendment

This was a very good and perfectly worded question.

I want to thank you for your distinguished service to this country.

Congressman, just this year, after a 2017 version of the law was blocked by a federal judge, Texas passed a law that still requires certain contractors to sign a pledge that they will not boycott Israel. The state of Florida has also passed a law outlawing the mere criticism of Israel. Representative Crenshaw, on May 9th of this year, similar legislation was even attempted at the federal level, when the House Appropriations Committee sought to amend a routine government funding bill, to allow federal agency to compel contractors to promise not to boycott Israel as a requirement of maintaining their relationship with the US government. Congressman, despite our unique and historic alliance, these laws are obvious, flagrant violations of the First Amendment and free speech.

Given that when you entered office you swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, my question is this: will you honor your oath, and denounce these laws here now and forever, or do you agree with Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbot that the First Amendment should only apply to Americans who support Israel?

It was a mouthful of a question, of course, but it was necessary for him to go through all of that, to have it all on record clearly.

Crenshaw’s answer was horrible. He simply attacked the questioner’s motives.

You’re advocating for the First Amendment – no, you’re cloaking yourself in the First Amendment [questioner protests, is spoken over]. I will presume your intentions. I will. Cuz I know who you guys are. And here’s the problem with the BDS thing. When you create a movement to boycott and divest and sanction the one Jewish state, just because they are the one Jewish state, there is a deep problem with that. That is anti-Semitism manifesting.


He’s definitely a dumb guy. He knew to pivot back to talking points, but he did so very sloppily. There should have been some kind of “oh yes of course the First Amendment but” thing in his answer, but he’s too slow, and instead just confirmed the questioner’s assertion that he believes that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to people who don’t support Israel.

He needs to keep getting hit on this.

Here’s the next question for him:

Thank you for your service. At Texas A&M, you confirmed in no uncertain terms that you do not believe that the First Amendment applies to people who don’t support Israel, when you said that people who do not support Israel can’t have Constitutional rights because they are, in your words, “anti-Semites.” The leftist buzzword “anti-Semite” is often used alongside “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” and “transphobe.” So my question is: who else do you believe can have their rights taken from them because of their beliefs? For example, should a “transphobe” who opposes men going into bathrooms with little girls also have his Constitutional rights stripped from him, by law, along with so-called “anti-Semites”?

And there are many more questions along those lines, because the sonovabitch literally confirmed that no, you shouldn’t have rights if you don’t support Israel – if you don’t support Israel, the Constitution doesn’t apply to you.

Here’s another one:

Thank you for your service. At Texas A&M, you confirmed in no uncertain terms that you do not believe that the First Amendment applies to people who don’t support Israel, because they are, in your words, “anti-Semites.” My question is, what other rights can be stripped from people who you label an “anti-Semite”? Do you think for example that so-called “anti-Semites” can be thrown in prison without trial? Can they be legally tortured? Does a person who you have smeared as an “anti-Semite” have any rights at all?

And so on. You get the thing.

Build off of his open claim that “anti-Semites” don’t deserve rights.

The Anti-White Policy of Affirmative Action!

This one was funny. Good question. Hilarious answer.

Really appreciate the personal sacrifices you’ve made to ensure our freedoms as Americans. You talk about identity politics and elevating certain races above others, so my question to you is, what have you done to oppose this anti-white policy known as affirmative action?

Look at this answer from Zioclops:

I wouldn’t say it’s anti-white. If anything, it hurts the black community quite a bit, because it puts a lot of black students in a situation where they’re not necessarily prepared for a university, so that’s problematic and doesn’t really help. Um. It has nothing to do with us being anti-white though, so I sort of reject the premise of your question.

This guy is so retarded.

Literally, he has like a 92 IQ.

Based on his answer, the one-eyed faggot doesn’t even support affirmative action. It would have been so easy to say “I agree that race should have nothing to do with admissions, and all races are harmed by this. I think we should get rid of the program, and put more money into school choice in the black community so that they’re prepared for university at the high school level.”

That is actually the position of his cuckservative cult, and it totally sidesteps the entire question. Instead he starts talking about how he rejects white people and is only concerned about blacks? WHY?

Because he can’t perceive depth. He has a shallow vision.

A one-sided view.

And he can’t even remember his own talking points.

I don’t really think there is anything specific to build off of there, except for the fact that we now know that when you ask him about something being “anti-white” he pivots into “oh I love black people.” And that is exploitable.

Groyper War Continues!

We’ve got Crenshaw at UT Austin tonight, and I’m sure we’ll have a bunch more of our guys there. We’ve also got Matt Walsh at Cal State LA and (maybe) Andrew Klavan at Boston College.

Dan Crenshaw details:

Click here for tickets

Matt Walsh details:

Click here

Andrew Klavan details:

(There is no page on the Boston College page about this event, but looking at Klavan’s Twitter page, it seems that it’s still happening.)

I’m gonna get that sidebar item fixed up so that it has all ticket details on our calendar, okay. I’ll have that done before Thursday, when we’ve got a Ben Shapiro event.

Remember though: with Shapiro and Klavan, you’re dealing with actual high verbal IQ Jews, not babies like Charlie Kirk and Dan Crenshaw that can just be kicked around like dodgeballs.

I Think It’s Time to Heckle

I don’t think people should be outright disrupting just yet, because they are still at least theoretically taking our questions. And I’ll wait for Groyper General Nick on that one.

I do think jeers, boos and general heckling is appropriate at this point. I think cheering for our guys – very loudly – and booing when these people talk about Israel, gays, immigration, etc. is very appropriate at this point, and Nick has more or less said the same.

A little bit of audience participation is always tolerated and even expected at these things.

And again I will remind you: you can meet people at these events and make new friends. As long as your optics are good, you have nothing to fear. You can’t get kicked out of school or fired for any of the questions we’re asking – at least not yet.

The fire rises.