Nick Solheim, CEO of American Moment—a right-wing youth organization—delivered a speech to the Boston College Republicans Monday night, laced with inflammatory rhetoric and urging students to prepare to die in defense of their conservative values.
“Live in recognition of the fact that they will kill you and everybody that you love to get what they want—open borders, sex changes for minors, so-called gay marriages, health care for illegal immigrants, and so on,” Solheim said. “If they’re willing to kill the people making this policy, they’re more than willing to kill the people who voted for it, too.”
In his talk, titled “How to Implement the MAGA Agenda,” Solheim repeatedly framed political conflict as a matter of life and death, telling students they must be prepared for martyrdom to advance the MAGA agenda.
“I want to start with a heavy exhortation—you need to be willing to be killed,” Solheim said.
Solheim added that simply attending the event placed students at risk of political violence.
“There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in this country who would kill you for just being in this room,” Solheim said.
To illustrate his point, Solheim cited leaked 2022 text messages from Jay Jones—the Democratic nominee for Virginia Attorney General—in which Jones said he wanted then–Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert and his children to die.
“The likely next Attorney General of the State of Virginia has called for the death of little fascist two- and five-year-old children of one of his Republican colleagues, and has not been denounced by a single Democrat in or seeking federally elected office,” Solheim said.
Top Democrats quickly condemned Jones’ texts but stopped short of calling for him to withdraw from the race.
Solheim said the opportunity for peaceful dialogue is over but urged the crowd to avoid turning toward political violence, referencing Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
“No, we are not having a neat and tidy debate in the so-called marketplace of ideas—that is long past,” Solheim said. “But we don’t assassinate, attack indiscriminately, or violate our enemy, and for a simple reason. As Tucker Carlson once said, ‘That’s not how white men fight.’”
Solheim received an invitation to speak at BC after the Sept. 10 assassination of Kirk, a popular, right-wing influencer who became famous through debates on college campuses. During his talk, Solheim wore a white t-shirt with Kirk’s signature. The motive behind Kirk’s killing remains unclear.
BC Republicans, who had previously hoped to invite Kirk to speak on campus, held a vigil in his honor on Sept. 10. Although he condemned increasing political violence in the United States, Solheim nonetheless described it as inevitable.
“The moment that we’re in right now is truly catastrophic, perhaps even approaching the level of a civil war, or at the very least, all-out extrajudicial lawlessness,” he said.
Founded in 2021 with backing from JD Vance, American Moment has worked to advance Project 2025—a conservative agenda aimed at shrinking the federal bureaucracy and promoting social conservative priorities, including rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ people and immigrants.
By recruiting right-leaning staffers, the organization seeks to grow right-wing populism and advance conservative priorities across all levels of government, according to Politico.
“We have prioritized building out a bench of young people, specifically at the junior to mid-level, to fill a lot of those roles and help the president and conservative presidents to fulfill that agenda,” Solheim said.
Concluding his remarks, he encouraged the audience—especially young, Republican men—to support conservative causes and enter politics.
“We urgently need the people in this room, specifically the men, to come to D.C. and get involved in governing, forcefully saying, ‘No, this is not the direction my country will go,’” he said.
Although the event was public and held on University property, an attendee barred a Heights photographer from taking photos for the duration of the talk.

Dawn • Nov 3, 2025 at 10:20 pm
Every accusation is a confession with these weirdos. I want people to have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs, but I also freedom from the e religious beliefs of others. Separation of church and state maintains peace.
Christopher • Oct 27, 2025 at 4:23 pm
PURE REPUBLICAN TRASH, MAGAT LOVES THIS GARBAGE SPEWED BY HIS DISCIPLES.
Jon Keenan • Oct 27, 2025 at 3:01 pm
“extrajudicial lawlessness” – seriously?!
The guy’s a real genius alright.
Be Sotim • Oct 27, 2025 at 2:54 pm
It is sad that they invited the speaker and then folded and pretended not to have anything to do with him.
It is bad for BC for BC to make a big deal out of this. The correct response (as to many things in general) is to just ignore and let time fly.
Now the speaker posted students’ faces on X for everyone to see. Soon enough BC and students will have more and more issues at hand when harassment starts.
There are so many lessons to be learned here by students and administration.
Be Sotim • Oct 27, 2025 at 3:04 pm
I am curious to know if the picture was taken before, or after, the speech.
Fred Davenport • Oct 23, 2025 at 8:38 pm
Nick Solheim is an asswipe for thr @real idiot and all he talks about is VIOLENCE and not what is best for USA citizens and their family! Shame on BC for having this white male racist and sexist on campus!
Kurt Steiner • Oct 27, 2025 at 2:53 pm
You sir are the asswipe…we need armed militas on the right who are there to combat the endless empty head left wing ideas.
Sam • Oct 23, 2025 at 12:15 pm
Thank you to Nikita & Nicole for their reporting. Your work is much needed and appreciated!
Nope • Oct 22, 2025 at 6:13 pm
I find this very disturbing- I hope BC is responding in some way to provide (re)education, counseling, and perspective for those who were present and also to those who are harmed by his words. I’m now legitimately more worried about the physical safety of all the liberal folks on that campus than the safety of those conservative white boys sitting in that photo… and I’m concerned for their psychological well-being after hearing that vitriol! BC cannot let this radicalization happen on its own campus. Absolutely appalling.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 22, 2025 at 7:26 pm
I appreciate your concern, but as a Republican who actually attended Solheim’s talk, I think you’re overreacting and missing the point. His rhetoric was indeed heated—I’ll grant that it came across as dramatic—but it was a direct response to real instances of left-wing extremism, like the leaked texts from that Democratic nominee wishing death on a Republican’s kids, or the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Solheim wasn’t calling for violence; he, in fact, explicitly condemned it. Suggesting “reeducation” or counseling for attendees smacks of the very authoritarianism conservatives are pushing back against—it’s ridiculous to assume young adults can’t handle strong words or form their own views.
If anything, the real radicalization on college campuses comes from the left, where conservative voices are shouted down or canceled. BC should protect free speech for all sides, not police ideas you disagree with. Let’s dial back the hysteria and actually engage on the issues, instead of labeling everything “appalling.”
STC • Oct 23, 2025 at 12:35 am
Please explain what Solheim means when he quotes Carlson saying “this is how white men fight”
Dr Ed • Oct 27, 2025 at 2:25 pm
How those who hold the ideals and values of the Western Christian Liberal Enlightenment fight.
Those who believe that the life and soul of ones opponent is of higher value than winning an argument.
STC • Oct 23, 2025 at 12:45 am
Also, can you share where Solheim explicitly condemned Trump supporter and ultra MAGAt Vance Boelter’s assassination of former MN Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark? And the stalking and shooting of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman, and the attempted shooting of their daughter Hope Hoffman?
We’ll wait
Yuriy Bane • Oct 23, 2025 at 10:05 am
Apologies, STC, for the long wait, but…
On the matter of Boelter’s political background, the Leftist narrative that he was a “Trump supporter” or “ultra-MAGA extremist” is far less sustainable once you actually dig into the documented facts. Multiple indicators suggest that his real alignment—at least institutionally—was with the Democratic Party and, not mainstream conservative MAGA leadership.
First, I already know you know all this, but Boelter was appointed by two successive Democratic governors to a state advisory body in Minnesota. Research confirms that he was first appointed in 2016 by then-Governor Mark Dayton (a Democrat) and then re-appointed on December 9, 2019 by non other than Tampon Tim, to serve as a “business member” of the Governor’s Workforce Development Board (GWDB). That board is not just a “citizen volunteer list,” but part of a broader state‐government effort to shape workforce policy, and while it is technically nonpartisan, the appointment by Democratic leaders is nonetheless telling of his institutional ties.
Second, his confession letter (addressed to Kash Patel) certainly doesn’t classify him as some kind of radicalized MAGA “Nazi.” In that letter he says that he had been “trained by U.S. military people off the books starting in college… in Eastern Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa, all in the line of doing what I thought was right and in the best interest of the United States.” Importantly, he claimed that Governor Walz approached him with a “project”—to kill U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith so Walz could secure a Senate seat.
Third, the context of what was found in his vehicle shows that he wasn’t some kind of right-wing nut. Admittedly, among the items discovered were a “manifesto” listing names of abortion-providers and Democratic politicians, but also flyers for the “No Kings” anti-Trump protests. So, while “anti-Trump” materials alone don’t prove a left-wing identity, the presence of these items (needing definite explanation) suggests that the “pro-Trump extremist” label may be superficial.
Putting this all together for you STC Boelter’s appointment by Democrats, his own self-characterized mission to attack Democratic officials (per his letter), and the presence of anti-Trump/seemingly anti-establishment literature in his car, all converge to undermine the simplistic “ultra-MAGA” narrative. Indeed, it appears more accurate to describe him as someone operating within or sympathetic to a radical or fringe left-wing/anti-establishment axis—if one must label him—rather than a standard MAGA operative.
A final recommendation: get off your high horse and open your eyes.
What's Going On? • Oct 23, 2025 at 6:44 pm
Sources? His roommate said he was an evangelical Christian and voted for Trump. People engaged in effective discourse refrain from using pejorative names. While it’s easy to quickly glance over a comment that is disrespectful and trolling, it’s clear that you want to share your thoughts, but the use of a pejorative dissuades the reader from seeing anything of merit in what you’ve posted. It also increases the likelihood of a fact check, which, in a way is a good outcome. That’s what I ended up doing. Anyway, we’re here to talk about the article, and the harmful rhetoric from the campus speaker. Can we gain some traction in the idea that, in the case of this speaker, regardless of what he believes, it’s harmful to speak rhetoric like this to anyone, especially a lot of anyones at once (and probably filmed)?
Iman • Oct 22, 2025 at 12:52 pm
The rhetoric on display in this talk should concern anyone who values serious political discourse. By portraying routine policy disagreements—on immigration, health care, and LGBTQ+ rights—as existential threats requiring martyrdom, Solheim substitutes fear for argument. This framing undermines the very traditions of free debate and pluralism that conservatives often claim to defend.
Invoking “civil war” and “extrajudicial lawlessness” while insisting that dialogue is “long past” does not prepare students for leadership. It conditions them to see neighbors as enemies and politics as a battlefield rather than a process of governance. Even more telling is the invocation of violence only to deny it—condemning attacks while suggesting they are inevitable. That is not prudence, it is escalation by other means.
BC Republicans may have hoped to present themselves as principled defenders of conservative ideas. Instead, hosting a speaker who openly treats democratic politics as a prelude to bloodshed exposes the hollowness of that claim. If the goal is to cultivate future leaders, students deserve better than exhortations to die for slogans.
—
For these reasons, I am deeply disappointed that the Boston College Administration chose to permit this event on campus. Providing a platform for such rhetoric normalizes extremism rather than fostering critical thought—everything but what our core professors teach us. This is not an isolated instance, but part of a broader trend of giving space to figures whose words corrode dialogue rather than enrich it. Discussion is fine, far right/left extremist dialogue is not ok, and never should be within the context of an institution that holds itself as the ground for forward, intellectual pursuit and debate.
Jennifer W. • Oct 22, 2025 at 4:40 pm
You have missed the entire point of what should be learned from recent events of political violence. When we stop talking to each other (on campus), that’s when violence occurs. It doesnt matter if you disagree with the content of the speaker, it only matters that multiple viewpoints are heard. Universities have an obligation to host speakers from both ideologies – progressive and conservative. Demonstrations and protests that devolve into campus intimidation and antagonism are for adolescent radicals. You need to realize that the banning of conservatives is exactly the definition of radicalism. Radicalism is the pursuit of one-party rule. America will never ascribe to one-party rule, or one ideology. By complaining about BC “allowing” a conservative group on campus, you are revealing that you still dont get it. If you dont care that someone with different views than yours is getting banned then thats fine, but just understand that you are outnumbered. The overwhelming majority in this country do care, and hopefully one day, folks like yourself will realize how childish it is to think that protesting and demonstrating for arbitrarily banning “those people” from campus would be virtuous or righteous. I recommend you take advantage of the BC Library on Irish Studies and learn about the Belfast Project and the history of Northern Ireland. If you dont know anything about the British Secret Police or the I.R.A., then do some reading… I recommend Patrick Keefe’s non-fiction book “Say Nothing”. It wasnt even one generation ago that the invading loyalists to the British Crown took over Northern Ireland and stuffed the natives into housing projects and segregated schools. The natives were banned from holding political office and were denied any representation in parliamentary structure. BC has been at the forefront in revealing to the world the dehumanization and intolerance that plagued Northern Ireland at the hands of the Brits. For you to think that BC could just forget this legacy in the context of “allowing” conservatives on campus shows that you dont know Boston College.
What's going on? • Oct 22, 2025 at 6:19 pm
Hey Jennifer, slow down, read carefully. Take a breath, then re-read. In, out. Iman pointed out extremism from both sides is harmful. Iman also pointed out techniques the speaker was using that undermine dialogue. Extremism is easy to spot when it’s this flamboyant. Extremists also inevitably project onto the audience/listeners their own inner world. When he thinks a non-believer would kill, it’s because he has had these thoughts of killing for the “greater good.” So many of us do not walk around with these ideas.. why does he? Charlie Kirk? One person? Insisting that non-believers ( or group) are out to get those who believe x, is crazy talk. There may be an individual who writes a treatise and then harms others, but that’s an individual with a name. Not a democrat, not a republican. This speaker is not intelligent. He is harmful. Did anyone assess what was said during the Q&A if there was one? Did anyone say, ” I would like to address the killing you took the time to discuss with us. Here’s why I found that troubling.” Point 1, etc… I hope so.
Iman • Oct 22, 2025 at 9:02 pm
“No one is willing to die for the 8-hour day. But people are willing to die so that [America] will belong to the [Americans].” – Nick Solheim.
Sounds like something Nick Solheim might have said at BC, right? Except he didn’t. Those words come from Joseph Goebbels. Switch [America(n)] with German(s). Now just to be clear before I continue, I am NOT saying Solheim is Goebbels. I am just using Goebbels, who is the best possible example of extremist rhetoric, to show the dangers involved.
You opened with, “You have missed the entire point…”
Jennifer, I did not argue to ban conservatives. I criticized a specific rhetoric: “be willing to die,” “civil war,” “dialogue is long past.” That is not “multiple viewpoints.” That is rehearsing apocalypse.
You wrote, “It doesnt matter if you disagree with the content of the speaker, it only matters that multiple viewpoints are heard.”
Content always matters. If the “viewpoint” frames neighbors as enemies and prepares students for martyrdom, the effect is to shut down real discussion. Why pretend otherwise? Are we training leaders or recruits?
You claimed, “The banning of conservatives is exactly the definition of radicalism.”
Who said “ban conservatives”? Quote me. I objected to a talk that romanticizes dying for politics. If your position is “host anything as long as it’s ‘a viewpoint,’” say that plainly. Then answer the obvious question: do you think a university has any responsibility to keep debate serious and reality-based?
You lectured me on Northern Ireland: “Take advantage of the BC Library… learn about the Belfast Project… read Patrick Keefe’s ‘Say Nothing.’”
I haven’t done a deep dive on your list, but I did do some digging:
• Say Nothing tracks how dehumanization and tit-for-tat violence hollow out civic life. The lesson isn’t “platform more incendiary talk.” It’s that once people accept violence-coded framing, dialogue dies fast. That was my point.
• The Belfast Project itself shows the costs of stewarding dangerous narratives. Archiving volatile testimonies requires guardrails and care. Universities know this. That’s called responsibility, not censorship.
You said, “By complaining about BC ‘allowing’ a conservative group on campus, you are revealing that you still dont get it.”
I get it fine. Pluralism is not a suicide pact. Universities protect debate. They do not need to stage cosplay about “dying for beliefs” to prove they’re fair. Be serious. If the goal is learning, why amplify slogans that treat governance like a preface to bloodshed?
You warned, “If you dont care that someone with different views than yours is getting banned then thats fine… you are outnumbered.”
Threats about being “outnumbered” exactly prove my point about escalation. Are we counting heads or testing ideas? If it’s ideas, let’s talk arguments, not body counts.
What you missed in my message:
I defended viewpoint diversity. I rejected framing routine policy disputes as existential war. That framing chills speech more than any protest. If you want students to engage, don’t teach them that politics is a battlefield and classmates are enemies. I know we can agree on that.
Since you gave me reading, here’s some short, mainstream material for you too:
Prefer pieces you can read in one sitting.
• James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (factions, pluralism, guardrails).
• George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (how degraded language enables bad politics).
• Jonathan Haidt, “Why We Need to Balance Safety and Free Speech on Campus” (article-length, practical).
• Salman Rushdie, “Free Speech Is Life Itself” (short essay on counterspeech vs. intimidation).
Questions to ask yourself:
• Do you believe universities have any content standards beyond time/place/manner? If not, say that clearly.
• If a speaker tells students to be “willing to die” for politics, does that raise the temperature or lower it? What, exactly, is the learning outcome?
• If pluralism is the goal, how does apocalyptic framing help students listen, question, and change their minds?
• Where is your line between strong dissent and incitement-by-euphemism? Do you have one?
I oppose banning viewpoints. I oppose campus megaphones for rhetoric that romanticizes violence. Those positions are not in tension. They’re how grown-ups keep debate free and serious. If you want to keep talking, great. But start by engaging what I actually wrote, not a caricature.
I came to Boston College, an environment that does not predominantly host my own beliefs or ideas, because I value genuine dialogue. I welcome disagreement when it sharpens thinking, forces me to question assumptions, and challenges me to defend my arguments. But that requires good faith. It requires treating politics as governance, not war. When rhetoric crosses the line into glorifying death, civil war, or existential struggle, it stops being dialogue. That is exactly what I refuse to normalize on this campus.
Jennifer W. • Oct 23, 2025 at 11:07 am
Iman, nice try saying you arent advocating for banning conservatives…. Your own words from your post were: “For these reasons, I am deeply disappointed that the Boston College Administration chose to permit this event on campus.”
-oops!
Iman • Oct 23, 2025 at 12:32 pm
My latest response: Jennifer, I’d really suggest you stop responding until you actually engage with what I wrote. Watching you circle one word (ban/permit) like it’s some kind of trophy is less clever than it is desperate 🙁. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that you’re exposing me, I know what I wrote—you’re just broadcasting your own inability to tell the difference between critique and censorship. I don’t like repeating myself, especially when I was abundantly clear the first time, so I won’t bother explaining it to you again. At this point every new reply is less a rebuttal and more an unforced error, and honestly it’s getting embarrassing to watch. I’d almost thank you for making my case for me, but that would be giving you credit you haven’t earned.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 23, 2025 at 1:40 pm
Iman, you seem far more interested in moral grandstanding than in genuine debate. Jennifer W’s point was simple and well thought out: universities exist to host diverse ideas, not to shield students from rhetoric they find uncomfortable. You claim to defend free inquiry, yet you also declare that the administration “shouldn’t have permitted” the event — that’s the textbook definition of advocating suppression, whether you want to admit it or not.
What you call “responsibility,” others rightly recognize as censorship dressed up in academic jargon. The irony is that you accuse others of seeing politics as war, while you treat disagreement as some kind of contamination to be quarantined. You can’t have pluralism only when it flatters your worldview. Jennifer’s argument trumps yours for its principled defense of free expression: exposure to controversial speech is part of education, not a threat to it.
So, if BC students like yourself can’t handle hearing a speaker without collapsing into moral panic (whether that be Solheim or Jennifer W), that says more about the intellectual fragility of the audience than the supposed extremism of the event. Real dialogue requires tolerance for views you detest — not just eloquent essays about why they shouldn’t be heard.
Iman • Oct 23, 2025 at 6:38 pm
Hi Yuriy, I was getting worried you wouldn’t get to me. I can’t directly respond to your comment so I’ll do it under mine:
Imagine a basketball game. One team makes a sloppy play, and the fans in the stands groan. Now picture someone pointing at the fans and shouting: “Look! They’re trying to ban basketball!” No one would buy that. The game goes on, the players keep playing, and the fans are still free to cheer, boo, or complain. Two things are true at once: the players get to play, and the crowd gets to react.
That’s how expression works. Solheim had his stage, and I had my say. You calling my criticism “suppression” is about as ridiculous as accusing the fans of canceling the game because they groaned at a turnover. Critique doesn’t erase free expression—it proves it’s alive.
And here’s where your own contradictions pile up. You yourself said his rhetoric was “overly bombastic and dramatic,” that his “hyperbolic delivery and dire warnings felt excessive and counterproductive.” That’s almost word-for-word what I said. So why is your criticism considered thoughtful, but mine suddenly becomes censorship? Two things can be true at once: you can find his theatrics excessive, and I can too. The difference is, I’m not pretending that pointing it out is some kind of attack on pluralism.
You also wrote that “it’s ridiculous to assume young adults can’t handle strong words or form their own views.” If you believe that, then you should have no problem with me handling Solheim’s rhetoric my way—by rejecting it as corrosive. Yet the moment I do that, you dismiss my response as fragility. You say students should handle strong words, but you can’t handle my strong words.
Pluralism protects the game and the commentary. You can’t champion one while pretending the other doesn’t count. If you really believe in open dialogue, then own your own standard. Don’t call your critique principled while trying to brand mine as censorship. That’s not exposing contradiction in me, Yuriy—it’s exposing hypocrisy in you.
Patrick Murphy • Oct 22, 2025 at 9:49 am
It is relevant to note that this kind of language is equally prevalent among left-leaning leaders and commentators. Simply replace “conservative” or “Republican” or even “Christianity ™️” with “the LGBTQ+ community” or “undocumented immigrants” or “Our Democracy ™️,” and you will hear similar prophecies from Rachel Maddow or Corey Booker. I will gladly concede that the Heights is a BC institution and that no invited left-wing speakers have (to my knowledge, albeit subject to availability heuristics) used such rhetoric. Additionally, I do not condone this type of language from right-wing influencers, nor do I myself identify with either political movement. That being said, is the left’s inflammatory speech not as much a concern for those who are so quick to criticize Solheim? Is it to rhetoric itself or rather the target of such rhetoric that gives one pause?
Yuriy Bane • Oct 22, 2025 at 9:58 am
Well said, Pat! I couldn’t agree more with your take—it’s refreshing to see someone call out the hypocrisy of the Left without excusing bad behavior on the part of conservatives. You’re right to say that inflammatory rhetoric isn’t right-wing exclusive; we’ve all heard the doomsday prophecies from CNN hosts or Democratic politicians framing conservatives as existential threats to “democracy” or marginalized groups. So, it begs the question: why the selective outrage? Your point about whether some critics are truly bothered by the language or just the ideology behind it hits the nail on the head. Really good for keeping it fair and thoughtful—more voices like yours would help dial down the divisiveness, no doubt.
Martin Albertson • Oct 22, 2025 at 12:49 pm
Care to provide even a single quotation of a left-leaning leader warning that conservatives are going to kill liberals? This article has plenty of direct quotes. Your post has none.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 22, 2025 at 8:15 pm
Sure, Martin—happy to provide some concrete examples of left-leaning leaders using dire, life-or-death rhetoric to frame conservative policies as deadly threats. This isn’t about excusing overheated language on either side, but it does highlight the hypocrisy Pat was pointing out. Here’s a few direct quotes:
From Maxine Waters–“there is a ‘growing list of radicalized white supremacist neo-Nazi sympathizers who are all supporters of President Trump.'” (Accusing Trump-aligned conservatives of radicalization that endangers Democrats.)
From AOC–“Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed,” and “I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out.” (She repeatedly accused Cruz of attempting to have her murdered through his actions leading up to the J6 demonstration.)
These are just two instances where left-leaning leaders portray conservatives as deliberately violent. It’s the same apocalyptic framing Solheim used, but from the other side. If we’re serious about toning down rhetoric, it needs to happen across the board—no selective criticism, Martin.
What's Going On? • Oct 23, 2025 at 10:37 am
Except…. both parties in gov\’t have received death threats. Horrible and chilling threats. Being a public figure courts disagreement, animosity, and threats of harm. I find the sharing of such detail unfortunate, and it must show the tremendous stress that elected officials are currently under when their fears are vocalized, in whichever way those fears are vocalized. Maxine Water\’s comment is specific and true: there is a growing list of… nazi sympathizers who support the president. There are. She didn\’t say that conservatives are nazis, and the implication is not that some of the President\’s supporters are nazi sympathizers and conservatives are supporters ergo all conservatives are nazi sympathizers. It\’s just there are a growing number of people with extremist beliefs. This is quite different than rhetoric, especially the \”killing\” rhetoric of the BC speaker.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 22, 2025 at 9:20 am
As a conservative student who attended this Boston College Republicans event featuring Nick Solheim, I personally found his rhetoric overly bombastic and dramatic, particularly his calls for ‘martyrdom’ and framing political differences as a life-or-death struggle. That’s not to say I don’t align with the core conservative principles he discussed–I do–I just thought his hyperbolic delivery and dire warnings felt excessive and counterproductive. I know others who also agree that a more reasoned approach would have better connected with conservative students who support the substance of his claims but prefer a less theatrical presentation.
Chris • Oct 22, 2025 at 9:03 am
So corny! Kids sitting around trying to make it seem that they’re “cool,” “counter-cultural,” and “edgy” by hating minorities. Nick Solheim sounds like a total loser. Sorry!
Matthew Edwards • Oct 22, 2025 at 8:59 am
Boston College liberal indoctrination hasn’t changed I see. Wonderful newspaper and journalism keep it up (;
Declan • Oct 23, 2025 at 7:45 pm
“Liberal indoctrination” I didn’t realize directly quoting someone was liberal indoctrination 😂
Rachel Felten • Oct 22, 2025 at 8:54 am
Bad take. The motive for Kirk’s assassination was very clear. Right-wing hatred.
What's Going On? • Oct 23, 2025 at 7:54 pm
Rachel, most people do not assassinate others, even if they disagree or are angered or hate another’s point of view or actions that those viewpoints can engender (i.e. the passing of certain laws, the election of officials with historically similar viewpoints to past actions and events). The motive for Kirk’s assassination was that Tyler James Robinson hated Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric. It wasn’t Jane Doe, or John Doe, or Bill Smith (representational names) who murdered Jane Doe, or John Doe, or Bill Smith. Tyler James Robinson hated what Charlie Kirk said about others who did not have the same life, ideas, ideals, and/or values as Charlie Kirk did. Tyler James was wrong in murdering Charlie Kirk. Most people, when faced with someone who makes life challenging for themselves and those they love either seek comfort from family, community, religion, and/or try to change things through careers that help one’s family, community, church thrive. Like Charlie Kirk. He fervently believed that abortion was killing a baby, that women are better at home, that people of the same sex cannot wed, that being transgender was harmful. He was passionate about his beliefs, so much so that he made getting this message out his priority. In the world, there are other people like Charlie Kirk who are just as passionate about their message. They have their ideas, ideals, values, dreams and they set about making a life for themselves within community, family, church, or not church, having children or not having them, working or choosing to stay home, whatever it is. But they choose, Rachel, and because we are a democratic nation, we all get to live our lives. It makes it really hard when someone we don’t know wants to direct our lives, minds and bodies. What if I don’t want an abortion? Can someone make me have one? Would that be right? Right-wing hatred. Left-wing hatred. Fear. Hurt. A speaker came to BC and talked about killing. Told young men, mostly, to be prepared for something that doesn’t exist. But it has in the past. And it could again, I get it. “Cut down the Tall Trees,” “Heil.. ” (I’m sorry, I can’t write the name as it represents something there really are no words for, only sounds). Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s the better structure so far that has carried so many people successfully through full lives. Right-wing hatred. Left-wing hatred. Hatred. Fear. Words.
Richard Taber • Oct 22, 2025 at 8:53 am
How can a Jesuit university allow a maniac like this to even set foot on its campus and spew his hate? This isn’t about conservative vs liberal, this is about right vs wrong, good vs evil, and I expect MY school to live up to the catholic values that it claims to uphold above all else. Stand up for Good, Boston College. Stand up for what’s Right.