Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

DOJ stands against legally immigrating German family seeking political asylum

March 18, 2013
Wilson

Writer

"Do you have a right to teach your children and raise your children up in the faith of your four fathers? Do you have the right to teach your children the Bible?  Do you have the right to teach your children about God and Jesus, or does Penn Jillette which the right to say there is no Jesus, there is no God?  Does he have the right and do you have the right to raise your children in your personal faith?" Glenn asked this morning at the start of his radio show.

All questions that, at least in America, seem like they would have a simple answer — yes.

"This gets really tough when you're talking about faith like Westboro Baptist Church.  But the Constitution really only matters when it is tough," Glenn continued.  "But this is not a case that is tough.  This is a story that sounds to me an awful lot like the earliest American story.  Our founders, our Founding Fathers and sisters and brothers, they came here for religious freedom.  They came here because the old world said you have to be a member of this faith.  You have to do it this way.  Remember, the old world is where they were burning people at the stake if they thought that you could read the Bible and should be allowed to read the Bible in your own home.  That's not your right to read the Bible.  That's not your right to print the Bible in your own language.  You go to the church which was a combination of the church and the state and you'll get all of the information you need from the church and the State.  The pilgrims who were mocked by calling them puritans, "Oh, you're one of those puritans."  The pilgrims lost their lives, took any fortune that they might have had, they worked and worked, they were swindled, they were mocked, they were jailed and yet they held their family together and they prayed to God, "Find one place that we will go which a we can be a refuge.  Find one place that we can actually stand and just worship God."  It is the American story."

The story Glenn is referring to isn't one like the Westboro Baptist Church, where some could make the case you shouldn't raise your kids that way. It's one that involves a Christian family from Germany who immigrated to the United States seeking political asylum, and may soon be deported. This story is about homeschooling.

In Germany you don't have the right to educate your children at home. You don't have a right to educate your children in the way you see fit based on your faith.

"It is the oldest battle, and it is a battle unfortunately that is now raging all around the world," Glenn told his listeners.

The Romeike family are evangelical Christians from Germany who were homeschooling their children because of their religious beliefs. The State told them they couldn't and even threatened that their children would be taken away from them. This is why they came to America.

"They currently live in rural Tennessee.  They did it the right way.  They have their visas.  They came here and asked for political asylum because if they return to Germany, the German state will take their children unless they dump them into the system where they are teaching them things about God that this family disagrees with," Glenn explained.

This family came to America the right way and for the right reasons, yet somehow the current Justice Department is not standing behind them The DOJ is arguing that the German law banning homeschooling does not violate the family's human rights. The Obama administration isn't exactly a "fan" of homeschooling, and Glenn believes that this could lead to things like restricting homeschooling happening in America.

"In other words, your children are not yours; you are not in charge of rearing your children.  You are not in charge of raising and teaching your children; the State is.  There's nothing that is more un‑American than this.  This is truly who we are at the core," Glenn said. 

The Constitution protects these rights for Americans — Germany doesn't believe in our system. But, if you're German and you come to America through the front door asking for political asylum because what the Constitution deems to be fundamental rights, America is supposed to defend them. Not with soldiers, but by letting these individuals in our borders.

"We let those people come here and make us stronger because too many of us have forgotten it," Glenn said.

 

"Homeschooling families in America should be paying attention to this case, but every American should be paying attention to this case because this is the end of America as we know it if our justice department stands and wins.  Our justice department is fighting to have the family sent back."

After discussing the controversy, Glenn spoke with Michael Farris, Chairman of the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association). The HSLDA is funding the legal defense against the Justice Department in this case and will soon being giving the oral argument for the family in front of the Sixth Circuit court.

Farris explained just how out-of-step the Justice Departments action on this case are with in comparison to similar cases.

" It's baffling frankly, and no one can figure out why they are so motivated to take this family on, especially because the initial immigration judge ruled in their favor," Michael explained. "That's the toughest hurdle in any immigration case is to win that initial battle. That's kind of the factual battle. Then after that it's, what does the law mean.  And they won the factual battle.  It's very clear.  You know, they're a good, upright family and they were, in fact, homeschooling for religious reasons and the judge said they are being denied religious freedom by the German ban of homeschooling.  Interestingly enough, of course, the German law in question was enacted during the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and the German government hasn't adjusted it."

Michael also explained that if the family is sent back over to Germany they face real trouble. The German government goes after homeschooling families they find in their country.

"There are probably 500 people that are brave enough to even attempt this in Germany," he told Glenn.

"They find you, they jail you, but, you know, ultimately at the end of the day, they remove your children from your custody," he added. " That's the progression. And this family has been fined substantially. Police have shown up at their house and taken their children to the public schools and they were well down the road…the threats were coming that they would remove custody of your family if you don't relent."

Basically Germany's stance is that this if one of the good things Hitler did — although they ignore the fact it derived from when he was in power.

Glenn went on to explain that while some are "baffled" by the Obama administration's reaction to the case, this is a road we've been headed down for awhile.

"As we get into Common Core and we see just the data collection on our children that they are planning, there is no way that homeschooling is going to be allowed, there's no way that this country is going to allow you to deviate and actually raise your children the way you want to raise your children.  I mean, it makes sense to me:  Isn't the justice department by arguing that the German law banning homeschooling does not violate the family's human rights, doesn't that fundamentally transform the United States of America if they win that battle here?  Will they not then have a card and a way to strengthen that argument in later battles against the American people?" Glenn asked.

"Absolutely correct," Michael responded. "Human rights is really equivalent to constitutional rights in this particular context.  We will not survive as a nation if the government wins, and it's even more insidious than might be apparent because their contention is not only are parental rights not valid, not only is religious freedom not valid on an individual basis but they really take the position that no individual liberty is the subject of human rights protection.  The only thing that qualifies you for asylum, our government is arguing, is if your group is discriminated against.  They don't care about individual liberty at all.  They write it off in the way they argue this particular case and they say "This family has no liberty because they don't belong to a church that forces them to homeschool.  Other Christians don't homeschool in Germany.  Other Christians don't homeschool in the United States."  And so it's unless some kind of a group, this government doesn't get it.  But our law and human rights law is based on two principles:  Individual liberty and equal protection.  Well, they have just thrown individual liberty out of the equation entirely, both for human rights law and arguably for American law as well.  I mean, they are setting a precedent that's incredibly dangerous.  They don't really believe in individual liberty and they are doing everything they can to stomp it out."

Glenn's charity, Mercury One, has set up a fund to help support the HSLDA in their defense of the Romeike family. Mercury One will be making a $50,000 donation to their firm. 100% of the proceeds donated to this fund will go directly to the HSLDA. If you would like to donate, you can do so HERE.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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.