GLENNMarch 24, 2017

Glenn Talks With Megan Phelps-Roper, Former Westboro Baptist Church Member

Megan Phelps-Roper joined Glenn on radio this week for an enlightening discussion about her conversion from Westboro Baptist Church member to someone focused on understanding and inclusion. Like Glenn, Phelps-Roper is a hopeful advocate for bringing people together through honest, civil conversations --- and she's laid out a four-step plan to do just that.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

Welcome to the program, Megan, how are you?

MEGAN: I'm wonderful. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good. It's really an honor to talk to you. We're big fans of what you said in your TED talk, especially from where you started, you know, in a church that is more than a little tough.

MEGAN: Yes. Absolutely.

I grew up at the Westboro Baptist Church. And my family -- the church is almost entirely my family. So around 80 percent -- there's only 80 or so people in the church. And about 80 percent are people -- my grandfather is the one who founded the church. And my mother was the de facto spokesperson for a long time. So, yeah, I grew up on the picket line.

PAT: Yeah, you actually held those hate-filled signs at funerals and other places, right?

GLENN: When you were a kid.

MEGAN: Yes. Absolutely.

PAT: Yeah.

MEGAN: It started out as a protest at a local park, and it sort of really expanded from there. As soon as, you know -- my grandfather was very aggressive, kind of hostile personality. So when people started to come out to counterprotest, everybody who was against us became a target. And eventually -- what started out as it being a protest against gay people, became, you know, we were protesting against other Christians and Jews. It expanded rapidly, until literally everyone outside of our church became a target. And so it was basically a -- you know, I was marinating in this idealogy of everybody is against us. We are against everybody because they're all against the Scriptures. You know, memorizing chapter and verse why they're wrong and why they're headed for hell. And it's our duty to go out and warn them.

STU: I'm fascinated, Megan, because I think to my childhood, and I remember fun picnics and fun trips to amusement parks and things like that. Do you have those types of memories, or is it just -- is there a competition between that and you carrying some awful sign around during a protest?

MEGAN: No. I absolutely have those memories. My -- a lot of people have a hard time understanding that they -- other than these protests and that worldview, they're -- we were a very normal -- obviously there's a lot of kids in our family. There's 11 kids in my family. And -- but we played video games and read books. And we went to public school. And, yeah, we went to amusement parks. We did all of those things, but we also -- that was all sort of organized around this nationwide picketing campaign.

So I have -- I absolutely have both, but that -- that loving family -- the nature of that is part of what makes it so, so, so hard to leave or to even consider leaving. The idea of giving it all up.

GLENN: So I just had a guy in who we're going to interview on a program that I'm working on. He was a member of the Hitler Youth. Now, he's in his 80s now. But he came of age in the Hitler Youth, until I think World War II ended, when he was 20. And he still had -- he sees the world very differently. He thinks that Churchill is a war -- should be held for war crimes. A war criminal.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And he doesn't agree with Hitler. But he said, I never saw -- we never saw any of that. At least he said, I didn't. I was in the front row of the 36 Olympics. You know, I -- I saw all the good stuff. And the bad stuff that was thrown up, you just dismissed it because you thought it was somebody that was trying to tear us down. Is that kind of the way your childhood was in a way?

MEGAN: Well, I mean, I know -- I knew at the time -- so, for instance, the funeral picketing, I knew at the time that it was hurtful. But the way that it was framed in our church was, you know, these people don't understand that they're headed for hell, for eternal destruction. And it's a loving thing to go and warn them.

And so I saw it as a necessary evil, like we had to go do this because this was the truth and the only thing that mattered, more than anything else was the truth. And it didn't matter how we said it, where we said, or in what context, it was always a good thing. And -- and it was a point of pride for us not to consider people's feelings.

GLENN: And the people -- and the people that were coming against you, because they were screaming back in your face, it only reinforced that these are bad people.

MEGAN: Absolutely. Especially because -- I mean, there's all these passages. So, for instance, Jesus talks about blessed are ye when men shall hate you and revile you and persecute you, for my name sake. So for us, like we wanted that. It was -- we expected it. It was confirmation that we were doing the Lord's work.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Now, take us to how someone finally broke through.

MEGAN: So Twitter -- Twitter was -- and I didn't realize it at first. I didn't realize that it was happening exactly. But Twitter was an empathy machine for me.

I really hate how it's gotten such a bad rap because that platform has done more to teach me good communication and how to engage with people than almost anything else in my life.

So on Twitter, people would -- would come at me with the same kind of, you know, hateful rhetoric and loud, you know, accusations and just very bitter. And, again, I expected it.

And I would respond, you know, in kind. And -- but then some people -- and I don't know exactly why or what motivated them. I think they -- they saw -- they say that they saw something in me that maybe I would listen or something. But in any case, they stopped yelling and stopped, you know, insulting me and started to ask questions. And they were like -- they seemed like they were actually listening to me.

GLENN: They were honest questions. They were honest questions.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: They weren't questions of setup.

MEGAN: Right. Exactly.

And it made me feel -- and because, again, I thought I was doing a good thing. I thought that those words that we were preaching, I thought that was the absolute, unquestionable truth. So I wanted to share it with them. That's why I was on social media.

And so I would, you know, answer their questions and sort of -- we had these back-and-forths. But then because of Twitter, I'm also seeing the photos they post of their children and their friends. And it just became this -- this way for me to see people as human beings. And it was because of the way -- because of the fact that they stopped -- the way they engaged me.

STU: That's incredible, that that came from Twitter too. Someone tweeted the other day, Instagram, my life is a party. Snapchat, my life is a quirky TV show. Facebook, my life turned out great. Twitter, we're all going to die. When I go on Twitter, man, I just get so depressed. But it's amazing you were able to take that out of this.

MEGAN: Yeah. I know. But there's a couple of things about Twitter that were really helpful to me. So like, for instance, the character limit, it first made me give up insults. Because at Westboro, we would include these elaborate insults when we responded to questions that people sent us by email. But on Twitter, there just wasn't space for it.

And also, Twitter was just this immediate feedback loop. If I did insult somebody, I could watch the conversation just derail in realtime. I could see that I wasn't getting my point across because I was too busy indulging that vengeful little voice in my head that wanted to call people names. I mean, we all have this feedback loop.

GLENN: Megan, I will tell you, I've been doing these kinds of experiments myself over the last couple of years, where I've gotten in -- because I just stopped engaging for a while. About years ago, I decided, you know what, I'm just going to answer everybody and assume the best. And just answer the -- the worst with something kind and try to be humble and kind and nice to everybody. Really hard to do.

And it's amazing the results. It's truly remarkable. It doesn't cure everybody by any stretch. But it's remarkable.

And I've talked about it on the air. And so many people say, it's not going to make a difference. You can't engage with them. They're all crazy. They're all whatever. What would you say to that?

MEGAN: Man, I just disagree so -- so much with the idea of hopelessness when it comes to talking to people.

I had -- I had grown up, you know, being -- basically cultivating this mindset of us versus them, being wary -- like specifically being wary of people's kindness. And even though I consciously was aware and trying not to be persuaded by kindness, it was still a powerful thing.

It's really interesting because over the past few years, I've been thinking about this a lot obviously. Because it's only been four years since I left. So it's kind of been just this huge -- you know, huge event in my life. And what you're describing there, about, you know, assuming the best and, you know, changing the way you respond. So if somebody comes at you angry and you respond in kindness and angry, that's called like, non-complimentary behavior. And we as human beings are wired to respond in kind.

But like you said, it's incredibly difficult to do. But we can cultivate a more useful mindset. Like one thing you said -- well, my mom used to tell me, to make sure my behavior was appropriate, I should add the word "judge" on to the end of my sentence, as in, "Here's why I did it, Judge." And I still use that trick, except now I add the word "friend." If someone attacks me and I start to get riled up, I try to pause for a beat and add friend, as if I'm disagreeing with someone I love. And I don't do it to be a goody two-shoes. I do it because it works. It's just so much more effective than anger or insults or hostility.

GLENN: All right. I want to get to -- you say there are four steps. And I want to get to those here in a second. Let me just ask you one more question, and then I have to take a quick break.

Do you -- are you well aware of how appropriately timed your discovery and your story is for the rest of the world?

MEGAN: I -- I just -- I hope that -- I hope that I can be a voice or that the story can be something that will help other people see the value in engaging. Because honestly, my experience has -- has given me so much hope. I never thought I would leave. And at first, when I first left, I thought that my family, there was no hope for most of my family. I don't believe that anymore. And I'm still reaching out to them. I'm still trying to convince them to see things other ways. And if there's hope for me, if I changed, I think that there's a lot of hope.

You know, I know that the political climate is so polarized right now, but I can't help but feel so hopeful.

GLENN: Megan Phelps-Roper. She'll continue with us here in just a second. You need to hear what her solution is. It's really a four-step process. And it's really pretty easy. Left the Westboro Baptist Church because of kindness. You want to hear her whole story. Watch the TED video because it's quite amazing.

[break]

Megan Phelps-Roper is a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church, where people were kind to her and started to talk to her. And she says, this really works. And, you know, you could be in the cult of a political part. And I think this works. I think we need this across all lines in the world right now.

Megan, you did a TED talk. You said there are four tips on how to talk to people who you disagree with.

MEGAN: Yes. Exactly.

You want me to tell them to you?

GLENN: Yeah. Sure.

MEGAN: So the first one is -- I think it's really important -- don't assume bad intent. It's so easy to look at -- I mean, Westboro is such an easy example. They've got these neon signs. It was so clearly obvious to everyone that we were hateful and evil and awful people.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MEGAN: But underneath it was well-intentioned people trying to do what they believed was right. So it's really easy to look at the surface and assume the worst of people, assume you understand where they're coming from. But that almost immediately cuts you off from really understanding what they're about.

GLENN: It's one of the reasons why -- I've tried to cut the word evil out of my lexicon because we use that to -- too often. And we use it about people. And I really think most people have great intent. You know, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, you can disagree with either one of them, but neither one of them think they're doing evil. They think they're doing the right thing. You just don't see it that way.

MEGAN: Exactly. I think very few -- maybe sociopaths or psychopaths. And even then --

GLENN: Right.

MEGAN: People who are deliberately doing wrong, I think they're very, very, very few and far between.

GLENN: Yes. Right. And that doesn't mean you have to go along with it, but if you say to them or their followers, you know, your guy is evil, they stop listening to you.

MEGAN: Right. Exactly. And you stop asking questions to get to the bottom of it, which is the second point. Asking questions helps you bridge the gap between your point of view and theirs. It helps you understand where they're coming from actually. And it also signals to the people that you're talking to, that you're actually listening to them.

And that is a huge benefit to the dialogue because they -- they no longer -- they don't want to yell at you. They see that you want to understand. So they're much more willing to engage. So the second point is ask questions.

GLENN: And it matters that they're honest questions, not setup questions. Not a question where I know you're going to say one thing so I can give you the Scripture quote or whatever to beat you.

MEGAN: Exactly.

GLENN: It has to be a question that's not designed for me to win. We're going to take a quick break. Come back with the last two with Megan Phelps-Roper, when we come back.

(OUT AT 10:32AM)

GLENN: Megan Phelps-Roper, somebody that we saw on TED talk, giving a great TED talk on how to bring people together. She was in the -- she's a Phelps. So she's part of the founding family of the Westboro Baptist Church. And she got online and started making friends with people who were friendly to her, not just yelling at her all the time. And she said there are four things that if you really want to change people's minds, four ways of engaging people so that real conversations can take place. The first one is don't assume bad intent. Instead, assume good or neutral intent. The second, ask questions, as opposed to accusing. Ask honest questions. It will help people let them know they've been heard. And quite often, this is all that people want.

The third is stay calm. Welcome back to the program, Megan. Explain stay calm.

MEGAN: So this one is really difficult because the natural inclination is always to respond the way that somebody is -- is speaking to you. So when somebody comes at you with hostility, the instinct is to be defensive and to respond with hostility. But that just brings the conversation to an end quickly. But if you can learn to step back, calm down and -- and try to diffuse the anger -- and you can do it in a few ways.

So, for instance, I actually ended up marrying -- my husband was one of these Twitter friends who started out as this angry, sort of insulting --

GLENN: Wow.

MEGAN: We just got married seven months ago.

GLENN: Congratulations.

MEGAN: Thank you. So what he would do, for instance, he would tell a joke or recommend a book or start talking about music. He would sort of turn away from the hostility for a minute and then come back to it -- come back to it later.

You don't necessarily -- I mean, that's -- that can be a last resort. A lot of times just staying calm and speaking as if you were addressing a friend and not somebody that you hate and that you despise that you can't -- you can't stand to hear their words. It helps so much to keep the conversation going.

GLENN: Step four.

MEGAN: Step four is make the argument.

And this one -- this one seems obvious. But there's this argument that seems to have taken hold on both the left and the right. And I think it stems from the hopelessness you mentioned earlier. Oh, they're just too far gone. They can't be reasoned with. But where does that lead us?

It leaves us at loggerheads. Deadlocked. And no one wants to be there. So you make the argument because they don't understand -- your opponent doesn't necessarily understand your thinking and the way that you're approaching the problem. And by making the argument -- if you fail to do that, you're definitely not going to change someone's mind. You actually have to articulate the reasoning and the thought process behind your position.

And there's actually a fifth point that I would have included if I had enough time -- should I tell you now?

GLENN: Yeah, go ahead.

STU: We're breaking news here. The fifth point in Megan Phelps' TED talk.

GLENN: Go ahead.

(chuckling)

MEGAN: It's take heart. Changing hearts and minds is incremental work, and it takes patience and persistence. And you're not going to see results necessarily immediately, not right away, but we can't give up. You know, and you might not be the person to persuade somebody else to turn away from a bad position, but every interaction is an opportunity to help turn the tide. So stay the course, trust the process, and take heart.

GLENN: How many people -- how many people were like this to you?

MEGAN: Well, the ones who had the biggest impact -- I mean, a handful who were engaging me continually over the course of a couple of years, considering I had been in the church. I had been raised in this. And I was 24 when I got on Twitter. So I was, again, marinating in this ideology and this way of thinking. So the fact that it only took a couple of years to really affect me and how I saw things, I think that's pretty remarkable.

GLENN: So did your husband -- was there a time when your husband -- is now your husband --

MEGAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Was he falling in love with you at the time? Did that happen later? Did he say, I can't believe I'm saying this to you -- I mean, how did that happen?

MEGAN: Well, it's a -- it's a really strange -- it was a really strange dynamic because obviously I was at the church. And at Westboro, you could only marry somebody who was in the church. So we were having these discussions, and there was nothing -- it was like a Jane Austen novel, like nothing overt. Like we couldn't say how we were feeling to each other because it just wasn't acceptable. And he sensed that.

And -- but he also, again, saw that I was a human being. And he came to believe that I had a good heart.

GLENN: So would this have worked -- would this have worked without love?

MEGAN: Well, I think -- well, so here's the thing. I -- yes, I believe so. And the reason is that the very first interaction was with a friend. I mentioned him in the talk too. Jewlicious. His name is David Abitbol.

And so it was -- I think I was talking with him for a little over a year. And, again, he's asking these questions. And in the course of asking these questions, he was the one who found the first -- the first bit of internal inconsistency in Westboro's doctrines. And when I look back at how I responded to that -- so my husband -- I didn't actually start speaking to him until months after that. But when I think about how I responded to that first bit of internal inconsistency, that was when I first started to challenge, in my own mind, Westboro's doctrines.

GLENN: And you didn't let him know that.

MEGAN: No. For sure. As soon as he had made that point, I was actually terrified to speak to him again. I didn't even let on that I recognized that he was right. I just stopped speaking to him.

GLENN: Wow. What was the point, if you don't mind me asking?

MEGAN: Oh, yeah, no, not at all.

It was a sign that said "death penalty for fags."

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MEGAN: Yeah. So, of course -- we used, you know, the verses in Leviticus and also in Romans 1 that talk about how, you know, gays are worthy of death. And he brought up -- so he's Jewish. I was really surprised that he brought up Jesus, saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

And I didn't -- I just had never connected that that was talking about the death penalty. And we thought, we're not -- we're not casting stones. We're just preaching words.

And David said, "Yeah, but you're advocating that the government cast stones."

And so that -- when I brought that point to other members of the church, the response was just to double down. They never addressed the passage that -- you know, that contradicted us. They just reiterated the passages that supported us. And so that was the first time that -- and the way that I reconciled it in my own mind was I just stopped holding the sign because I didn't know how to defend it anymore. And I didn't believe in it.

GLENN: Did they tell you to stop talking to these people?

MEGAN: I don't think -- I don't think people quite realized how much -- I mean, they knew I was very active on Twitter, but I don't think they realized how much it was affecting the way that I was thinking. I honestly didn't -- didn't understand it either.

Because in my mind -- I think I was in denial about it because -- you are not supposed to be impacted by other people. You are not supposed to be anything, but preaching to them. You're not supposed to really, you know, care -- I was going to say care about them. It was a very strange dynamic. But I was in denial about it. And I think that definitely helped it seem to others as if it wasn't really having an impact on me also.

PAT: Is anybody in your family speaking with you? Do you have a relationship with anybody anymore in the family?

MEGAN: Not anybody in the church, no. But there has been over the last decade or so, about 20 or so people who have either left or have been kicked out of Westboro. And my brother actually, the morning of my high school graduation -- he's a year and a half older than me. We woke up and went downstairs, and all of his stuff was gone. And so I have -- I didn't get to speak with him for the eight and half years between when he left and when I left. But now we're really good friends. And he's wonderful.

PAT: What was he thrown out for?

MEGAN: No, he left actually.

PAT: Oh, he left on his own.

MEGAN: He left at 19. Yeah, he also had Scriptural objections to some things. And also the extreme -- he objected to the extreme level of control because everybody in the church -- we all lived within two blocks or so of one another and did everything together and were obviously not developing relationships with people outside. But the level of control is -- is really -- really, really extreme.

GLENN: Do they -- do you think this will just die out as the family dies out, or?

MEGAN: Actually, I thought about this. My sister and I would talk about this about how could the church end in a way that just wouldn't destroy everybody on the inside?

There's still about the same level of membership as there has been. Because a few people -- a few new converts have joined. And then, of course, my generation has now -- they're having kids. But there's not many.

GLENN: What kind of people would join -- what kind of people join this? They really believe -- the newcomers that come in --

STU: It's one thing to be raised in it, but to be converted as an adult.

GLENN: Decent people. Yeah.

MEGAN: So honestly, I've speculated about this too. So, for instance, my dad -- my dad joined the church long before the picketing started. He was only 16 at the time. And, you know, his family wasn't -- I mean, his mom had been divorced. I don't think he -- he was attracted to the love and unity and connection I think in my family. In the Phelps family, I think. And I think that's a draw for some people. And it really lends credence to the idea that they're doing what they're doing out of love, out of good intentions.

And, again, some people just, I think are drawn to that defense of the idea of having all the answers and knowing for sure what you believe and how you're supposed to live. Like, it's -- that was such a powerful thing. When I left and realized like, I don't -- I don't have that anymore. I don't have that sense of -- it's a very comforting sense of certainty. And, you know, nuance and questions and uncertainty are a lot more difficult to deal with. I think some people are attracted to that part of the church.

GLENN: Next time they're out protesting, what should people do?

MEGAN: I think engaging at protests is actually not a very effective thing because they're -- on picket lines, they're already in these attack/defend mindsets. I think the internet is a much -- you know, Twitter. There's a lot of them on Twitter now. I think that's a more effective way of engaging. But if you -- if you do see them and if you are moved to go and speak to them, just remember that -- that responding with, you know, yelling and name-calling, all those things, it just reinforces what they already believe. It's adding to, you know, their certainty that they're doing the right thing.

GLENN: It is really -- it's really great to talk to you. Megan Phelps-Roper. You can find her @MeganPhelps. That's her Twitter handle. @MeganPhelps.

Really great to talk to you. And thank you for sharing this. And I think you have an important voice that needs to be heard.

STU: And I will say, Megan, will you confirm this, because we got the fifth point out of you, we are 25 percent better than your TED talk.

MEGAN: Yeah, for sure.

GLENN: Megan, can we pay you an off-handed compliment. Stu wanted to say this, we said it during the break. And it's weird because it's exactly what we're talking about. We don't know each other. We don't talk to each other.

We look at people in the Westboro Baptist Church and think that their kids just must be dumb as a box of rocks. And just, oatmeal! Every answer is, oatmeal! (chuckling) And you're so articulate. I mean, it's amazing just to have that view shattered.

MEGAN: Thank you.

I will say -- I mean, another thing that's not so well-known about the church, education was really important in my family. Most of the people there -- many lawyers, people who work in health care, and IT. And they're very well educated.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Wow.

MEGAN: Which is partly I think what makes it so much more difficult for them to see outside of it. This is like a psychological thing where, by -- by having these very strong mostly internally consistent arguments, they -- they think they're so certain that they don't even question the -- they don't even question it.

GLENN: Amazing.

MEGAN: But, yeah, anyway...

GLENN: Thank you so much. @MeganPhelps. Thank you so much, Megan. Appreciate it.

MEGAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You bet.

RADIO

Is THIS why Trump sent CIA and B-52 bombers to Venezuela?!

President Trump is cracking down even harder on Venezuelan cartels. He has bombed boats carrying drugs, flown B-52 bombers off Venezuela's coast, and just recently authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela. So, why so much focus on Venezuela? Glenn and Stu discuss their theories, including Maduro's mysterious island with connections to Iran and Hezbollah...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: How do you feel about this kind of flying under the radar. We have B2 bombers flying over Venezuela. We're blowing boats out of the water.

STU: You know, how under the radar is it when we're blowing up boats in the international waters?

GLENN: Well, it's not under the radar. It's like, nobody is really talking about it.

STU: It doesn't seem like the highest priority, I will say.

And usually, when we're in the middle of what seems to be a conflict. By the way, the only way we would be able to do this, legally. Is by basically saying, we are in some sort of conflict with them. Right?

Like, we have to -- Andy McCarthy had a long write up about this, a read about a couple weeks ago. When it comes down to justifying a strike like this. We have to be able to sort of say, we're in some sort of conflict. You don't just do that typically. Now, the question, of course, the --

GLENN: The War on Drugs.

STU: Right. He broke it down. It might be worth explaining this at some point.

GLENN: War on terror. Yeah, yeah.

STU: But he's concerned about what's the process to get to the decision. Not, of course, whether we want drug dealers here. Nobody wants that. But there is a legal process that has to happen. And at his seem like it also has to escalate beyond just the cartel situation. Remember too, Trump's first term.

GLENN: Tried to get Maduro out.

STU: Very clearly. The Peace Prize winner, right? Someone from Venezuela, who dedicated to Donald Trump, knowing that Trump has fought really hard for the people of Venezuela, whether you agree with what he's doing or not. He does really care about the situation.

GLENN: He also knows something.

And, you know, I'm -- I'm -- I'm not surprised, the press isn't talking about Margarita Island, but I think that's one of the main reasons why he's --

STU: You're talking about Margaritaville?

GLENN: No Margarita Island. It's just off the coast of Venezuela. It's run by Maduro.

STU: Jimmy Buffett.

GLENN: No. Jimmy Buffett has nothing to do with it. Not involved at all. The Iranians have a lot to do with it. It's a Hezbollah-Hamas training island. And Maduro has been sending Venezuelans and gangs to that island, just off that coast, to train for terrorist activities.

They train there, and then they fly over to Iran, to finish their training. They come back to Venezuela, and then they're unleashed, wherever Maduro wants them unleashed.

So there is actually a terrorist camp that is part of this. And we have been talking about it, you know, on my show. Television. I don't even know.

Five years. Six years. We found this out. And kind of been wondering, why are we not going after this?

Why -- why are we not at least talking about this terror island?

You're looking it up right now, aren't you?

STU: Yeah. Looking at it, just how, first of all, very close to the coast. But you look at the islands that are around it are massive vacation destinations, like Aruba.

GLENN: That's not.

STU: What is that?

GLENN: Margaret Island is not a vacation destination.

STU: No, that's what I'm saying. It's fascinating. Like, you book a trip to Barbados, and you're, what? A couple hundred miles away from a terrorist island.

GLENN: A terrorist island. Yeah. Did you even know that?

STU: I didn't.

GLENN: That's Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: -- in bed with Maduro.

And I'm convinced that this is one of the main things that he's going for. I mean, yes. He is -- I mean, this is Tren de Aragua. Or whatever the hell that thing is. That -- that's part of this.

The unleashing of the prisons. That's also part of this. I mean, this is Maduro trying to unleash along with the Iranians, unleash chaos on our streets.

And I don't know why we don't talk about it. Because I think that's a better case, that's a cigar boat that has drugs in it.

You know.

STU: Yeah. I mean, that seems like it. How -- what's your feeling on the drug boat thing?

Have you spent a lot of time thinking this one out?

And isn't it interesting --

GLENN: I know as an American, I should. I haven't.

STU: It's kind of -- well, it's sort of --

GLENN: That's what I mean flying under the radar.

STU: It's sort of commentary of what you're just saying. It has flown under the radar for a lot of people. Mainly because I think we all recognize there's a real problem with obviously, not just illegal immigration. We always summarize it as illegal immigration. These are people oftentimes that are criminals, drug dealers. Gang members that are coming across the border and committing --

GLENN: Terrorists. Terrorists.

STU: Yeah. It's not just the mom who is trying to get a job here, that's better for her children. That's a separate economic issue associated with that.

But when you talk about drugs coming in. First of all, this is something Trump has been very clear about. Does not want this going on.

And I think we all -- the ends are there. For sure.

The means, I guess are the question. And, you know, what's interesting about this is, you feel like, it's all about a message being sent.

Right?

There's no reason why in theory, we could be the not just stopped these vessels. You know what I mean?

We could pull. We could get the Coast Guard over there. We could get the Navy.

There's all sorts of different things we could do to stop these boats. We're blowing it up, and telling everybody about it, for a reason. And I think quite clearly, this has caused a maritime decrease in traffic, if you will.

From Venezuela. To here.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: This is seemingly working quite well.

The question is, process-wise, is it aligning with what we should be doing?

GLENN: Here's my guess.

Because you know how much Trump hates war. He hates war.

He'll use military force.

But he likes to use quick force. And getting things done.

And he likes overwhelming torso.

STU: And public.

GLENN: Yeah. He likes -- he's sending a message. Not just to Venezuela. He's sending it to the whole world.

And after this last week, where he has walked around like the victor of the world. And all of the other nations coming to him. And bowing knee. And going, okay.

Yeah. Thank you. We're good. We're good.

He is sending a message to three countries, I think.

He's sending a message to Iran. Which is tied right directly to Russia.

And also Venezuela. Which is also tied to China! And Iran.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And I think -- I think he's -- I think he wants this week, especially to be a week that Maduro goes, "You know, things might be changing. I don't know if this is the right" -- and I think he's just using very strong images and power.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: He's using it the right way, to say, back off, buddy. Don't do it right now.

And also, I don't like this. Sending the CIA in.

I just don't trust the CIA in anything anymore.

STU: That's a new development, as of the last 24 hours, that we found out about it. Can you explain that? What are we doing there?

GLENN: Don't really know. Don't really know. Trying to go after the drug lords is what we're saying, but this is also what we kind of do with regime change, you know.

STU: And we've attempted literal regime change with this country. And we've not --

GLENN: Correct. He's a bad guy.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He is part of -- he is a drug lord. Maduro was this bus driver. He's now the head of the drug crime syndicate called the sun or something like that. So he's actually a drug lord himself now. So he's not the sweet little bus driver he used to be.

STU: Moving on up.

GLENN: Moving on up. And making friends with all of the wrong people. At least on our hemisphere.

STU: I will say this. If you were a Venezuelan citizen, would you take a boat outside of your territorial waters for --

GLENN: I wouldn't put a boat in my bathtub.

STU: Yeah. They -- they -- they really need to come up with a new way to get their drugstores here.

I think that's probably been a big focus of these networks now.

Because it's difficult to do by land.

GLENN: This is -- this is kind of what I expected him to do in Mexico.

And that's -- that might be another thing.

If he's -- if he's going after the drug lords. If you start to see these trucking lords just show up dead. He's sending that message to Mexico. You know, I'll do it. I'll do it.

You're not safe wherever you are. And it might have been easier for him to do it in Venezuela. Or so he thinks. Than in Mexico.

And so he's sending that message. Because the drug lords in Mexico are sending big messages to him.

STU: Yeah. I mean, they're putting bounties on ICE members.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Up to $50,000. Yeah. You kill a certain rank of ICE or politician. And they'll give you 50 grand.

I mean, this is the wild west. When it comes to these -- these drug runners and these cartels. It's become the Wild West. And I think that -- I think that play plays a role.

RADIO

Is a Manhattan-sized ALIEN SHIP hurtling towards Earth?!

A mysterious object about the size of Manhattan is hurtling through our solar system. Is this object, called 3I/ATLAS, an alien spacecraft or naturally occurring comet? Harvard University professor Avi Loeb joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s so weird about this object …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Professor Avi Loeb is with us. Avi, how are you, sir?

AVI: Doing great, thanks for having me.

GLENN: It's great to have you on. So can you just please explain, are we just seeing these things more than we ever have, because we have the eyes now in space to see this?

AVI: Yeah. Over the past decade, the astronomers constructed the new survey from the sky. Or for computers. But the motivation for building those -- I thought that Congress gave to NASA and the National Science Foundation, in effect, to survey the sky for any objects that are near earth, that could collide to earth because that poses a risk. And they all pose the challenge of finding all of this bigger than a football field. That may collide with earth.

Near earth objects. And there were two major observatories constructed back, a decade ago.

It was in Hawaii. And there recently, in June 2025.

And a new observatory in Chile was inaugurated called the Reuben Observatory. Founded by the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation. And those allow us to see objects that are the size of a football field and have a complete survey.

And amazingly, in 2017. And objects like that were slagged. And then the astronomers realized, it's actually moving too fast to be bound by gravity by the sun.

So it came from outside the solar system from the sun. It couldn't be around.

So that was the first. It was given the name 'Oumuamua, which means scout in the Hawaiian language.

GLENN: Hold on. Hold on just a second. Because I remember this. And I think I talked to you around this time. Explain what you meant. It was moving too fast.

AVI: Oh. Well, you know, the planets orbit the sun. For example, the earth moves around the sun, at the speed of -- about 30 kilometers per second. You know, which is faster -- it's 300 times faster than the fastest race car we have. I'm talking about 30 kilometers in one second.

That's about 20 miles in one second. That's the speed by which the earth orbits the sun. But imagine boosting the earth and just giving it -- attaching their rockets to it. Once it would reach a speed of about 42 kilometers per second just divided by the square root of two. 1.4 times the current speed that it's moving, it would be able to escape the solar system.

So it just needs a high enough speed to escape from the gravitational potential from the sun. And we know what the speed is. And so if we see objects moving near the earth, at more than 42 kilometers a second, we know they cannot be bound by gravity into the sun. They must have originated somewhere else. And so 'Oumuamua was one of those. And since then, we found two more with telescopes. I actually identified with my students, a fourth one which was found by the US government satellites that are monitoring the earth. That was a meteor that came from interstellar space. But, if anything, the most recent one, was found by a small telescope in Chile. Called the Atlas and again, to identify risks for earth. And that one is -- was different than the 3I/ATLAS.

GLENN: So help me out on this. Because we didn't have these telescopes. This is obviously a relatively new thing that we're doing. How much damage does a football field sized comet or -- or space debris, what would that do?

What was the size of whatever killed the dinosaurs, if that is indeed what happened?

AVI: Right.

GLENN: What is an earth killer size?

AVI: Right. Well, the size of a football field, and objects like that, that collide with earth, can cause regional damage. Much more you know, like older, a thousand times the Hiroshima atomic bomb energy output --

GLENN: Kind of what happened with Russia, back in the turn of the last century?

AVI: Yeah, something -- no, that one was actually much smaller than -- that was a thousand times less massive.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

AVI: So, you know, these -- these big ones are really rare.

And that's why I would say, as we continue this discussion. I would mention this nuance.

It's estimated to be, you know, older. The one that killed the dinosaurs. And these are extremely rare. And so question is why are we seeing an interstellar object that is that big, just within the last decade. Coming to your question. The size of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was roughly Manhattan Island. Okay? So compare the size of a football field to Manhattan Island. It's a very different scale.

GLENN: Jeez. Yeah.

AVI: So what the Congress wanted NASA to do was identify those that caused just regional damage. Not catastrophe like happened with the dinosaurs. Where there was a nuclear winter.

You know, the earth was covered with dust.

GLENN: Yeah.

AVI: And, you know, 75 percent of all species died. And we owe our existence, because after the dinosaurs died. You know, the more complex animals came along.

And we are one of those species.

GLENN: So you say they're only looking for the small ones.

I'm sure if a big one shows up. You will ring the bell.

AVI: No, that's much easier to see the big ones.

GLENN: Right. And do we have any technology that can move these things out? Or is this just something that -- just another thing on the -- by the way, this could happen. And it's coming our way. And there's really nothing we could do. Is this just a big worry? Or is there things that we could actually do?

AVI: Yes. We can. Because if you catch it early enough, before it comes close to earth. You can nudge it a little bit to the side, and then it will meet the earth.

There are all kinds of proposals for how to do that.

You know, the most aggressive one is to explode the nuclear weapon on it.

GLENN: But wouldn't that break it up, and then we would have all kinds of little meteors coming our way.

AVI: Exactly. That's why it's not a good idea.

The missiles were doing just that. They created. When they were operated, back a decade ago.

You know, they created much more damage, than help, actually. But you can do it in a more intelligent way.

Maybe explode the weapon close to the object. So that it doesn't disintegrate, just a part of it. Then you get the rocket effects from the ablation pushing it. But there are other ways.

Some people suggested painting it on one side. So it reflects more sunlight on one side. Then it's getting nudged a little bit.

You can imagine shepherding it, by the state craft is massive enough.

It shepherds it.

It basically gives it a gravitational nudge.

There are all kinds of methods that were produced. Proposed.

And, by the way, NASA just a year ago, they -- they tried one of these methods with the emission called Dark. Where they collided with an asteroid. To see how much it gets. The result. What happens to it.

And it's quite surprising. Because some of these asteroids were not really rigid.

They're porous. And you get all kinds of dust drawn out of them in ways that they were not anticipated. In any event, the people are thinking about, you know, rocks -- rocks are easy to deal with because in principle, you can tell what their path would be. However, one thing that was never discussed, and the kind of thing I'm trying to advocate we do, is, what if there is some alien technology out there, then you -- you know, if it was designed by intelligence, you won't be able to forecast exactly what it would do. It's just like finding a visitor to your backyard. But they enter through your front door. You have to act immediately. And you have to engage in ways that are much more complicated than dealing with a rock.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- another thing. Here's something else you can worry about.

So let me -- let me start there.

Because there's some things that I have been reading.

I don't know what's true. I don't know what's not true on this 3I/ATLAS. And I want to break that down, including the Wow! signal. Which I think you had something -- you were there, weren't you for that in '77 or whenever that was?

AVI: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So I don't know what's real. What's not real. I don't know who has credibility. You know, we've heard so many things. You know, extraterrestrial technology.

We had, you know, all of the drones in the sky. That everybody was thinking aliens were going to I object invade us for a while. And the world is on age. We're very 1938. '39. War of the worlds territory in America. And I think in the world. We're freaked out about everything.

So tell me about 3I/ATLAS. And why you say, it -- it may have alien technology.

AVI: Right. So let me give you the facts. The whole point about doing science that we can collect evidence, data from instruments.

And we don't need to rely on stories that people tell.

So what are the facts that make it really unusual?

Well, first of all, it's besides.

As I mentioned in the beginning, we expect many more small objects than big objects.

And the previous two interstellar objects. Were roughly hundreds of meters in size.

The first one 'Oumuamua, was a football field, a hundred meters. And this one, I wrote a paper two weeks ago that shows that it's bigger than 5 kilometers. You know, comparable to the size of Manhattan Island.

And that means it's -- it's a million times more massive. If you take solid density, relative to the first one, the 'Oumuamua. And medium-sized. So how can it give a third object? We should have seen millions, 'Oumuamua-like objects before seeing a big one like that.

GLENN: But we didn't have -- wait. Wait.

But we didn't have the technology to see it, right? I mean, these things have been passing us.

AVI: No, no, no. It's easier to see the big one, because they reflect much more sunlight.

So in fact, especially as they shed mass. 'Oumuamua did not shed any mass. There was no gas or abductor on it. We just saw the rare object.

And it was already puzzling because of that. It was pushed away from the sun, based on exterior force. It was there -- it was most likely flat. It had an extreme shape.

GLENN: And it -- it accelerated, right?

It didn't just whip around the sun. It accelerated, which does not naturally happen.

AVI: Yeah. Well, it happens, if the rocket --

GLENN: Correct.

AVI: If it's losing mass in one direction. And getting recoil in the opposite direction.

But there wasn't any mass observed from 'Oumuamua. Nevertheless, what I'm saying, is an object that was that is a million times more massive is much easier to see. When we talk about the -- it being within the distance of the earth from the sun.

And so we could have seen that easily. Many of those small ones before we see a big one.

And then the second one was a comet. Very similar to the size of natural comets we see. And that one is a thousand times less massive than -- than this new one, 3I/ATLAS. So the size is -- it's just surprising that we would see a giant one like that. There is not enough rockets here in interstellar space to supply such a giant one, once per decade to the inner solar system. We expect it once for 10,000 years or something. Anyway, that's the size anomaly. Then there is the fact that the Hubbard Space Telescope observed it.

And not in the image. It displays -- low that is towards the sun. Pointing towards the sun.

Instead of what you usually see for comets, where you see them pointing away from the sun. The reason you see them pointing away from the sun. Is because dust and gas are being pushed by the sunlight. And the solar wind.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what gives it -- the economy the look of a tale.

AVI: Exactly, that's the definition of a comet.

The other experts say, oh, no.

Here's a comet. Because we see the extension of the globe.

But what they didn't realize -- so they were just like seeing an animal in your backyard.

And everyone says, oh, it must be a street cat. Because it has a tail.

But then you look at the photograph of this animal, and you see the tail is coming from its forehead. And you say, well, how is that -- a common street cat does not have a tail coming from its head. So, anyway, the first one, you know, that shows such a thing, and unlike, a regular comet. And then in addition, so these are two anomalies so far. In addition, the -- the trajectory of this object is aligned to within 5 degrees with an ecliptic plane of the planets around the sun. And the chance of that is one in 500. So basically, it comes in the plane where all the planets are moving around the sun. And, you know, that could be by intelligence planning. Because if you wanted to do a reconnaissance mission. You know, coming close to planets. That's the way to do it.

And the previous one came both -- 'Oumuamua and the second one came at a very large angle. So this one came straight. And you ask why. Why would it come in a plane?

And, by the way, all these anomalies. No one who is calling himself or herself a comet expert. They just say it's a comet. But if you ask them, why is that?

They would not have an explanation. Why would they come in a plane? "Oh, it's by chance."

Why is it so big?

"Oh, it's by chance." Why does it have this glow towards the sun rather than away? "Oh, it's something we don't fully understand."

So they would say that, but they would not admit that it could be something else.

Then there's the arrival time of this object.

You know, with it arrived two days, at the special time, because it's very close to Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. And these planets are moving around the sun.

And you have to be at the right time, at the right place in order to come within tens of millions of kilometers within each of them.

So that's another coincidence. That, you know, might indicate fine-tuning. But there is some reason that it's coming so close.

And then --

GLENN: On hang on just a second.

I want to clear some stuff up. And then I want to take a break.

All of these things could be chance, right?

But you're saying now, they're just all --

ERIC: Yeah, but the probability for each of them is very strong.

GLENN: Right. So it's all stacking up.

AVI: You need to multiply -- you need to multiply each likelihood by another, and you get something like one in a million chance.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Make Men DANGEROUS Again | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 270

It’s time to make men “dangerous” again. Father and son Matt and Maxim Smith join Glenn to break down their epic alternative to a college education. While most young people descend into debt to prepare for jobs already threatened by the rise of AI, 19-year-old Maxim has spent what would have been his college years becoming an EMT, wrangling horses in Wyoming, sailing the Falkland Islands, earning a pilot's license, learning Muay Thai in Thailand, and more as the first beta tester for “The Preparation,” an adventure designed to make young men “confident, competent, and dangerous.” In a culture that drives young men away from masculinity and toward unlimited pornography and video games, our sons can still become “Renaissance men” by bucking the system of radical leftist-dominated academia and instead becoming financially savvy men of virtue and real-world skill.

Order a copy of “The Preparation: How to Become Confident, Competent, and Dangerous” HERE

RADIO

Antifa supporters say it's “just like” the Boston Tea Party. Here's the TRUTH...

Ahead of the second round of “No Kings” protests, Glenn Beck takes on an argument from Antifa defenders: they’re just protesters standing up to tyranny, akin to the Boston Tea Party patriots, who also destroyed property. But Glenn takes a look at history to reveal why Antifa is NOTHING like our founding fathers.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So is it enough to say, no kings!

Because that's the big movement from the left. They don't want kings. And they're saying Donald Trump is a king.

Well, what is it you do want?

I'm so tired of being against something. I want to be for something.

So, you know, on my website, I've adopted something, and it's been a logo of mine forever.

And it's -- you know, it's -- it's on my -- you know, shirts and different things. That I have personally, forever.

And it is a skull and -- skull and cross bones. But the -- the -- there's a crown that floats above the head of the skull.

And this comes from colonial days. When they would say, no kings!

But they follow that, with no kings, but Christ.

Meaning, the only king they serve is Christ.

Everybody else, and that's why there's the skull and cross bones

The readers of the country are mortal. They die. They turn to dust.

But the crown of Christ doesn't. So my leader is really Christ. And I will -- I will have somebody lead us on earth.

But I serve Christ.

And I will always recognize, they don't have the power of Christ.

They're not gods.

And so that changed everything in America.

Because kings were considered to be appointed by God.

And that changes everything.

So when you say no kings. What exactly do you mean?

By the way, you get the no kings T-shirt and merch, at GlennBeck.com.

You can shop right now. They're really great.

But it's important to ask, no kings, but what?

Well, they'll tell you a democracy.

But a democracy gives you kings!

It gives you dictators. It gives you authoritarians. We know this. Because that's why the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution, the way they did. And these guys, unlike anybody who is around today, these guys studied this forever.

And they were honestly looking for what is the best way we can get people to rule themselves.

And they didn't do it, I mean, the reason why our declaration lasted as long as it did. Is because it starts with almost an apology.

It starts like, look, we owe it to you, the king. We owe it to the people of earth. We owe it to God to say why we want to separate.

That's the way it starts. Unlike Antifa, it doesn't start with a list of demands. Look, we don't understand us.

We've tried to explain this to you. But you really don't hear this. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.

You don't believe that, as the king. You are more equal. You are appointed by God. But we believe that God gives every man, certain rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't believe that.

So they were explaining what they were trying to create, what is it that they're trying to create?

What is it that you're hearing articulate, that is a better idea than all men are created equal?

What gets us closer to that?

I haven't heard it. I've heard no kings. They don't want kings. And they don't want democracy.

But they never go into, what does that actually mean?

And historically, what happens when you have a democracy? They fail, every single time.

So now, they go out and you have Antifa. Now, let me tell you the difference between our Founders and Antifa.

Because, you know, our kids are being taught that, you know, what happened in the Boston harbor, in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party was the same that Antifa is doing!

So let me tell you that story. Small band of colonialists. They're farmers. They're shopkeepers. They're artisans. And they board three ships under the cover of night. Now, they're not faceless anarchists. They're husbands. They're fathers. They're sons of liberty. And they're not out to burn their neighborhoods. They're not out to burn ships themselves.

What they want to do is make a statement against the king that have refused to listen to them.

And so their protest is very targeted, very deliberate, and very symbolic. They abort the ships, and they actually go to the captain of the ship and say, our argument is not with you. We don't want to hurt the ship. We just want the tea. And he says, look, just let me deliver it on board.

Then you can do whatever you want. And we said, no. You can't. You can't deliver it.

We have to throw it from your ship. Because once it's delivered. Then the taxes. He said, yeah. But then I have to get paid. I have to get paid.

And so how do I get paid? And so they talk to him and he said, okay. If you throw it into the water and it's -- it's an attack, then I can get the insurance money. Right?

They swept up the ship. After they put the tea in. Did you -- have you ever been taught this? They swept up.

They got the permission from the captain, unbeknownst at the time to the king, and they swept up.

And it was non-violent. Completely non-violent. Nobody was hurt, nothing was destroyed, except for the tea.

And they dumped that in. Because the king was saying, you have to pay taxes on it. And they were like, no. We're not paying any more taxes. We don't have a voice at all.

You don't listen to us. You just keep taxing us. So we're not taking your tea. They left. No looting. No torch businesses. No innocent citizens bloodied in the streets.

Property was destroyed, yes, but destruction was purposeful, singular.

Squarely at the political agreements of taxation without representation.

And nobody lost anything, except for the insurance companies.

Okay. Now, fast forward 250 years. And look at what we have on the streets. The streets of Portland and Seattle are ablaze. Minneapolis, they set it on tire.

Store fronts are smashed, in their own communities! Federal courthouses are under siege. Neighborhoods turned into war zones. You have federal troops, that are -- are being attacked.

These are not citizens demanding accountability from a king.

They're saying, no king. He's turning into a king.

But, well, is he? Is he?

Because so far, everything that he's done, he's going through and you're trying to stop at the courts. And when the court overturns it. That's when he goes in.

And he's doing it, exactly the way the Constitution is asking him to do it.

Now, these groups are flying the black flag of Antifa.

They are not dismantling attacks. But the entire American system. The target is not representation. The target is, I want to be more free. The target is, America itself.

They're trying to destroy America itself. Our Founders, so you know, they liked the king. They begged him, please, listen to us.

They didn't want to be divorced from England. In fact, when we won the war, I think it was Hamilton who said, "You should just be a king. And maybe we should just go back to the king, because I think they learned the lesson."

No!

Here's the bright line here. The Boston Tea Party was all about restraint.

It was the language of very last resort, when every petition. Every plea. Every legal pathway, had been slammed shut by parliament.

And Sam Adams himself said, it's the last rational step.

Do you see anything that's happening on the streets of Portland. And can you describe that as rational?

Can you see anything that is happening when they're calling for, I want to see that politicians wife, hold their babies, as they die in her arms. Because they've been shot. Do you think that's rational?

John Adams wrote, it is so bold. So daring. So firm. So intrepid.

So inflexible. It must have important consequences.

They wanted liberty.

But they also wanted order, and justice.

And the rule of law. Antifa, contrast, they don't want any of that. They're not seeking reform. They seek destruction.

Their own manifesto declares it. It's abolish capitalism. Abolish police. Abolish the very republic that the guys in Boston were trying to build.

One side is destroyed. The sons of liberty disguise themselves as mohawk Indians. And they were making the symbolic strike against the British economic tyranny there.

And they were doing it, because they had to be able for the ships purposes and everything else, they had to be able to say, it wasn't -- it wasn't this. It was, you know, Native Americans, et cetera, et cetera.

But everybody knew it was the Americans. They knew it was the sons of liberty. Antifa is hiding behind masks. And these masks are to inflict terror on you.

To sew chaos. They target small business owners. People have to beg, don't burn my building down.

Ordinary Americans who have nothing to do with their grievance. If you get on to their side. Quote, their sidewalks. Do you think the Founders ever said that these were their sidewalks?

And what's the result? The Tea Party led to a constitutional republic. Okay? It was designed with checks and balances. Designed for ordered liberty. Designed to protect the individual and their rights.

It wasn't perfect. But what happens when you have Antifa? What does that leave behind?

Shattered glass. Boarded up windows.

Billions in damage. Fear, chaos.

We're living in a point where we are really lucky to be alive.

We're really, truly lucky to be alive.

Because we're being tested on, who are you really?

I've thought about this for a long, long time.

My dad grew up in a relatively good place.

You know, he was -- it was at the end of World War II.

He saw the moon shot.

He saw all the great times of America. Getting stronger and stronger.

Then he saw bad times. And good times again. But generally, with an exception with the rough time of the '60s, he wasn't pushed up against the wall. He group in, you know, Seattle. We didn't have the race riots or anything else.

And so he wasn't really pushed up against the wall ever, in his life. And I wonder, I wondered who he would have been, had he been pushed up against the wall. I think I would know. But I don't know. For sure.

You're pushed up against the wall every day, in every thing you do.

You're pushed up against the wall. What do you believe, that we're standing for? You're going to open your mouth, you're going to shut up and sit down?

What are you going to do? And that's getting hard and harder to do.

But history demands clarity. And we're seeing that clarity now.

The American Revolution was about creation. Antifa is about tearing down.

One birthed the world's longest standing constitutional government by far. The average constitutional government in the world lasts 17 years.

We're approaching 250.

17 years!

That's what -- that's what our Founders created. What has Antifa or anybody else on the left, have they created anything that is lasting?

Or is it all coming undone, and -- and more and more chaos?

Think about. We're going to heal the streets. We're going to reduce the cops. Has any of that worked?

We're going to -- we're going to do transgender surgery. Has that worked with your kids? Are your kids getting better or worse?

All the way along, has any of it worked? Is anything of it going to be anything, but ashes in the end? This is why we have to draw a very clear line. And you are going to see it this weekend. Hopefully, there's not going to be any bad things that are happening. But a passionate protest. A peaceful protest.

Is protected and sacred in this country. But violent anarchism. Whether it calls itself Antifa or any other banner, has no place in the tradition of dissent here in America. Our Founders would have recognized it immediately. Not as liberty. But as tyranny. And as a mob.

So when somebody tells you that Antifa is just like the Tea Party, remember the Boston Tea Party. Remember Boston harbor.

Remember the restraint. Remember clarity. Remember the purpose.

When you look at the fires of Portland. The difference is not subtle. And the differences between building a nation and burning one down. When they say this weekend, no kings!

What are they actually asking for?

What are they for? I know they're not for a king. I'm not for a king either.

I don't want a king.

But I'll follow that no king, but Christ.

My first citizenship is to the kingdom of God.

And I will serve that, because me serving that, makes me a better citizen.

Because I love my neighbor. I want my neighbor to prosper.

I don't hate my enemies.

When I actually serve in my first kingdom, my first passport, and I serve that king. I look for somebody that can help manage all of the rest of it.

Can -- can listen to the people. And start to move in a healthy direction, to make people more free, and to make our country a more perfect nation.

What are they for?

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Talks With Megan Phelps-Roper, Former Westboro Baptist Church Member

Is THIS why Trump sent CIA and B-52 bombers to Venezuela?!

Transcript

Is a Manhattan-sized ALIEN SHIP hurtling towards Earth?!

Transcript

How to Make Men DANGEROUS Again | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 270

Antifa supporters say it's “just like” the Boston Tea Party. Here's the TRUTH...

Transcript