The Alt-Right's Claim to the Right Is As Legitimate As Dwight Schrute's Claim to Assistant Regional Manager

August 15, 2017

WRITER

In the wake of the weekend’s violent events in Charlottesville, conservatives have been distancing themselves more than ever from the extreme rhetoric of the alt-right.

The movement, which has been slowly trying to take over the political right, focuses on nationalism and has drawn Nazi support and praise from white supremacist figures like Richard Spencer and former KKK leader David Duke.

On radio Tuesday, Glenn and the guys analyzed the term “alt-right” and talked about the rise of the movement.

Stu Burguiere used a humorous example to show the world of difference between the alt-right and the conservative movement. In NBC’s comedy “The Office,” the self-important character Dwight Schrute likes to call himself “assistant regional manager” – even though he is simply the “assistant to the regional manager.” Similarly, the alt-right pretends to be the right, even though they are a smaller, usurping movement.

The analogy doesn’t work so well later in the series when Dwight does become assistant regional manager for a time, Glenn Beck pointed out.

“Temporarily having Dwight Schrute in charge of the Constitution and the movement to protect it might not be the best of ideas,” Glenn said.

GLENN: So can someone tell me alt-right, "alt" is the shorthand for what word?

STU: Alternative.

PAT: Altimeter?

GLENN: No.

PAT: Alternator?

GLENN: No.

STU: Alternator.

GLENN: Seriously, it is?

STU: Alternate.

GLENN: Alternate. Somebody define "alternate" for me.

PAT: Something used instead of something else.

GLENN: Something used instead of something else.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So if it's the alternate right, what it's saying is, we are something to be used instead of the conservative constitutional movement.

STU: Uh-huh. The literal definition of alternate is taking the place of.

GLENN: Hmm.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: So the alt-right, which the right opened its doors and said, "Come on in," announced, "We are the group that will take the place of you."

STU: Uh-huh. And I made this point kind of yesterday, when we were talking about the office where, you know, Dwight Schrute was assistant -- he wasn't assistant regional manager as he always tried to say. He was assistant to the regional manager.

And, look, there's various things around the right. There's a Libertarian right. There's a social conservative right. There's different movements among the right. But the alt-right is not an alternative right. It is an alternative to the right. You know, it is a -- it's a completely different movement completely.

PAT: Much as the left is.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: An alternate to the right.

GLENN: It is a -- it's an alt-left.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: When you -- for Democrats, when they took in the left, it was the new left. You can read all about the new left.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: When you read about what the new left really is, it was to supplant, subvert the Constitution and by using the vehicle of the Democratic Party or destroying it. So they'll either get into the car and then grab the steering wheel and take that car and drive it into a car of people, or they'll destroy that vehicle and then replace it.

So it's the same thing. And it's already happened with the Democrats. They're already gone, guys.

And it's what Joe Lieberman said. Remember, Joe Lieberman was really one of the last of the good guys on the -- on the Democratic Party, that had a spine. Up until he stood with Al Gore.

But he had a spine. He was a good, decent, honorable man, who I disagreed with. But Joe Lieberman is not the kind of guy you're going to get into a brawl with. He's not the kind of guy who is going to say, "Yeah, and, you know what," -- like Elizabeth Warren did -- "we're not left enough. We're not tough enough. We're not loud enough." That's not Joe Lieberman.

And what did Joe Lieberman do? He left.

Here is a vice presidential candidate who said, "I cannot be a part of this party anymore. Because there's no home for me here." He didn't run to the Republicans because he doesn't believe in that. He said there's no home for me here at all. When a good, decent man like Joe Lieberman had to leave, we all should have known, that is the end.

Who is the alternate that has now supplanted everything you knew? Who -- who is in charge now?

It's the uber left. And they welcome them in. And you're seeing them get more and more and more extreme.

STU: To the point where Democrats had a controversy earlier this year in whether they were going to give any money to anyone who was pro-life. Even if you're a Democrat on every other issue, if you weren't pro-life, you weren't going to get any money or support from the party. And that's how far they've gone.

I mean, their biggest successes, you know, in governorships and things like that over the years, a lot of them have been pro-life. Pro-life Democrat is a tough thing to be. Because if you have kind of that social thing with the pro, you know -- the pro-life side, you can get enough Republicans in the boat, and it's hard -- it's hard to beat those guys.

You know, that happened in Pennsylvania. It's happened all over the country, really. That has slowly been phased out, to the Democrat's disadvantage. I mean, the fact that they've been so harsh on that particular issue has turned so many potential voters off over the years. I mean, thankfully, honestly, in many ways. Because Republicans might not win any elections.

GLENN: And so what is the alternate to the right? The alternate is to go fully to a European system. That the left is communist and the right is nationalist, populist Nazis. Socialists on both sides.

The right and the left of Europe, they're both socialists. They both believe in giant government. It's just, are we going to be communists, or are we going to be national socialists?

Those are your ends. And that's what's happening. You are seeing the sealing of the fate of the United States Constitution, and Democrats and Republicans alike should be able to come together and say, "I don't want to stand with the Antifa people because I know who they are. They are communists and anarchists. That's who they are." They are not defenders of free speech. They're not defenders of the republic. They're not defenders of freedom. They are communists and anarchists. I don't want to stand with them.

You look to the alt-right. They are national -- nationalist, populist, socialists. And they have no problem marching with a Nazi flag.

How are we so divided? How are we so divided? We had a 50-year war against communism. And we had the biggest war the world has ever seen against Nazis. Wait. What?

How is America confused? There are enemies on the left and enemies on the right. They are very small fractions of this country. They are not the center of this country. And when I say center, I don't mean the mushy middle. I mean the people who still have strong principles and values that we disagree with and will argue until the day we die, most likely.

But the middle of this country says, "I'm not a communist, and I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a black nationalist, and I'm not a white nationalist. I'm sick of all of this." That's who we are. That's the center of this country.

No, you can't be in the center.

I proudly stand in the center of that group. Because the center is the furthest place from the communists on the left and the Nazis on the right. I'm proudly as far away as I can be from either side.

And yet, the media on both sides, because they win -- we lose. But they win, they are trying to make you feel like the other side is nothing but communists, or the other side is nothing but Nazis. It's not true. And you know what, guys, if it is, then we need a civil war. But it's not true.

Don't you see what we have? There are people that are stealing it, and they are using us to help them open all of the doors and the windows so they can get the stuff and then get our house. And we're living out on the street. We're helping the robbers burgle our own home.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep