Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
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.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.