So what can YOU do to push back against religious persecution?

On last night's TV show, Glenn continued his interview with Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks of London, England. Glenn really wanted to know what people who are truly awake and truly dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism could do to make sure the horrors of the past never repeat themselves.

Glenn: You are talking to an audience now who has been through this. This is well-tilled soil here, and we have talked about these things for a long time. My audience is, I really, truly believe, one of the more dedicated groups of people to let’s be the righteous among the nations; however, I know I feel this way, and I’m sure the audience does. I bet there are people all over the world that feel this way—what do I do? What do I do?

Yes, I know. I know what’s happening in Egypt. I know what’s happening in Iraq. I know what’s happening in Afghanistan, in France, in England, in Germany, in Russia, what’s happening here. I know. We keep saying it. We keep talking. Rabbi, it’s such a huge problem. As I was thinking about this interview today, I thought I think this is going to be one of those interviews that people look back ten years, fifteen years from now and say, “They knew, people knew…what happened?” And what happened was we don’t know what to do.

Rabbi Sacks: Let me tell you what to do, Glenn. Here’s an event that had a huge impact on me, the Six Day War in 1967. I think it had a transformative effect on everyone in my generation, but we know one Jewish community that it had a huge impact on, the Jews of the Soviet Union as it was then called. You had a lot of Jews, Jewish life had been suppressed after the Russian Revolution, serious persecution of Jews under Stalin, and then suddenly having faced what looked like a second Holocaust, you know, Nasser spoke about driving Jews into the sea, and Israel was outnumbered and outgunned, and suddenly Israel wins this extraordinary victory in six days, and that whole Jewish public in Russia suddenly woke up and suddenly wanted to be Jewish and suddenly wanted to be free.

Many of them, as you know, wanted to go to Israel, and they were known as the Jews of silence, the Jews who couldn’t make their voice heard. I was a student in those days, so I know exactly what happened. Jews around the world picked this up, and they’re probably was not a single country that had any Jews that did not campaign for the Jews of Russia. There were vigils. There were prayer meetings. There were protests. There was a worldwide movement. Glenn, there are not many Jews in the world. We are one fifth, less than one fifth of 1% of the population of the world, but we let our voice be heard.

Today, if the Christian world which numbers minimally 2.2 billion people, pretty much a third of the people alive in the world today, if the Christian community were to join its voices in protest at the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, parts of Africa, in Pakistan and elsewhere, if the moderate Muslim community which represents, I suspect, something like 90% of the Muslim world which is itself 1.6 billion, if we were to join voices together and stop saying there’s nothing we can do, there is everything we can do.

If we were to get up and protest and say this cannot be right. Whichever way you believe, religion is telling us to love one another, not hate one another. Life is sacred. Life isn’t cheap the way ISIS pretends it is. This is not religion, this is desecration. If we were capable of saying that and doing so together, we could change the world.

Glenn: The yarmulke, the kippah…I read in the paper yesterday that in Europe people are starting to wear a hair kippah so it just looks like part of your hair, and I thought to myself well, that’s a way to be safe. And as I’m listening to you, we have to all stand up, is it right to wear that, to hide the fact who you are, or is it right to wear it because stay safe?

Rabbi Sacks: My late father used to sell schmattes in the English equivalent of the Lower Eastside. Do you know what schmattes are? Off-cuts of cloth. It’s the kind of thing poor Jews did. He came over from Poland as a refugee, didn’t have an education, had to leave school at the age of 14, and he was the kind of Jew that you knew of in New York in the Lower Eastside. As a young man, I remember once I was walking in the street coming back from the synagogue, and I was wearing my yarmulke in the street.

A very sweet gentleman who had been praying with us in the synagogue saw me wearing this and run up and said, “Mr. Sacks, I think your son has forgotten to take off his yarmulke.” You know, it was not the kind of thing you did in public. My father, you know, left school at the age of 14, he turned around to him and said, “No son of mine will ever be ashamed to let people know he’s a Jew.” That sentence changed my life, and I will never, as chief Rabbi of Britain, I never did, and I never would tell people don’t wear yarmulke in public. If people can’t live with us being who we are, they can’t live with us, full stop.

Glenn: Patriotic, you’re patriotic. You love England. You’re a former chief Rabbi of England. You’ve been knighted by the Queen, so we know your loyalty and everything else. Seeing what’s on the horizon, knowing what’s happened in the past, first question: If you could go back to the Jews in Germany and in Europe in 1933, what would you tell them to do? And then, here we are. I don’t know what here it is as history repeats itself, but it’s on that track. What do you tell the Jews in Europe? Do you tell them it might be best to leave, and how do they compare?

Rabbi Sacks: First of all, Britain is not an anti-Semitic country. There are elements, minorities, fringe minorities. This is not the 1930s. We are dealing with an Internet phenomenon where individuals can be globally radicalized. The 1930s, you had something called a national culture, so you could ask, has France got an anti-Semitic culture? Has Germany? Has Britain? And there were elements in Britain in the 1930s that were also anti-Semitic.

The big difference between Britain and mainland Europe was that it never entered the public domain. It never became a vote winner, and that was the big difference. And Britain to this day is one of the most tolerant societies on earth. I have to say that out of deep personal conviction, but there are radicalized individuals who are capable of doing a great deal of harm. Now, I say in the 1930s, anyone who could run, ran. In the 21st century, we stand and fight.

The big difference, of course, is today Jews have a home, a homeland in the land of Israel. In the 1930s, they had nowhere to go. So, I think this very existence of the state of Israel which is so fundamental to Jewish self-definition says that once we have that, we are no longer capable of being intimidated. A terrorist seeks to intimidate. I as a Jew and I hope you as a Christian refuse to be intimidated. We refuse to hand terrorists a victory.

Glenn: I refuse.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: