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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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.

RELATED: 4 Steps to Break Down Walls From a Former Westboro Baptist Church Member

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.

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…play icon
RADIO

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…

President Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing after Vladimir Putin announced a new underwater nuclear device. Are we heading towards a potential nuclear war, or does Trump have another goal? Glenn Beck explains his theory: Trump just won this fight...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, President Trump said yesterday, truly great meeting with President Xi.

This is a the problem. So much is hyperbole is -- truly. Like everybody said that meeting couldn't happen. It happened. And they said couldn't be done. It was done.

I got up this morning. People said I couldn't open the door, and I opened the door. Okay? It was the greatest door opening I've ever seen.
But from all accounts, this was a really, really good meeting.

Let me just say this: He's getting ready to meet with Putin. And with what Putin has done in the last couple of days, and now everybody is upset.

Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump said he's going to start testing nuclear weapons again!

Yeah. Yeah.

You know why?

Well, China is testing them.

And Russia is testing them.

We've had a moratorium on that. And here's what he's really doing. If I -- if I heard the news. And I was in the Donald Trump White House, I would be -- I would have walked in, after I heard the news, especially yesterday.

That Vladimir Putin has a new nuclear missile, that he can shoot 6,000 miles away.

Underwater. And it can navigate, and then blow up like a hydrogen bomb under the water, just off the coast of California, which would create a radioactive tsunami. This is what I would tell the president. Congratulations, Mr. President. You've won.

Now, why would I say that?

Because Vladimir Putin is not going to do that.

He's not going to do that. It would make him the pariah of the entire world. You're not going to set off a nuclear, radioactive tsunami to cover Los Angeles.

Because here's -- if I'm the president, and maybe this would make me a very bad president. But if I'm the president. And I hear that he has just launched a nuclear missile, towards Los Angeles, my decision is: Do I stop it?

Yes, I do everything I can to try to stop the missile from hitting. Do I respond before it hits?

All unconventional wisdom is, you've got to launch now, Mr. President. You have to launch now!

Hmm. Now, maybe this makes me a very bad president. I don't know.

I think it probably does. But I would say, no.

I'm not launching. Let it hit. And then I'm going to say to the rest of the world, immediately after it hits, this man just bird Los Angeles, killed all of these people, by launching a missile, a hydrogen bomb, underwater. God only knows what it's done to the environment.

But here's what it's done to people. And here's what it's done to Los Angeles. I give the world an hour before I respond.

I don't want a nuclear war. Because we all know what that means.

But rest of the world, you need to condemn him, and he needs to go on trial for crimes against humanity.

Nothing -- nothing warrants that kind of abuse of nuclear weapons.

That's what I would do as the president. Because I know the rest of the world, would not be kind to anyone who launched a nuclear weapon at the West Coast.

Wouldn't. If we launched a nuclear weapon, you know, even if we blew up Israel, with a nuclear weapon, the world would be like, look at what America has just!

They've killed all these Jews. Wait a minute. I'm so confused right now, what I'm for and what I'm against. But they would still condemn it.

Nobody can get away with that. He knows. Putin knows, the president is the most concerned about nuclear weapons. So what does he do?
He describes two nuclear weapons he has.

He's pulling out all -- there's nowhere to go from there. What are you going to do next? I'm going to blow up the moon?

He's just used everything in his bag of tricks. There's no place bigger that he can go. Other than actually launching those things. Mr. President, Congratulations, you've just won. So that's what I think is happening with -- with what Donald Trump has done this week. And the way Putin is now reacting. And he's about to turn his sites on Putin and Ukraine.

So let's start and see what happens.

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetimeplay icon
RADIO

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetime

According to the records released now by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the House Judiciary Committee, The Biden era DOJ and special counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. There were 197 subpoenas sent to 34 people, over 160 businesses, and vacuumed up communications tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities. Fox News, Turning Point USA, OAN, all engulfed in what has been called "Operation Arctic Frost." And all this was predicated on NEWS CLIPS?! Glenn explains why this Arctic Frost is MUCH worse than Watergate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: While we're talking about winter, let's talk about Arctic Frost. That's the code name. And according to -- according to the records released now by senator chuck Grassley and the -- and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden era DOJ and Special Counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. We now know, there were 197 subpoenas, spanning more than 1700 pages. Sent to 34 people. One hundred sixty-three businesses, and then vacuumed up communications, tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities.

Okay? That's reaching into everything. They reached into media companies. CBS, Fox, Fox Business, NewsMax, Sinclair, into financial institutions, into political organizations.

Even members, employees, and agents of the legislative branch. So now you have congressmen and senators being vacuumed up into this whole thing.

This is not a precision rifle shot. This is a net and a very big dragnet.

Okay? This is not the way justice in America works. You do not go after, you know, an entire party, 400 people? Now, what were they looking for? How did it start?

Well, let me say, the opening memo to justify Arctic Frost is to call -- does in legal terms, it would be called the predicate.

And it was stamped sensitive investigative matter, okay?

And it's cited. And I love this. Listen to this language. It's cited, evidence suggest a conspiracy around alternate electors.

I'll get to that here in just a second. But it -- it relied on -- leaned on news clips. News clips!

To vacuum all these people up, to get the -- to get the engine turning. News clips were used.

Suggesting, not proving. Suggesting, and it just rose up the ladder.

Ray, Garland, Monaco, even coordination with the White House counsel's office. It surfaces now in the record. This went all the way to the top.

This is not my language. This is what the documents now on the table imply.

Okay? Now, let me just pause for a minute, in the reading room of American memory. What is this all about?

Alternate electors. That's not a Martian invention. Okay?

That's not something completely foreign. We've seen it before. 1876, and 1960. They were messy. Contested. Deeply political moments that produced zero criminal prosecutions for their existence of rival slaves.

In fact, Al Gore, if he didn't set an alternate slate of electors, he was counseled, and I've talked to Dershowitz about this.

He said, they're counseled to have an alternate set of electors. Because once -- if you don't do that, and the tables turn and you're like, you know what, there was a problem -- if you haven't ceded those electors before a certain time, you have no case. You can't change anything. So it has to happen. And it has happened two times before, I think three, but definitely in 1876 and 1960.
In Hawaii, in 1916, Democrats signed certificates while a recount was still underway. The recount flipped. So it was ultimately certified. The democratic slate was certified. Ugly? Yes. But that's the way it worked.

It's not criminal. And history has said no. It's not criminal.

But it doesn't matter, when it's about Donald Trump. So let me go back to Arctic Frost thousand. As the subpoenas flew, the FBI reportedly snooped phone records of Republican members of Congress!

The scope widened to donor analytics. Broad financial data. Trump world advisers.

The lawyers. The media contacts. We said, during January 6, we said, internally, if you don't think they are going after a massive tree, because remember, this is -- this is what the Patriot Act allows you to do now.

You go after one person. If anybody is calling somebody else, well, that person now can be Hoovered up. And who has that person called?

So you can get pretty much everybody that you want, with one subpoena.

But that's not where they stop. They didn't stop with one subpoena. Okay?

When the state casts a dragnet over the opposition's political ecosystem with the authority to seize all their communications, compel testimony, and chill the donors, that's not tough politics.

Okay?

That is the government, with badges and grand juries, leaning its full weight into one side of the national scale.

Watergate. Please!

Watergate. Let me compare Watergate. You know what Watergate was?

Watergate was a gang of political operatives who broke into an office to get information. They weren't even. They weren't even losing the election. Nobody even knows why they would even do this. It is so stupid that they would even do this. But it was a local office. They broke in. They wanted to get some information that was there, you know, on the -- on the candidate and on the race.

And then they covered it up.

And they tried to keep the public from the truth.

It was wrong!

It was criminal.

And it forced a president to resign. And people went to prison over it. But Watergate was a private burglary, executed by a campaign, and covered up. By the White House.

Terrible!

Awful.

That's not the DOJ blanketing the opposing party's entire world, with federal subpoenas while citing news hits as the predicate.

Do you see the difference?

Watergate was an attempt to weaponize a campaign. Arctic Frost, if the emerging records hold, was the attempt to weaponize the entire state against a political party.

The difference there is the whole ball game. Under a constitutional republic.

You don't have a constitutional republic, if that's allowed to happen.

In America, the state is supposed to be the neutral referee. Not a sideline enforcer wearing one team's colors under the stripes.

And don't even start with me on, well, what about Donald Trump?

We'll play that game all day long. And you know where that gets us?

Nowhere. You want to make a charge against Donald Trump and what he's doing.

Good. Let's take that separately.

Let's do that. I'm willing to. Let's take that separately. Let's deal with this one, first. Okay? The moment the referee picks up the ball and starts running, the game is over!

It's not a fair game anymore. And if it can be done to them, today. It will be done to you, tomorrow.

That's not a slogan. That's a law of political gravity.

Yeah. But Trump did -- okay. Let's have that conversation.

But can we at least have it honestly?

Because if you think this is about, whataboutism. You believe so see the nose on the front of your face.

You're completely missing this.

You cannot make a weaponization of a government, a partisan inheritance that each side can claim when it holds power.

If any president, any prosecutor red, or blue, uses federal power to criminalize political opposition, rather than prosecute clear crimes.

It is an offense gets an equal protection under the law. So let's -- let's lay down a standard here, that I'm willing to apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden and any other president that comes our way. Because if we don't lay this clear standard down, we're done.

The predicate. Predication. It has to be real. Not rhetorical.

Evidence suggesting via TV interviews, is circular sourcing, at its best.

It's not something that you launch a sprawling investigation on into a presidential rival's universe. If you can't articulate the crime, specifically, you don't get to launch a dragnet on the people that are running against you!

The scope has to be narrow, and tied exactly to the alleged crime!

Not a sweep through media organizations, and donor records, and opposition infrastructure, under vague theories, that come from TV reports!

Journalism.

Political advocacy.

Fundraising.

All of those things are protected activities. Separation from the White House, also must be unmistakable. If the White House Counsel's office is coordinating device transfers into an investigation of its chief political rival, alarms should clang in every corridor of every main justice call hall.

Everywhere! The alarm -- the Claxton should be going off right now. Also, historic practice matters!

If prior episodes -- by the way, this was all thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you know. Okay? Nothing there.

If prior episodes, 1876, 1960, and I believe 2000. If they were treated as political, not criminal, especially where alternate electors were explicitly conditional, then you need compelling new legal theories and clean facts to criminalize it now.

You can't just say, yeah, well, history, never did anything about it before. And, actually, they said it was fine.

But now, now it's going to be a crime.

Wait. Can you be specific on what has changed? Well, we really just liked the people that are doing it this time. That doesn't count. That doesn't count.

Now, before anybody clips this monologue and screams, so Glenn Beck said, nobody -- the Trump administration did anything wrong. Well, I don't think so.

But that's not what I'm saying, because I'm not the judge. I'm not your juror. I'm the guy insisting that the rules are rules, and they should be applied to everyone on all sides.

Smith has his report. He says, he wants to tell his side. Great! Put him under oath. If he didn't do it, then he should be set free.

But it should be on a clear set of laws! What's happened in the Biden administration, they just kept changing laws. Well, yeah. I mean, the bank said there was no crime. But Donald Trump. And so all of a sudden, there was a crime.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted. Ever before that. Even the bank said, this is ridiculous.

There's no crime here.

It didn't matter.

That's not justice.

I want real justice. Smith says he has a side, let's hear it. Bring forward the memos. Publish the predicate. Let the country see where weather we had a criminal case or an election cycle dragnet. Because that's what it looks like. If the emerging picture looks like, if the Arctic Frost opened up on thin evidence, escalated on political pressure, and metastasized into a government-wide sweep of the sitting president's chief rival and his entire ecosystem, then this is not just like Watergate. This is much, much, much worse than Watergate. In kind.

Not just degree.

Watergate tried to steal the information. That's it. They potentially attempted to steal legitimacy to criminalize opposition by wielding the sword of the state.

That violates, you know, more than statutes. That violates our creed, that free men govern themselves by consent, and the process is sacred. And the law is the wall that even presidents and prosecutors can never climb over. If proven, the remedy is not a sternly, terse letter, or an op-ed, and a shrug.

The remedy is the full force of the law. Inspector general referrals. Special counsels where appropriate, prosecution where crimes are clear. Statutory reforms to bar this from ever happening again from -- from press clippings?

Being your predicate? Bright lines need to be drawn. Protections for the press, for donors, and legislators in political cases. Sunlight. All the sunlight on how this began, who approved it, and why no one in the administration said stop.

And to my friends saying, well, Trump is doing the same thing. I hear you. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. Why don't we codify the guardrails right now?

So when emotions are high and temptations are strong, the republic doesn't survive by trusting that our guys will be angels. It survives on the chains on power. Everyone's power.

You know, when I hold a founding sermon in your hand, when you read the ink of Washington scratched in the margin notes of James Madison. You discover that America's miracle wasn't that we selected saints. It's that we built a system where even the sinners are fenced in by law.

That's the process. When justice is blind, to banners and bumper stickers and political parties, that's when America is America. Arctic Frost. If the record stands, it took a blowtorch to that fence.

So the choice is really simple. Retreat into teams. Each side cheering for its prosecutors. And its dragnet. Or you can do the harder, nobler thing, just like our founders did. And insist that the same rules that bind all power, especially when it's aimed at people that we dislike, are enforced. That's how you keep a republic.

That's how you make sure that there's not a second Watergate. Because we learned the lesson the first time. But it we?

Because if we haven't. If we don't learn it this time, and by God, we are done!

The story of America is not a story of who got whom. It's a story of the people who refuse to let the government become a weapon. And if that spirit still lives in us, then this cold wind called Arctic Frost will pass. And the Constitution will withstand. Because you stood for equal justice. For due process. For truth. That doesn't bend to politics.

And that, that is how we relight the torch of America!

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!play icon
RADIO

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!

A truck carrying 21 'aggressive' monkey's allegedly infected with contagious diseases such as COVID-19, herpes, and Hepatitis C crashed in Mississppi, causing the monkey's to be let loose. While most of the threat was taken care of, one monkey is reported to still be on the loose. This sounds eerily similar to the beginning of an outbreak movie...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Big thing some good news. Let's start with some good news.

President Trump has just -- is touring Asia and making all kinds of deals.

Donald Trump is single-handedly reshaping the earth!

He really is. He is reshaping everything. Single-handedly.

STU: Big job.

GLENN: I know. He's done more than The Great Reset did with all of that money. All of the campaigns. Everything that they were doing.

Listen to this. What he's just done. Signed a framework agreement, August 28th, between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister, mutual stockpiling of rare-earth elements, REEs. Okay?

To ensure supply security. That's Japan. Cooperation with international partners, US allies, to shield the supply chain from disruptions.

The goal is to reduce China's 90 percent control over the global rare earth minerals.

For tech, EVs, defense, and AI. Okay. They have a 90 percent stranglehold.

So that's what he did in Japan. Now, also bundle that with the 550 billion dollar strategic investment from Japan, in the US. Including a 490 billion-dollar launch phase. 200 billion for nuclear AI and energy projects, small modular reactors with Westinghouse and Mitsubishi, and supply chain boosts in critical minerals.

Trump tied that to the tariffs. Japan got an auto import tariff slashed from '27 to 15 percent in exchange for the investments. In two weeks in the last two weeks, listen to what he has done. He has made multiple pacts with allies. Australia, critical minerals framework, mining processing, and rare earth mineral recycling scrap. Then in Japan, I just told you, Malaysia, he just did a memo of understanding on critical mineral diversification. In Ukraine, a ten-year access to titanium and rare earth minerals.

In Thailand, an MOU on rare earth mineral supply. Add that to what else he has done. He is -- he is outflanking China. He is trying to break the back of China! He is friend shoring, is what he's actually doing.

He is -- he is putting all of this emphasis on rare earth minerals. He's cutting Asia away from China.

He's cutting Europe away from China. He's cutting South America away from China. He has moved all of the resources of rare earth minerals to us. Anything outside of China, is coming our way now!

That is massive! Massive! We were sitting ducks with rare earth minerals, six months ago, a year ago. Total sitting ducks! They had everything coming their way. We were not doing any kind of -- any kind of strategic thinking on this, at all!

And this isn't piecemeal. This is operation warp speed for rare earth minerals. He is -- the guy is so ahead of everyone else. He is reshaping global trade and permanently, hopefully, sidelining China.

So we are never having to put our hand out to China.

It's remarkable, what is happening. Just remarkable! Now, let me give you another story.

A truck halling 21 monkeys to a testing facility in Florida, overturned in Mississippi.
(laughter)

STU: How did -- how did we make this jump? Has he signed a memorandum of understanding with the monkeys?

GLENN: Nope. Nope. They're still negotiating. According to the Jasper county sheriff's office, the accident occurred on Interstate 59, near the 117 mile-marker just north of Heidelberg. Six recess monkeys from Tulane University escaped. Officials said, five of the six that escaped have now been destroyed.

We've been in contact with an animal disposal company to help handle the situation. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and I guess now monkeys is still looking for one diseased monkey, still on the loose.

STU: A hundred percent, the beginning of an outbreak movie. That's exactly how it happens. The one gets away. Oh, we've got five of the six. What's the big deal?

GLENN: What was the one. What was the movie with -- oh. What's his name?

Tommy -- remember, he was the escaped convict. He was the doctor, and they were hauling him. He was the doctor from Ohio.

Based on a true story. And he -- they're hauling him. And he escapes. He has to try to prove himself innocent. Remember?

STU: Fugitive?

GLENN: Fugitive. Yeah. That's right.

STU: I was looking for a deep cut there.

GLENN: Fugitive. Sorry, I couldn't remember. It's a fugitive, and outbreak. That's what this is.

STU: That would be a good movie. I wouldn't want this in real life.

GLENN: I prefer a lot of this to not happen in real life.

STU: What are the diseases? We have help C going on?

We have COVID. I think there's three of them. Help C. COVID. And what was the other one? Herpes.

What happens if we combine all three into one monkey, and then release it into the wild?

What could possibly go wrong?

GLENN: Let me tell you something.

You know, we are in real trouble. I mean, I hate to bring this up too. Okay. Did you need diseased monkeys on the loose today from me?

No. No. Can I make it worse?

Absolutely, I can make this worse.

You know when we have the COVID thing. And we were all like, we shouldn't have these labs everywhere, you know.

STU: Oh. Like the labs.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Gain-of-function research, and things like that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We've built hundreds of new labs now. Hundreds of new labs. There are more than 35 hundred BSL3 and over 110BSL4. Bio safety level four laboratories. And all of them are now working on pathogens that could kill all of us.

So a 2025 journal of public health study reveals over90 percent of the countries that operate these labs have no oversight whatsoever!

STU: All of them are working on diseases that can kill us all?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: There's not one that is doing yogurt flavors or something?

There's not one.

GLENN: No. There's not. There's not one. I wish there were!

You know, they keep saying, these are shields from -- no. These are match sticks. That's what these labs are. These are giant match sticks.

And we're sitting in a bunch of kindling -- they're -- they say they're developing vaccines. But what they're really doing is enhancing the viruses. Which, when I say enhancing, what that really means, they're weaponizing viruses. So don't worry. You know, it's just gain of function, which translated is, loss of sanity.

STU: I mean, because the research makes me very nervous. I mean, the fact that we have more labs that have higher safety standards. In theory, should be -- that was one of the problems with the COVID outbreak. Right?

They were doing research that should have been done at a BSL4. BSL1 and BSL2.

So, I mean, having more fours, that could be good, right?

GLENN: Eh. Did you see the BSL4 in China? In Wuhan?

STU: Well, I think that was the issue, it wasn't a BSL4.

GLENN: I think they called it a BSL4, and then it wasn't one.

STU: I don't think it was. Do we have a BSL4 for monkey research? I think really --

GLENN: I'm not really sure -- I know Georgia.

STU: Don't transfer it. Keep it in one place. You don't need to transfer them anywhere.

GLENN: In Atlanta, they're doing -- they're building another 150,000 square feet of a BSL4 in -- in Atlanta. So that's the place, oh, yeah, where all the zombies will be. Can I just tell you a quick little story? 1979. Soviet Union.

You know, they're trying to maintain this BSL4. They're not very good at it. Because, you know, they're not good at anything in 1979 in Russia.

STU: Except for nuclear power.

GLENN: Exactly right.

Okay. So there was a cloud released from this bio safety level lab four.

No flames. No alarms. Just a faint, invisible mist. It's kind of like hmm, my teenage son's farts. It's invisible, and it's deadly.

STU: Okay. Hmm.

GLENN: And it was carrying anthrax spores, okay? From the weapons lab.

Well, people began to die, clearly. We don't know how many. They think hundreds. Entire families suffocated because the bacteria devoured their lungs. And they were like, I have no lung!

GLENN: Okay. And the Kremlin was like, not happening. What do you say?

People were eating tainted meat. That's what's happening.

And it's eating their lungs.

STU: They Chernobyled it.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So for a decade, nobody really knew what was going on, until the fall of the Soviet Union, and then people were going in. And they were like, oh! Here's what happened.

In one of these bio safety labs, a technician failed to replace an air filter properly.
And that was -- that -- just that allowed this microscopic storm of death to be released into the air.

I don't know! I mean, if your air filter not being installed properly can kill a bunch of people. And only tainted meat. McDonald's. I don't know. I don't -- I don't really think that we should -- we have them all over. 149 nations have them now.

149.

STU: There's definitely not 149 nations that should have stuff like that.

GLENN: You don't think so?

STU: No. I don't even think I can name 149 nations.

GLENN: Try this one. In India, the labs now are experimenting with the Crimean Congo viruses. Fatality rate of 75 percent.

In Russia, under its sanitary shield initiative, they are building 15 new BSL4 sites. In Brazil, Project Orion, a high-containment complex integrated with its particle accelerator.

Oh. And as I said, Atlanta, 160,000 square feet.

Apparently, we don't have enough room for all the monkeys that we're releasing in all the wild. And eventually, we'll find. And put them in there.
And torture them. Or do whatever it is we do. No international body tracks or regulates what's happening in any of these fortresses. What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: We should note an international body does not necessarily solve the problem.

I mean, as we've seen -- when they do monitor it, they usually import people to rape the citizens around the facilities.

GLENN: Exactly right. But you know what I'm really sick of it? There's no international body that does anything, except just let these people put really bad things into our body!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we -- can we stop with this?

STU: We're good with this on our own. Put all sorts of things in my body. That should not have been in there.

We're good at doing that.

As Americans, on our own. We don't need your help.

GLENN: I really -- just stop.

The arrogance. The arrogance of these -- hey, you know what, we need to fiddle with some more viruses. And let's make a digital God that we can't control!

What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: Especially when the digital God that we can't control can make new viruses.

GLENN: Exactly right! Exactly right.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And maybe -- maybe -- maybe what we do, is we put it into a self-driving car. And it directs. And monkeys just start flying out of everyone ever seen butt.