You’ll Never Guess Which State Has a Confederate Monument to Take Down

August 18, 2017

WRITER

Montana officials have directed the removal of a Confederate fountain in Helenafollowing the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville last weekend.

Native American lawmakers petitioned the city council of Helena to remove the fountain, which was commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. While Helena Mayor Jim Smith formerly opposed removing the fountain, which was dedicated in 1916, he said his change of heart came after recent events.

“I believe the time has come for the removal of the fountain,” he told the Independent Record.

The Helena City Commission has directed the city manager to remove the granite fountain. Officials haven’t yet decided what will be done with the memorial or if it will be replaced.

Pat, Stu and Jeffy looked at the story on radio Friday.

Pat wondered how on earth a Confederate memorial made it all the way up to his hometown in Montana.

“A) Montana wasn’t a state at the time, and B) it doesn’t get any more North … that’s a Northern state,” he pointed out.

“Is it possible it was just a shipping error?” Stu theorized jokingly.

STU: Do you think statues honoring the leaders of the Confederacy should remain as a historical symbol or be removed because they're offensive to some people? Now, you'd see, of course, Republicans would be on the side of keeping them up. You would expect that. Eighty-six to six, they want to keep them up. Now, independents should be in the middle of this, right? Independents are the ones -- you're not going to get the party stuff here. Independents support keeping the statues up, 61 to 27.

PAT: Wow.

STU: It's not a close call. This is a blowout, keep the statues up. And you might think, well, Democrats though, are really going to oppose it. No.

They are split on the issue: 44 percent say keep the statues up. 47 percent say take them down because they're offensive.

So the Democrats aren't -- I mean, they're saying that people who are opposed to removing these statues are bad people. Well, let's be honest, you have half of Democrats who say keep them up. You have two-thirds of independents and almost every Republican. So the issue here is not whether you're a racist if you -- if you think statues should remain up. Because across-the-board, there's a lot of people -- the overall, 62 percent of people overall say keep the statues up. And so this is not a particularly close argument. Most people say, "Look, we understand that there were bad things in our history. We -- it's important to keep this up so we remember it." And as Jeffy said earlier in the break, "You walk by one of these statues and it's offensive to you, tell your kid why it's offensive." What a great teaching tool.

JEFFY: Yeah. Absolutely.

STU: And tell them, this is offensive because this person did this, this, and this, and you should know about it. That's a really good way of handling it.

And I can't believe I just complimented Jeffy's parenting style. That is -- wow, I should --

JEFFY: I didn't say I was going to do it. I just said you should.

STU: Good. Good. Okay.

PAT: This -- we're on such a dangerous path to tearing down everything that is offensive to people, to silencing people, to saying that you can't -- that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. I mean, we're on a really dangerous path right now towards losing our freedom. If we don't stop this madness, this snowball that's rolling down the hill, we're going to be sorry. And there's not going to be a Constitution that stands.

They're setting fire to it right now. But we're going to have to decide what to do with these Confederate monuments because there's still more than 700 of them throughout the United States.

JEFFY: There's a lot.

PAT: 700. Including one in my hometown, on the mean streets of Helena, Montana.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Now, what it's doing in Helena, Montana, I don't know.

JEFFY: Commemorating the Confederacy.

PAT: Yes, it is. But, A, Montana wasn't a state at the time. B, it doesn't get anymore north in the 48 contiguous states than Montana.

(laughter)

STU: That's a very --

PAT: That's a northern state.

JEFFY: Yes, it is.

STU: Is it possible that it was just a shipping error? They gave it to FedEx?

PAT: We meant this for Alabama.

JEFFY: They dropped it off. And Bill said, "You know what, just put it over there." Just put it in the park.

STU: It's too heavy to ship it again. I don't want to box it up. Leave it over there.

PAT: I mean, how does that happen? Pretty weird.

STU: I don't know. This is your hometown. Do you remember seeing it?

PAT: I don't.

STU: Because the map is odd. And, of course, obviously, 98 percent of -- I mean, there's one in Iowa. Is the -- is the next furthest north?

PAT: Jeez.

STU: I mean, there's not a lot.

PAT: That's crazy.

STU: Maybe there's two in Iowa. Outside of that, there's like one in Pennsylvania. But overall, they're all, you know, south, where people generally --

PAT: Where you would expect them to be.

STU: Where you would expect them to be. And then there's just one up there in Helena. Just like, you know what, right here.

PAT: So weird. And apparently, Helena's mayor was originally like, no, we're not going to go remove that. But after Charlottesville, he's now saying, "Yeah, maybe it's time." So...

STU: That's weird. And I don't think we mentioned this: Baltimore just -- in the middle of the night, which is what they do in Baltimore -- they remove NFL teams in the middle of the night and statues in the middle -- why not just remove all the statues, like, yeah, we don't want them.

PAT: Exactly right.

STU: No debate. They didn't have any rallies. And they didn't have any protests, which I'm sure is what they were trying to avoid. But that's an interesting way of doing business.

Yeah, now they're gone. The thing that you saw yesterday, not there now. Huh. Yeah, there you go. Buh-bye.

PAT: Not there. And there's -- there's quite a few places around the country where it's being considered, that they're going to remove them.

And then -- but there's hundreds and hundreds of them where they still exist and nobody is saying they shouldn't, but it will happen. Right?

JEFFY: Oh, we got a rally going on here in Dallas, on Saturday. Right? A big rally for -- in downtown Dallas this weekend.

PAT: Are they rallying for it, to keep it up, or rallying against it? Probably both, right?

JEFFY: I think they're rallying probably both.

PAT: Yeah, probably both. Probably both.

JEFFY: But the main focus of the rally, I believe, is to make it go away.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: Good luck.

STU: And, look, it's not -- it's not -- it's not uncommon in these moments.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It's an interesting thing. It seems to be new. Like I would have told you ten years ago, there's no way places like, you know, South Carolina are going to take the Confederate flag off.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It was something so untouchable. In fact, if I remember correctly, and this has been a year or two since this happened. It was engrained in their Constitution that basically you couldn't do it. I can't remember what the actual law was. You couldn't do it. And they just wound up doing it, anyway, because of the shooting, which was a terrible, terrible incident. But it was mainly based on the fact that there was one photo with the shooter with the flag. Like, it wasn't even that he came in there with the flag and said, "I'm doing this for the flag," or anything like that. There was one picture of him on Facebook with the flag. And because of that, they took the flag out of where it was.

PAT: That's where we are. That's where we are.

JEFFY: And then they changed the law. Oh, you know what, we need to change the law again.

STU: And it worked. You know, this is amazing. This goes back to every piece of progressive ideology, as to how to move things around. And I'm not saying -- like, I have no reference for the Confederate flag myself. But the way you move these things is you don't let crises go to waste. There's a crisis. You have an advantage. You have an emotional moment where you can take a couple steps in the direction you want to go. You take it at that time.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep

You’ll Never Guess Which State Has a Confederate Monument to Take Down

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?