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

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.

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

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.

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.