Writer: Here’s Why It’s Dangerous – for Everyone – to Designate White Supremacists As ‘Terrorists’

September 11, 2017

WRITER

Expanding government is dangerous for every American – and that even applies when it comes to white supremacists. Liz Wolfe, managing editor for Young Voices, joined Glenn on radio Monday to explain why labeling white supremacists as terrorists is a dangerous expansion of government.

If white nationalist groups are designated terrorists in the eyes of the law, other groups can be targeted based on ideology. More government power isn’t going to fix the problem.

“Essentially, you can make it so you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups. … Then that power can just easily be used to target left-leaning groups; it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups,” Wolfe explained.

Glenn and Stu also wanted her perspective on why millennials seem to want big government in theory but free market innovations like Uber in practice. Glenn offered a hopeful take: “I have tremendous faith in this next generation.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Time for an adult conversation. Time for -- time to get away from the -- the 144 characters for just a -- just a second and -- and actually have a conversation with some nuance.

We have Liz HEP Wolf joining us. She is the managing editor of Young Voices. She wrote an article in Playboy, or had an article in Playboy about the problem with categorizing white nationalists as terrorists.

Welcome, Liz, how are you?

LIZ: I'm doing well. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good.

Let's just start on a couple things. First of all, are you a white supremacist? Are you a white supremacist?

LIZ: I am definitely not.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

STU: You hesitated too long.

GLENN: Are you a nationalist?

LIZ: That's sort of hard to define. I don't think so, as a Libertarian.

GLENN: Right. So as a nationalist, as we were just talking about with Steve Bannon last night on 60 Minutes, he talked about the American system. And he specifically mentioned Henry Clay. And he said, "The American system is what made America great." I think it's the exact opposite. But here's what the Henry Clay system was: a tariff to protect and promote American industry, a national centralized bank, and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other internal improvements. Plus, an American school. So basically, a federal -- federalized public school.

LIZ: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I don't know any real conservative or small government Libertarian that is for any of those things.

LIZ: Yeah. Exactly. Totally agree.

GLENN: So you -- in your article, you write about -- you have to fight white nationalism. But be careful not to designate them as terrorists. Why?

LIZ: Well, because whenever you expand government power and whenever you sort of mince words especially with political groups, I think it's really challenging. Because, essentially, you can make it so that you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups, which the question of whether or not they'll actually do that is a whole 'nother thing. But then that power can just as easily be used to target left-leaning groups, it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups. When you expand that government power and allow them to classify all sorts of domestic and somewhat political groups as terrorists, really, really bad things can happen.

GLENN: It's amazing to me that people don't get this with what's happening with DACA right now. The government said, "Hey, give us your information." So people did.

Now what's going to happen to all of that information? Now you've self-identified. And if Trump wanted to use that information, he could. If it's not him, somebody else will have that information.

You just -- you don't -- you don't like to expand the government and give it more information and more power. Because you don't know who is going to be next.

LIZ: Well, exactly. And I think a lot of people in my generation, sort of haven't done a good job of understanding that for every Obama administration where you give them expanded power, you know, then there's the other side in charge. Or, you know, if you particularly like George W. Bush, at the end of that administration, the Obama administration comes into power. And it's worth thinking, what are the long-term consequences of these expansions of power? I think they tend to be really bad.

GLENN: So how do we -- I don't understand how your generation, who unlike a lot of people my age, don't have faith in the next generation. I have tremendous faith in this next generation. And partly because we have to. I mean, you're the ones -- you're going to fix it. You're going to fix it.

STU: Yeah, we believe you because we have no other freaking choice.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, no. But, I mean, that was part of it. Just like my parents had to have faith in me. You have to have faith in the next generation. But I also see that you instinctively get it. For instance, I can't convince people at all that the world is going to change. And really, you need to rethink your business entirely.

Today, I come in, and there's a story about Nordstrom's, how they're getting rid of all the clothing in Nordstrom's. Well, what's left? And it's because, as Nordstrom's says, the store is changing. The experience is different.

You guys see a different world where you're able to do whatever you want, create whatever you want. You don't need these big systems and big companies and everything else.

How is it you miss the connection in your generation between that freedom and big government?

LIZ: I'm really hopeful that it's something that we'll learn over time and learn through trial and error. Right? The more we make these mistakes, the more we'll suffer the consequences and realize, there's a problem when you expand the federal government's power.

I think that is really interesting what you're talking about, about how millennials are comfortable with various industries being disrupted. By new technology. By change. My evolution. But then they very much don't see that connection between, should you give some of that power back to the government? And I'm hopeful that as they see those -- the negative results that come from that, they'll realize, you know, as they get older and older, wait a second, that's not the world we want.

GLENN: What are you -- what are you seeing on the horizon, with people your age? And tell me about your organization.

LIZ: So my organization is an organization that works with a whole bunch of young writers. And they're typically politically independent. Some of them are more conservative. Some of them are more Libertarian. And we're really trying to get those messages of limited government, of increased freedom, of personal responsibility out there.

And so we work with a whole bunch of outlets. We have people publish in Daily Beast. We have people publish in Playboy. We have people in Washington Examiner, the American Conservative.

The whole concept is that there's no limit to the number of people and organizations that can carry this pro-freedom message. So I'm an editor, and I work to get their work, you know, in tip-top shape and published.

GLENN: And what are you seeing as the -- if things would melt down -- and, I mean, we're already starting to see colleges just -- it's a nightmare, what has happened, and the cost of college in the last ten years, alone, the debt that is coming. And everybody is being strapped to this.

When the government is standing there, and somebody like Bernie Sanders says, "I'll take care of you." Or on the other side, somebody like, you know, a Steve Bannon says, "I'll take care of you."

What's to stop your generation from saying, "Thank God somebody is going to step in?"

VOICE: I don't think there's much right now. I think you see people in my generation being obsessed with Bernie Sanders or not understanding that there is -- you know, there are always long-term consequences and unintended consequences to every decision that you make, whether it's on a personal level or on a government level, right?

And I think, you know, once people in my generation become taxpayers and realize, okay. We're investigating in college, we're ramping up the price of college, and we're having to foot the bill for that? I think they'll sort of begin to realize that maybe it's not the best investment. Maybe it's not the future they want. And I think they'll start to pursue a middle ground, hopefully.

STU: I like to be the person who is always negative on the program, so let me take the opposite side here. Because -- and this is an imperfect sort of comparison. But it reminds -- you know, September 11th is today. After that, there were a bunch of musical acts that came out and actors that came out and said things that conservatives, in particular, were like, "Shut up. Just do your job. Sing your songs. Do your acting. Stop talking about politics." And I felt that way too. I remember at that time. Then you got later on, then some conservative celebrities started coming out and they started saying things. And it felt awesome. Yes! You do it. Go for it.

And all the way to the point, at the end, where you've got Kid Rock potentially running for Senate. Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Conservatives apparently really do like when celebrities say things that they agree with.

And it's interesting because I think, like, with the government, it's the same way. Every -- it feels too good when you're in power to utilize the power. And so all the conservatives now are wanting to execute the same things that we complained about liberals doing years ago, when Obama was in power.

And I -- I don't know that there's enough people who can resist that temptation when it's put in front of them. I mean, do you have any hope on that front?

LIZ: Not as much as I would like.

STU: Yes. She's on my side. She's on my side.

GLENN: Trying to find some good -- can we find something positive here?

LIZ: Well, I think there's this issue of, we see growing tribalism. Right? When people on your side do it, you're like, "Yeah, we're the winning team." When people on the other side do it, you're like -- I mean, think about the number of people that hate Lena Dunham nowadays. I asked somebody, you know, he was writing on Lena Dunham the other day. And I was like, why do you dislike her? And he was like, I don't know. Like, she's a liberal. She was campaigning for Hillary, and she lives in Brooklyn. And I was like, well, that alone isn't necessarily bad enough to hate somebody. I can think of all sorts of other reasons. But that alone is not good enough.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Her show is a good reason, for example.

GLENN: Why just hate people? Racism is so stupid. Get to know people. Know why you despise them for specific reasons.

LIZ: Like you can definitely find reasons. Like super easy ones.

GLENN: Once you get to know me, I can give you 100 reasons. Why stop at the surface? So what is the Libertarian message that is sexy?

I mean, what is the thing that -- that will sell, when you've got all kinds of problems? What's the thing that's going to make people -- the millennials say, "Yeah. That's me. I'm in?"

LIZ: Well, so far, we haven't found it. Marijuana legalization didn't seem to work.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: I think in general, focusing on how expanded power can hurt people on both sides. It's not just going to come back and hurt the neo-Nazis, you know, the ones who are really easy to identify as the bad guys. I mean, we've seen the FBI target the Black Panthers in the past. We've seen them target anti-war activists. We've seen them target animal rights activists, for crying out loud.

And so appealing to people and letting them know, you know, when you expand government power, it can be used to target the obvious bad guys. It can also be used to target lots of other groups -- I mean, especially left-leaning groups would find those groups very sympathetic, right? So it's important to sort of drive that point home.

GLENN: Where is the line? Where is the line? Because, you know, you mentioned the Black Panthers or animal activist groups. I can't remember -- you might remember, Stu. About ten years ago, there was this really nasty virulent animal activist group that was engaged in terror.

STU: Named after a wonderful alien from '80s sitcoms, Alf.

GLENN: That's right. That's right. Alf. So where is the line? Where is the line of saying, "This group we do need to --

LIZ: Well, I don't know. But I think that's the precise reason why up until now, we've been so hesitant to label domestic terrorist groups as terrorist groups. We're comfortable labeling international terrorist groups as that, because we have a more clearly defined set of criteria. With domestic groups, it's really, really difficult to draw that line. It's difficult. One person's, you know, Black Panther terrorist group could be another person's political group. One person could see the NRA as terrorists for some reason, whereas others see them as exercising their Second Amendment rights, that, you know, they're given in the Constitution.

And I think that's precisely the issue, that it's so hard to draw that line. And so I err on the side of not letting anybody in any position of power draw that line, at least right now, especially when it's so politically motivated.

STU: It's interesting to me too. Because these are big issues. The article you wrote about, white supremacy, it's hard to come up with a bigger one than that. But even with just like basic economic foundations.

When we talked about -- you know, growing up -- before the internet, right? There was a lot of things to believe, that conservatism would be good for the economy. A lot of things to believe that economic freedom is a moral principled stand. But it's so much easier now to understand it. With the internet. With Uber. With all of these services that are outside of any structure, that develop on their own, and that are all the things that millennials like the best.

GLENN: Yes. How are you --

STU: And yet, they're like, we need more government control. I cannot understand it. I can't get past it.

LIZ: Yeah, I mean, my home city of Austin, they were regulating and making it horribly and it's like, wait a second. Millennials it means after a night out of drink, what's not like to like there? But it's amazing. They still feel like we should fall for increased regulation in all these areas. I don't get it.

STU: Yeah. I don't get it.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Liz. That is Liz Wolf.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep