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.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep