THIS is who the Black Hebrew Israelites are

Who are the Black Hebrew Israelites?

The path from the founders of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement in the late 1800s, to the group that verbally abused the Covington Catholic high school students in Washington last Friday is a complex maze. There are so many different groups, sub-groups and offshoots that it would take a week to untangle. So, I'm going to try to boil it down for you.

1886. Chattanooga, Tennessee. A former railroad worker named Frank Cherry established the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth for All Nations. Yes, that was the full church name. He mixed together elements of Judaism and Christianity and believed that African Americans were descendants of the original tribes of Israel. He preached that these Israelite ancestors were chased out of Babylon into central and western Africa, where they were eventually sold into slavery by the Romans. He preached that Adam, Eve, and Jesus were black. Cherry also preached that whites are inherently evil and hated by God.

Cherry's church formed the template for a ton of offshoots. Throughout the 1900s, these offshoots developed into three main tracks. There are "Black Jews," who adopt Jewish rituals but also believe in Jesus as the Messiah. There are "Black Hebrews," who strictly practice traditional Judaism. Then there are "Black Israelites," who are nationalistic and furthest from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The group that harassed the Covington students in DC fall into this third category.

The DC group calls itself "House of Israel." It evolved from the black nationalist movement of the 1960s and 70s, which branded Christianity as a foreign religion imposed by white slave masters on blacks. This group is on the extreme fringe of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, but see themselves as radical reformers of Hebrew Israelites across the spectrum who have gone astray. Even the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes this group as a "black supremacist" group, placing it on the same level as white supremacy groups.

The current "Chief High Priest" of this wing of the Black Hebrew Israelites has prophesied that a vengeful black Jesus will soon return to earth to kill or enslave all white people.

With that cheery message, small groups of Black Hebrew Israelite street preachers called "camps" station themselves at busy intersections in cities like Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore and Washington, DC. They rail against "white devils," which they believe are descended from a race of beasts spawned by Esau. Esau is the twin brother of Jacob (later called Israel) in the Old Testament. They also rail against promiscuous women, native Africans (for selling black Israelites into slavery), Asians, and call for the death of Jews and homosexuals. You hear a sampling of pretty much all of that on the viral video taken Friday at the Lincoln Memorial.

A former member of the Black Hebrew Israelites says they use fear tactics to break down new recruits and brainwash them. Recruits are urged to join camps and verbally assault pedestrians.

It's easier to go through airport security than to visit one of this group's places of worship. White people are strictly forbidden. If you're a person of color, you must explain to security why you're visiting and how you heard about the church. You have to swear you're not a cop, spy, or member of a rival Black Israelite group. Then you must swear before the security guards that you're "clean," including not having eaten pork or had sex for the previous 24 hours. They confiscate your phone and photo ID during the service. Then they pat you down. Once you're inside the first door you must register your name, address, and phone number. Then, you're handed a King James Bible. If you make it that far, a disciple then pours olive oil on your head as a final cleansing ritual. Now you can enter the main sanctuary. Good times.

So now you know their history, but what do they really stand for? What do they preach on American street corners? Were the things caught on tape during the Covington controversy an aberration or the norm? You be the judge, but be warned, what you're about to hear is highly offensive. The vast majority of their stuff can't even be broadcast on the air.

Who are the Black Israelitesyoutu.be

It's probably some of the most racist and bigoted language you'll ever here. Is this not what anti-fascists and the rest of the militant Left have risen up in mass to fight against? Where is the crowd of black clad millennials to stand against this? They'll show up to Berkeley to protest Ben Shapiro, but not someone saying THESE things?

OK OK I get it. They're saying all this about white people… so it must be ok then. In today's culture of relativism, we can let it slide… you know as long as it's just directed at WHITE PEOPLE. I'm sure they're perfectly fine with everyone else.

They hate every race or creed. And this is the only footage we could find that didn't have profanity. I couldn't even include the audio of them slamming other African Americans, Jews or Mexicans because it was so vile and laced with profanity that it's completely unairable.

So I ask again… where's the #Resist people? I got it, maybe they'd start caring if the Black Israelites came out as misogynist and anti-women. I mean, in this climate of "Me Too" that would surely be the final straw. But I'm sure they've NEVER been hostile to women, because otherwise we'd see the Women's March people, led by Linda Sarsour no doubt, holding anti Black Israelite rallies in Washington D.C. So they must not be anti women...

Imagine, just for a second, that everything you just heard was said by a group of white men wearing MAGA hats. They wouldn't last FIVE SECONDS without Antifa showing up. The wouldn't last TEN SECONDS before hundreds of people forced police to arrest them. And hundreds of videos would begin to pop up on both social media and blasted all over CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times… take your pick. It would be EVERYWHERE.

This is true racism. This is true bigotry. This was quite literally calling for a war on women. So where's the outrage? Why do we pick and choose what is or isn't racist, bigoted or misogynist depending on which side it comes from? The language is universal. It's like math. Racism is racism. But just because white kids in red hats aren't saying it, it's somehow not newsworthy? It's somehow not worthy to speak out against?

How would YOU react to hearing this on your local street corner? With anger? With fear? Anxiety? Maybe even rage. Nathan Phillips, the professional Native American activist, reacted by using the vile language directed AT HIS OWN PEOPLE, to make a statement - not at those speaking the words - but at a bunch of kids caught in the middle. The Covington kids reacted with a pep rally. Who do YOU think were the bigger adults that day?

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.