RADIOMay 04, 2022

SCOTUS leak is already UNMASKING the dangerous far-left

A draft decision from the U.S. Supreme Court was leaked late Monday, showing a majority of the nine justices may be ready to overturn Roe V Wade. The source of the SCOTUS leak remains unknown, but the fact it happened at all is demonstrable of ANARCHY, Glenn explains. And now, how the far-left already is choosing to move forward from it — like Bernie Sanders calling to pack the court — could UNMASK their dangerous beliefs. Could the far-left use THIS to further burn our cities to the ground?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Wow. Holy cow. Holy cow.

Last night, something happened that I thought would not happen in my lifetime. Something that I think actually -- it's going to be -- it's going to be rough getting through all of this. But I think that this is something that may have given us more time.

Or at least some blessings. We effectively stopped abortion last night, at least in some states.

Any state that decides, that they're not going to provide abortion, or they're going to make it illegal. That's fine.

You're going to see California and New York, I think after birth abortions are going to be in -- in the legislative body very, very soon.

Now, this was leaked, and that's another story. A big story. There's only about four people. That could have leaked this.

I talked to some people, that know people on the Supreme Court, and very close last night. And they were livid. Livid.

They said, this is -- this has not happened. Now, this has happened with the first Roe vs. Wade decision. But that happened like an hour before. And it didn't release the whole decision.

This is clearly, clearly to ignite our streets on fire.

And it was clearly done, by a -- well, I shouldn't say this. It is most likely done, by a left-leaning court clerk.

That person should lose their law license. They should never be able to practice again.

They should not be held up as a hero. And they will be, by the left. If Roberts does not do an investigation, and does not out this person, fire this person, and make sure that they lose their law license, then the Supreme Court is not safe. In anything that they do.

Now, we don't know for sure, that this is going to last. And that is the reason for the release. This is the opinion. It is very well thought out. I read all 90. Or 95 pages this morning. It's very, very well thought out.

It has -- there's just no way around it. It is very, very bulletproof, because it uses even Ginsburg's words about Roe vs. Wade.

And -- but it does not ban abortion. It gives it back to the people, where it says, it belongs.

STU: So just to set the foundations to this. You believe -- and I think we seem to know that it is, a legitimate document.

GLENN: It is a legitimate document.

STU: It did -- it was written by Samuel Alito.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We know that it looks like five justices are voting for it. So we're siding with --

GLENN: Right before.

STU: Yeah. The three liberals were against it.

Then John Roberts was --

GLENN: Undecided.

But 5-4.

STU: It's 5-3. And him on the side. One of the reasons, of course, the speculation is if Roberts is trying to crack a third way. That will maybe uphold the Mississippi law. But maybe not completely uphold Roe vs. Wade.

This document clearly states, over and over again.

It is not. I think it actually throws Obamacare, into question. Although, it does say at the end of the document, this is not -- this -- this ruling, should not be interpreted to affect any other ruling.

But the way it's -- the way it's laid out, it -- it clearly should affect Obamacare.

We are not a legislature. We are not a political arm.

Our job is to interpret the law. And to see, based on the Constitution, if there is this right. And it takes apart, the right to privacy. All of this stuff. And says, that that is -- this was a dubious, at best, back in 1972.

STU: Egregiously wrong from the start, I believe was the quote. Which was very powerful. And it's been used multiple times, in abortion rulings in the past.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: The difference, of course, between Obamacare and Roe vs. Wade. Is Obamacare is at least the law that was passed.

GLENN: Yes, correct. Correct.

STU: In a somewhat legitimate fashion. Roe vs. Wade is made up.

GLENN: Correct. And purely from the Supreme Court.

STU: Right. They're saying here, states can come back and pass laws.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: That's how this should happen. So this is not going to eliminate abortion.

The far left, Bernie Sanders, for example, is arguing hard today. To -- to act that this is the justification to overturn the filibuster. And then you would be able to put a national law in.

GLENN: And you would also pack the court.

STU: You would also pack the court. And do all sorts of things. Where, this is it, for them. The left really wants children not to be born. So they'll do whatever they can on that.

GLENN: Well, Planned Parenthood said, abortion is sacred. Just so you know, when there are things that are sacred, you're into religious territory.

This, they believe, is sacred. So abortion is up on the altar. I think that's -- I think you're going to see the left completely unmasked now.

If they pack the court, that is the -- that is the last thing.

No government has ever recovered from the courts being packed. Check out Venezuela. What do they have? Like 47 judges?

Something like that. Yeah. They just started packing the court. And it's crazy. No government has ever survived that.

That is the road to totalitarianism.

STU: Thirty-two.

GLENN: Thirty-two. Yeah.

STU: Yes. And --

GLENN: And what did they start with?

STU: I don't have the whole list. But that's where they're at now.

GLENN: So the left is being unmasked. They want an end to the filibuster. Which means, they just want straight up, you know, 50 -- 51, 50. They don't want anybody to be able to slow things down. That's what our Constitution is all about.

Slowing things down.

When people complain, Congress isn't doing anything. That's what the Founders wanted. They didn't want your federal government, doing things.

What they wanted was your state government to do things. That's why this particular ruling, on Roe vs. Wade is so good. It passes it back to the states.

It says, this will never be settled. This has always been controversial.

And no one can force the people into an acceptable position.

STU: It goes on to say, in -- in the ruling -- the draft ruling. Again, we don't -- this is not passed or anything. Or, not put into effect.

But it goes on to say, before Roe vs. Wade, 30 states had decided upon a complete ban.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And there had been some states, moving in the opposite direction. And this just upended that entire process. You know, there's another world where Roe vs. Wade doesn't exist. And legislatures just passed abortion rights in most of the states. I don't like that world. But that could have happened.

And probably would have happened in a bunch of states over the years. Instead, they tried to upend the process, and say, you're not allowed to have these restrictions on abortion.

And that is, what has made this issue so divisive. When it's life or death, it should be divisive. I have no problem fighting for this one. But there's an argument, where this could have gone a different direction. That's really a good chunk of focus of Alito in the ruling.

He says, look, I --

GLENN: We have no credibility, if we legislate from the bench.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Especially on things that are this divisive.

STU: It basically -- he criticizes the previous court and says, hey. Basically what they did was, hey, you know, this is -- this is a thing that's tucked aside. So we'll just settle this one now. And we just stick with what we say here. But that's just not how it works. That's not how our system of government works.

GLENN: Right. So there are a lot of things in this. We'll give it to you. But Mississippi one.

STU: Not, yeah. I am not of the opinion, that you can count these chickens. And I know when you're talking about abortion, chickens.

Hatching is a big thing.

STU: I want this thing to hatch. The reason this was released, is to put enormous, impossible pressure on these justices.

GLENN: This is anarchy.

STU: It's potentially to encourage George Floyd riots around the country, to change someone's mind. God only knows. I mean, if we have anyone that is a high-level security person, that is not guarding a Supreme Court justice today. They need to be reassigned to that job. Because what the left would do, to have this right, to end so many lives. You can't overstate. You can't overstate, what end they would go to, to try to stop this.

And now they think it's a done deal, but something could be country to prevent it. I fear for all these people.

GLENN: I do too. I do too.

STU: Remembering people, on the left, are insane.

They will do anything to fight for the right, to make sure these children don't live for some freaking bizarre reason, I'll never understand.

GLENN: Can I imagine, had they gone the other way? If it were leaked. I mean, I can't imagine that there was anybody that would do that.

STU: Yeah. Because there's some speculation that somebody on the right did it.

GLENN: Really? Politico.

STU: Yes. And that the argument is, one, that Alito has lost somebody. He might be losing somebody's wavering at the five. And he wants to put pressure on them, to know that they were on the end Roe vs. Wade side.

And let's say Kavanaugh. And Kavanaugh is wavering, and he wants to put pressure on him to say, hey, no. You stick with this. Everyone is going to know, you changed your mind. That's one idea.

GLENN: Right. And, you know what, investigation. FBI. Do you trust the FBI?

An investigation needs to be done. John Roberts needs to call for it. And we need to know who did it. Whoever did it. Whatever side. They're wrong.

That's not the way we deal with things here. If it was someone on the right, you were wrong. You were wrong to do it.

That's not how we do business here. You do not influence the Supreme Court, or threaten the Supreme Court.

You don't do it. Period.

STU: And the idea that the right would do this. The other theory being floated out there, is that conservatives wanted people to kind of be ready for this happening. So it's a sort of -- like they're putting it out there early, so it doesn't affect the elections. There's no way that someone in the Supreme Court would risk this blowing up by leaking it on the right, I don't think. If they thought that they had lost someone. Which is not the news. In the political reporting, they say, this standard of five justices, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, is at least in effect, until last week.

So this was written back in September. It was circulated in February. But as of last week, this was still holding.

So we don't know if something has changed. And that's why it got leaked. I don't believe it. I think it's somebody on the left, to try to get people to change their mind.

GLENN: It was so interesting, how fast, that giant crowd, cut around that Supreme Court, isn't it?

STU: That was really quick, yeah.

GLENN: Really fast. Interesting.

STU: A lot of people live right around there. They had signs.

GLENN: Walking their dogs.

STU: And they brought their signs on the walk.

GLENN: What's weird. They all brought their dogs apparently, which we couldn't see. And their signs for that casual walk. And they were all chanting, pack the court.

Just again, you are going to see the left, fully unmasked. They are not interested in a republic. They are not interested in the rule of law.

They were screening and shouting and chanting, pack the court. This may be -- this may be the place where we separate. And I'll go into that, coming up in just a second.

I think this is where -- I think this is where we might come to blows. And I don't mean that, you know, we're going to have violence on both sides on the street. I think the left is going to use this. This is their catalyst, to do I think what they did before. They just burn our cities to the ground.

And this is on something that I'm willing to die on my sword for. I don't know about you. But I think this is -- this is the most righteous cause, to stand up for.

You know, protecting our children, from all of these lies in our school. Righteous.

Standing up for the right, for babies to be born. And to stop killing. Righteous.

To stand up, against court packing, righteous.

We can talk about tax rates, all we want. And they're important. But there's nothing like this. I think we can morally justify doing every show, every day about this. Until it stops.

Worldwide we're talking about something like a million people were aborted.

GLENN: I want you to know, the only reason why Stu and I were talking about this, because as men, we know now that we can have a baby. We do have an undeniable voice at the table.

STU: That will have died out real fast last night. I was listening to CNN as they were breaking this story, because I torture myself.

And they immediately -- the first act -- what this shows, is that men and women are not equal in this country. Now, I don't know, it may show a lot of things. I don't know how it shows that men and women aren't equal. Men also wouldn't have the right to have an abortion. So I don't know what you're talking about.

GLENN: Men can have a baby now.

STU: And then immediately, it was, you know what, it was these men. They don't understand. Because they can't have children. It's like, wait a minute. What happened to your programming from last week?

Remember of all those lessons you were telling us about how men can have children. Remember how everybody had to put their pronouns on everything, because we didn't even know what genders were.

Now, all of a sudden again, it's the most important thing. Now women are once again, we can tell who they are.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We're now, again, able to identify women this week. And this week, because it's convenient to their outcomes, once again, women are vitally important. And their special needs are very important. And men can't understand them. Because they don't have -- they can't have babies. They don't have reproductive organs this week.

It's so transparent and pathetic.

GLENN: All right. Back with more. Coming up in just a second. Words from Alan Dershowitz.

And five observations and outlooks from the Supreme Court's likely reversal of Roe and Casey, Daniel Horowitz coming up.

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Is Hamas mentioned in the Bible? Does the Palestinian flag have a connection to a prophecy in the Book of Revelation? Glenn Beck speaks with filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza about his new film, “The Dragon’s Prophecy,” based on the book by Jonathan Cahn, that discusses these “coincidences.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dinesh, welcome to the program, how are you?

DINESH: Glenn, it's a great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: Oh, you're welcome. I watched your film last week, and I've got to tell you, it's -- it's frightening, and really powerful.

DINESH: Well, we begin, Glenn, as you know with putting you on a motorcycle with a GoPro, and you ride with Hamas into the Kibbutz. Hamas took this footage. Remarkably, not a lot of people have seen it. The Israel government, I think was reluctant to show it, except to a handful of journalists.

But it opens my film, and it has a bit of a graphic warning. But it's ten minutes of putting you right on the scene of October 7th, 2 years ago, and the film kind of takes off from there, to give you the widest significance that engages politics, but history, archaeology. And even as you mentioned, a hint of Biblical prophecy, so that the political is wedded into the moral of the spiritual.

GLENN: So let me play a trailer here from the movie. Here it is.

VOICE: So who are the Jews? Who are the Palestinians? Whose land is it really? Could the fate of the world, of humanity itself, be somehow tied to this place?

VOICE: The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation. So what if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel? The Bible speaks about this whole war as a dragon, representing the enemy, attacking a woman, representing Israel.

VOICE: Civilian deaths on both sides represent victories on the part of the dragon.

VOICE: Hamas burned everything within their ability to maximize the civilian casualty.

VOICE: Came back to a land that was largely barren, and we brought it back alive, and we are going to keep it!

VOICE: The devil hates the Jewish people because they represent the existence of God!

VOICE: Because without that Jewish foundation, there is no Christianity.

GLENN: So let us -- go to the Dragons Prophecy here for a second. What is the case of the Dragons Prophecy?

DINESH: Glenn, in the Book of Revelation 12, there is a depiction of a dragon representing the devil, going to war against a woman, representing Israel. And the woman is pregnant, representing the Messiah. So this is the sort of spiritual backdrop. It's a confirmation of what people sometimes say, that underneath our political fight, there is a spiritual war. But people don't often ask, who is fighting? Like who are the combatants?

And the answer is, this is a war that has been raging between sort of God and the devil from the very beginning of time. And the provocative idea in the film is that the devil cannot overthrow God, and so the -- the devil tries to find out, what is it that God cares about? Let me ruin that!

So in Genesis 1, for example, why does the serpent target Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve have nothing to the devil, but the devil goes, "I want to ruin them, because this is God's cherished creation. If I can ruin them, I can get my revenge against God."

And I think for the same reason, the devil targets the Jews and the Christians. The Jews, because they are the original chosen people. And so the devil's agenda is really simple: Drive them out of their ancestral homeland from the river to the sea. And also, put a big Islamic victory arch right on top of their holiest sight, which is the site of the Solomonic Temple.

And then, of course, the Christians are, the Bible itself, refers to Christians as like spiritual Israelites. And so the Devil is like, I hate that too. I will persecute and harass and destroy the Christians no less than the Jews."

And, look, this is not just sort of idle Biblical speculation. You can see this happening right in front of us in the world today.

GLENN: Talk to me about the meaning of the word Hamas, Palestinians, where that came from. Can you take us through that a little bit?

DINESH: Yeah, this is the genius of Jonathan Khan and his book, The Dragon Prophesy. He points out that Hamas in Arabic means something like force or strength, but in Hebrew, interestingly, the -- the word means violence and destruction. And if you -- in Hebrew, it literally says things like, "Lord, save me from the men of Hamas, or Hamas dwells in the dark places of the earth."

GLENN: I had to go to my Bible to look it up.

It does say that. It does say that. It's crazy!

DINESH: Yes. Not only that, Glenn. But the four colors of the apocalypse, mentioned in the Book of Revelation, which reflects famine, death, and destruction. The white horse, the black horse, the green horse, the red horse.

Han points out. He goes, just take a look at the Palestinian flag. It's made up of four colors. Basically, white for the white horse. Red for the red horse. Black for the black horse. Green for the green horse. And all of this, I think, within -- if there's a single connection, you can be like, "Hmm. I don't know."

But there are so many of these connections out in the film.

GLENN: So many.

DINESH: That, ultimately, it's almost like, you have to sort of -- you have to step back and reconsider if you are even understanding what's happening in front of you, in the widest and sort of deepest possible light.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't know about, you know -- I haven't studied this, you know, enough. I just watched the movie once.

And it's worth watching. But you will go back to Scriptures, and you will look it up. It is worth pondering. Because it shows you, where we might be right now. And the battle that we're preparing for.

Which is a really terrifying thing. But I would rather know it, so I can be prepared for it.

You also -- you know, did a lot of archaeological stuff. What stood out to you in the research that you did?

DINESH: What stood out to me, Glenn, was that for 2000 years, and even more, there are figures that appear in the Bible, Pontius Pilate, Isaiah, Jeremiah. We're going for King David. We're talking now about three -- a thousand DC.

So 3,000 years ago. And even 30 or 40 years ago, if you said, prove to me that these figures are real. Prove to me, outside the Bible, using historical or archaeological evidence, you couldn't do it. Remarkably, just in the last few decades, there are conscriptions and stones and clay seals, coming out of the ground, that are showing that these Biblical figures are real, the Bible is an account of real people and true events. So you could dispute the theology of the Bible. You can question the miracle. But the historicity of the Bible is being resoundingly affirmed.

And it's almost as if the world has become more secular and pulled away from God, God is speaking back.

But not in the thunderous language of Genesis 1. You know, in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. But rather, in the kind of prosaic language of science and archaeology.

GLENN: Yeah. It was really amazing. Because you don't think -- we live in our time. And so you don't think of the times that have come. David didn't exist.

You know, these stories are true. They didn't exist. And now we're finding all of the archaeological evidence, and we just -- at least I did. I just accepted, that, "Yeah. These -- the big things, we knew existed." No. No. We didn't. It's now just being proven now because of what we're finding in archaeological digs.

DINESH: Not only that, but for centuries, really for two centuries going back to the enlightenment, you have the armchair critics who would read the Bible and say, "Well, it looks to me, this was written several hundred years later."

But now we know that that can't be the case, because there are minor -- minor figures in the Bible. And, you know, the royal steward of King Josiah in, like, the 6th or 7th Century DC, and suddenly a seal comes out of the ground in Jerusalem and there's this name on the seal. Now, nobody 300 years later -- this is like asking for the names of interns who worked for Donald Trump. Hundreds of years from now. Who would possibly know their names and identities?

So this is why the Bible is being affirmed, even at the level of excruciating detail.

GLENN: The fact that everyone said that Pontius Pilate didn't exist. And the stair that has his name carved into it, 2000 years ago, that was discovered.

It's those things that you're like, "I mean, how do you deny some of this stuff now?"

I mean, it's just piling up.

DINESH: It's -- it's utterly impossible. And then we are in Jerusalem, and we go up to this place called Sheillo, in the middle part of Israel, and we find these remarkable red heifers. I've read the book about the red heifers. This has to do with the fact that in the end times, the dome of the rock will come down. The Jewish Temple -- the Solomonic Temple will be rebuilt, and some of the rabbis are actually preparing for temple services, which involve the ashes of a red heifer.

So all of this is not just interpretations. You have people in Jerusalem. And in Israel, actually preparing for this. In a practical way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

In fact, one of the things that they said. Let me take a break. And have you come back and answer this. One of the things they said.

Because we were talking about the red rest offers two years ago.

And they were talking about maybe making, you know, red heifers into ashes to prepare.

And Hamas said, at the time, that's one of the reasons why they -- they went after on October 7th, was because of the red heifers. And you go into that. And what they really call October 7th.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

Global elites are still pushing forward with their Great Reset agenda to enslave the world and create a post-human future despite President Trump’s crushing of ESG and DEI, researcher and author Whitney Webb tells Glenn. In her long-awaited return to "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Whitney explores the intricate web of global elites, including the World Economic Forum’s downfall under Klaus Schwab and current state under Larry Fink as well as the rise of digital IDs and AI-driven governance like Albania’s “digital minister.” Whitney also discusses the tools she believes the Great Reset elites are building to control us, including the Biden-era ARPA-H program and possible surveillance tech tied to Palantir and the CIA. Further, Whitney ties the globalists’ agenda to the chaos happening in cities like Chicago and Portland and what Trump must be wary of when deploying the National Guard. Plus, as a leading expert in the financial crimes and corrupt connections of Jeffrey Epstein, Whitney weighs in on the debate over the “black book” and why the government still hasn’t released all the Epstein documents.

You can read Whitney Webb's latest reporting on the Epstein case HERE: https://unlimitedhangout.com/author/w...

Teen athlete REFUSES to compete against adult male player

Frances Staudt is a high school athlete in Washington state who refused to play against a team with a trans player – clearly an adult man. She joins Glenn Beck to speak out: “In NO WAY am I feeling like I’m…‘safe and supported.’” She also joins to discuss the civil rights complaint filed on her behalf to the Department of Education.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to read something from Francis Stout. She posted -- she's 16 years old. She lives in Washington State. This evening, as a young female athlete in the United States of America. I was actively silenced for standing up for my own safety and belief.

During the Tumwater High School girl's basketball game on February 6, 2025, a biological male from Shelton High School, opposing team was brutalizing my teammates, using his biological -- his biological advantage, clearly and intentionally overpowering his competition.

I made the decision to sit out one of my very last basketball games of the season because I refuse now and forever to compete against any biological sport that I play.

I was incredibly distraught at the fact that nobody would step in on our behalf, including the staff, coaches, referees, and parents from both sides.

This is due to the sheer fact that in our society, we have been pushed to be silent. And bow down to the demands to accept what we know to be untrue.

When I became visibly upset and angry.

I was met with allegations of discrimination, as well as threats made by other players, and a grown man who was tasked with serving my school district.

The principal and athletic director who stood in front of parents, and the students claiming to care about our students' bodies, their beliefs, and feelings, but they certainly did not care about mine tonight. This is far from over.

It has a fueled a passion in me, to speak out and go against the wrongdoing that is still happening to female athletes in this great country.

Isn't it ironic that just yesterday, national girls in Women's Sports Day was the day that President Trump signed the no men in women's sports executive order. And here I am, the very next day, having to deal with such an injustice.

That has caused so much emotional distress in my life. I will never not stand up for myself, or my ability to speak out and protect my safety, as a female athlete. Sixteen years old from Tumwater, Washington. It's Francis Stout.

Hello, Francis.

FRANCIS: Hello. Thank you so much for having me on the show. It's not lost on me, the significance of speaking with you today.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, thank you. So, Francis, you were -- you were not notified. Nobody was notified. You just go to this game. And you see somebody who you describe as obviously a male.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Why do you say that? And tell me the intimidation tactics, or the brutalization tactics, if you will, that you felt he was doing.

FRANCIS: Well, I feel it is obvious from any stand, where he would have stood out on the court. He was warming up and stretching, looking around, dancing with the girls on his team.

It is obvious there's clear biological differences between girls and boys.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah.

FRANCIS: And you could see just by everything. And lots of -- there's a lot of just roughness on the court. And pushing girls down.

And nothing that a normal girl on my team or the other team, would have really been able to do.

Very harsh and just, it was a very clear difference.

GLENN: So you go and say, I will sit this game out. Or I can't play. Because I don't feel safe on the court. Is that correct?

FRANCIS: Yes, that's correct.

GLENN: What was the response at the time?

FRANCIS: At the time, people looked and, "oh, whatever." Just asked me, "Oh, are you sure you don't want to play? It's not that big of a deal." I got told by a lot of people, "It isn't that big of a deal, it doesn't matter. Nothing is going to happen, and you're just looking for attention."

GLENN: Jeez.

FRANCIS: Every sort of thing you could hear from people.

GLENN: Right.

FRANCIS: But it was only after I got upset after seeing him hurt girls on my team, and also take away from my ability to play because I feared for my own safety, that people really started having issues.

GLENN: Yeah. And what -- when you got upset, what happened?

FRANCIS: So I went and tried to talk to the principal of Tumwater, Zach Shuderman (phonetic), and I told him, "This is wrong. Why are you not protecting me and my rights to play, and my own sport? And why are you not putting a stop to this? It's clearly wrong. It is a violation of my own privacy and safety, that you have told every single person at that school, that you care about."

But you -- he did absolutely nothing to help me. He told me, "That it was discrimination against the boy -- and the man, actually, eighteen years old."

GLENN: That's what he said?

He said, "The man?"

FRANCIS: Yes. He said -- he said, "I'm not going to misgender, quote, unquote, this individual."

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

He's also said, and maybe it's not the principal, maybe it's the superintendent, "As a district, we remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment where all students feel safe, supported, and valued."

Do you feel safe, supported, or valued?

FRANCIS: That is a very easy answer: Absolutely not.

There is -- in no way, am I feeling like I'm supported. I have had -- when I was 15 years old, the 18-year-old man was in my own locker room.

That is quite the opposite of safe and supported, that I should be able to feel.

There's a man -- or, boy in the girl's locker room right now at Tumwater High School that they're still doing nothing about, telling girls that they can go somewhere else to change, if they feel uncomfortable. They only care about a certain protected class, and it clearly is not the girls who just want their own privacy and safety.

GLENN: So now, a lawsuit has been lodged against you. The Foundation against Intolerance and Racism filed a civil rights complaint, to the Department of Education.

FRANCIS: Yes, on our behalf.

GLENN: On your behalf.

FRANCIS: It was filed.

GLENN: Thank God. I read that. How is that possible? On your behalf.

FRANCIS: However -- yeah, I was investigated, however, by the WIAA in the Tumwater School District for harassment and bullying for, quote, unquote, misgendering the man, saying that he was a man, who was apparently bullying and harassment. And that is what happened.

I -- but myself and my family was the one who filed the complaint.

GLENN: Well, I'm -- I'm glad. Because I was having a hard time understanding how our DOJ was -- was not standing up for your civil rights on this, especially since the president has made it very clear.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Can you give me any update on where this stands, and where this is headed?

FRANCIS: So we're still waiting to hear back. We filed it a little bit ago. And still waiting for news. We have hope, that it will be in our favor. And I am very much looking to seeing where it can take us. And, yeah, I am hoping that it will be all good.

GLENN: Francis, I have to tell you, you give me an awful lot of hope.

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: I think we treat our children as little kids. You know, you hit 16 years old, back in the old days, back in the old days, I mean, older than me -- you know, our Founders were in their 20s and 30s, you know. Thomas Jefferson I think was 30.

They were expected to do more. And we just say, "Oh, your childhood. Your childhood?

Yeah, there is something about keeping childhood sacred, and keeping childhood as safe as possible. But you are a great example of what 16-year-olds should be like. You should know what your rights are, what your responsibilities are. Why you believe certain things that you do, if you're passionate about them. Obviously, you're passionate about this.

And make the case. You give me an awful lot of hope, Francis.

FRANCIS: I very much appreciate that. While I can not tell you how much I -- as I mentioned in my speech last Saturday, this is the Turning Point of America, and I was an incredible fan of Charlie Kirk. I think he was an amazing man, and I think he's given me a voice to speak out.

And given me courage. And I think that it's important, although we're young, to speak up for what we believe in.

It's important I have those values. And still by my family as well. And my parents.

And I think it's very important, he did not die in vain. I think that we need to make our country proud, and we are going to be the future of America. And we need to start acting like that. And we need to speak up for what we believe in, and what is right. And know good and evil.

GLENN: Do you have any friends in Washington state. Because I grew up in Washington State.

I know what it's like. Your family. Is it just you guys? Are you just alone in Washington State?

Because you're amazing. But it --

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: But it must not be very popular to be you and your family in Washington State.

FRANCIS: Well, no. You see all around, there's people who disagree.

But we have a close group. It really shows you, who your close friends are. And who is there for you.

But it is definitely not the majority in Washington State, of what me and my family believe in.

But this isn't over. And I think that we can make a change. And I think people need to have their eyes opened. And realize, that there's clearly something wrong. And I think people can be very oblivious to the fact of that.

But there's -- it is a pretty small majority, especially in Washington State, as you can probably --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know it quite well.

The -- do you have any friends that disagree with you, that are still standing with you as a friend?

FRANCIS: I don't really have many friends who have told me, they disagree. I've been called a lot of names. I've lost a lot of friends over it.

But I don't have many friends who disagree with.

I think it's really sad, because they've been told by so many people, that they are right. And people who disagree with them, are automatically horrible people.

And especially telling people that, oh, this isn't happening. Kids are believing him, and parents are believing him.

And so they think that I'm just wrong and looking for attention. And I've been called for -- just the other day. I got called a transphobe in the hallway by this kid that I used to be friends with. And said hi to every day.

And I walked by. And got yelled at. And it's sad. It really is.

GLENN: Yeah. You sound smart enough to know, there are easier ways to get attention.

Right?

FRANCIS: Exactly. Yes.

GLENN: Thank you so much for everything you're doing.

Please keep me informed.

Keep us up-to-date. We want to follow the story.

If there's anywhere we can help. Just know you're not alone. And it will be people like you, that will be remembered some day.

It's the people who did the things they didn't necessarily want to do, that didn't make them possible. In fact, made them a target. You, but they had -- they had the faith in go bigger than themselves, they knew they had a responsibility. And they stood.

Those are the kinds of people that actually make it into the history books. Not the one that walked through the crowd, as you were walking the lie, who said, you're a transphobe.

That person is never going to be remembered in history. You will be. So thank you. Keep it up.

FRANCIS: We truly appreciate that. And it means more than you know. From the bottom of our heart. I appreciate this opportunity, in speaking to you. And I will not forget what you said. That means a lot.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Francis. God bless you.

There is a GRAVE DANGER brewing in America...

There is a grave danger brewing in America, Glenn Beck warns, and it revolves around the Israel/Hamas debate. So, he sets the record straight on where he stands and why he believes the survival of Western civilization is on the line: "The enemy that Israel is currently facing today will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want you to really hear me carefully.

There is a grave, the brave danger that is building.

And I want to talk toy about it. I saw it last night, with my own eyes. In a very small number.

I want to make this really clear. Very small number of students. I saw it last night. And I want to talk to you about it. But, first, let me set it up with this. So Christopher Rufo wrote: On the right, many supporters of Israel -- I think that would be you and me. Many supporters of Israel -- because I'm a supporter -- including prominent Republican politicians argue that America has a theological duty to support the Jewish state. Now, I think personally for me, I feel that's true. But what does that mean, exactly? I'll get into it, in a minute. Their view is based on a complex interpretation of Bible prophecy. As a Catholic, I find it mystifying. As a political analyst, I find it unconvincing. Analyst, sorry.

The other supporters would like to shut down critical analysis of the war altogether. Equating criticism of Israel, with anti-Semitism and suggesting those who question the wisdom of America's support should be welcome in polite society. I want you to know, at the outset, absolutely wrong.

Because you disagree with Israel, does not make you an anti-Semite. It doesn't. It doesn't.

It makes you a thinking human being, honestly. These moves might have been effective in the past, but not so much anymore.

Instead of theological or shame-based approaches, friends of Israel must frame their arguments in terms of national interest.

One hundred percent right! One hundred percent right!

We need to understand our national interests. So hear me out on this: So you know, I have received the defender of Israel award from Benjamin Netanyahu years ago. I was just named by the Jerusalem post as the number one Christian supporter of Israel in America.

So I'm kind of known as -- I guess as a Zionist. Okay?

I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and the Jewish people have a right to live. Somehow or another, you get awards for saying that.

But I want you to understand something. My support is not blind loyalty, nor is it anything that is -- makes me Israel first.

It doesn't. God first, America second. Israel is in the pile of everything else. Okay?

My first citizenship, is to the kingdom of Christ. My second citizenship, is to America. I will do nothing that will violate my citizenship, my passport to the kingdom of God.

And I certainly won't violate things for my first citizenship, to save my second citizenship. But that's the rank of my citizenship. God first, America, right behind it. And the earthly sense, America first, okay?

No loyalty to the government of Israel. In fact, there's many things I don't like about the government of Israel. But you know what, I'm not a citizen. I don't vote. And I don't have to worry about their laws.

When it comes to war, I want nothing to do with that foreign war. Or, quite honestly, almost any foreign war. Pragmatism I'm tired of paying for it. I'm tired of our blood being shed. I want nothing to do. That's not my support of Israel or the Jewish people. It -- what is required when we talk about these things, is Israel's -- Israel's existence is not just about their national survival. It is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is the only -- lone beacon in the Middle East, that is standing against radical Islam. They're the only ones. They're the number one target of radical Islam.

Now, look at what's happening in the Middle East right now. Those countries that we used to think of as having real radical ties, now Saudi Arabia, they're actually saying, you know what, we can actually co-exist.

That's what's necessary. Coexistence in the Middle East. As long as we have a reason -- as long as we believe we each have a reason to live, and we have a right to live, we can solve any problem. We can solve any problem.

They are facing Islamist evil. And that evil is the same evil that wishes to dismantle our civilization and our country! And it's happening in our own country. My support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics. A people's moral and historic right to their homeland and to their right to live in peace. That's it. And I would say that to anybody. If the Gazans wanted their own land and say, because this is a two-state solution. That's been offered to them, over and over and over again.

But it wasn't river to the sea. Which is the definition of wipeout all of the Jews. No Jews in this land. Okay?

You want to share? I'm totally fine with that. But I can't -- I couldn't. We wouldn't put up with a neighbor who is constantly saying and trying to kill you.

So when it comes to politics. I believe Israel has a right to defense herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction. But I'm not going to fight that.

I don't agree with everything that Israel has done. But what difference does that make? Because I'm not making for our dollars or our blood to be spent. I just say, "Everybody has a right to live."

But let me make it personal, if -- if somebody told me, over and over and over and over again, that they wanted to kill me and my entire family, that I didn't have a right to exist. That I was the source of all evil in the world, and then acted on that threat, over and over again. Do you believe that I would have a right to defend myself? If I couldn't get anybody in the world to listen and stand with me, and I had to do it all myself, would I have a right to -- to take action in response to them?

Remember, I believe nature's law gives us a lot of stuff.

If I walk into a bear cave and mama and the cubs are in there, I think the bear has a right to maul me to death. Because it senses trouble. Now, that's an animal, but if I go in and I'm hunting those cubs, Mom does have a right to kill me.

But that would assume that she had any kind of intellect. Humans have intellect.

If Hamas were Canada and we were Israel.

And Hamas, Canada, did to us, what we did to Israel, answer this question honestly: Would there be a single building left standing north of our border today?

If they came and raped the same percentage. Killed, slaughtered. Set our babies on fire, do you think that we wouldn't have crippled Canada right now?

And no matter what anybody said, you think we would stop until that threat stopped!

That's not a question of morality. That's just the truth. All people, everybody has a God-given right to protect themselves, period. And Israel is doing that, in the way they feel is right. You can argue with that. And you can disagree vehemently with the way they're fighting the war. My support for Israel's right to finish the fight against Hamas, comes after 80 years of rejected peace offerings.

Two failed state solutions.

Hamas has not hidden its mission. Hamas says, it's the eradication of Israel.

That's not a political agreement. That's not a reasonable disagreement. In my book, it's not a land dispute.

That's -- that's a nihilist.

That's people who -- who -- who are actually calling for genocide, and proudly calling for wiping out of all the Jews.

Okay. Do I believe that America should be in that fight? No. Do believe that that should be in our national interest? Yes.

To support the people who are standing up against what will be our, possibly, last foreign war, as Jefferson said. Islamists believe, if you listen to what is being said in Dearborn, they are planning on Sharia law here in America.

That is -- that will wipe everything of the West out, and they are moving in to our countries.

I have no problem with Muslims. I have a big problem with Islamists, and there's a huge difference. What we saw on October 7th was the face of evil. Women and children slaughtered. And beyond that, even the Nazis tried to hide it. Okay? The Nazis, they knew the rest of the world would not approve. These people were proud of it. We've played the tapes for you. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped. Dragged through the streets.

And now, we see people defending that evil, in our own country!

That is nothing short of a moral collapse! That is probably the greatest danger that we have, is this -- is this ideology that says, "If I disagree with you, I can kill you."

The -- the confusion of, I disagree with Israel the way they're fighting a war, and so I'm going to say, "I support Hamas, because the Jews are always wrong. The Jews are lying. And I don't believe any of those videotapes because it was probably Jewish propaganda." That's moral collapse. If the chants in the street were Hamas, give up the hostages, don't ever do anything for that again. And Israel, for the love of Pete, stop the bombing, I would be totally cool. Totally cool.

Because that's reasonable. But that's not what we hear. We hear open sympathy for genocidal hatred. That is a chasm that has opened up in our society, and it's not just a chasm opening up, you know, from decency, but from humanity itself. And that's where the danger lies. The same hatred that we saw in the 1930s, that I predicted would happen again in about 2008, that we would see it in our vetoes. That hatred is taking root here, in Dearborn, in Minnesota, in London, in Paris.

And not as horror, but heroism. And if we're not vigilant, the enemy that Israel is currently facing today, will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow.

That's not about politics. That is truth. It's not -- it's -- it's about having the courage to call evil by its name. And say, that doesn't happen. Never again, not in the future. That doesn't happen.

You don't have to open a Bible to believe or understand this. You don't. But if you do, if you're a believer, then the issue cuts much, much deeper. And I opened an op-ed on this. And I will be publishing on GlennBeck.com, that goes deeper into that. But I don't expect you to believe the Bible or believe what I believe. I believe it's a very strong case, good versus evil here. Or right versus wrong, if that's the way you want to phrase it.

And national interests. If you look at what the world is headed towards. This -- this is not just about Israel's right to exist.

This is about whether we still know the difference between right and wrong. Good and evil.

Life and death cults.

It's about, do we have the courage to stand for the principles, that God outlined?

And that's not, you're going to inherit the land, or any of that crap. The principles of, you can live, I believe you have a right because you just like me, are a beloved child of God. That's what it is. And if we can't -- if we don't have the courage to make the case and -- and we're trying to convince people, just to blindly follow, because God says. God expects to us kick into reason. God expects us to think things through. And God expects us to disagree. And if we can't do those things, if we won't do those things, then the question is not will Israel survive?

The question is: Will we survive?