Doc Thompson Questions Activist's Promise of Non-violence at Trump Inauguration

One of the hallmarks of American democracy is the peaceful transition of power every four to eight years. However, liberal activists unhappy with the election results seem bent on disrupting Inauguration Day with protests and civil disobedience.

Doc Thompson from The Morning Blaze With Doc Thompson, joined Glenn's radio program to report his encounter with Lacey MacAuley, a leader of activist group Disrupt J20.

According to its website, Disrupt J20 is a "collective of experienced local activists" who are "planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations --- the Inaugural parade, the Inaugural balls," paralyzing the city.

While MacAuley assured Doc of the group's dedication to non-violent civil disobedience, Doc uncovered additional information that directly contradicted MacAuley's claim.

"James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous," Doc said.

In a second Project Veritas video, activists called for illegally shutting down the metro and punching people in the throat.

MacAuley brushed off these statements, saying it was a ruse for the interview.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: We have Doc Thompson with us. He does mornings on TheBlaze Radio Network. And you have been kind of taking my approach of, hey, let's listen to people.

DOC: Right. Right.

GLENN: And it has paid off in a big way. Tell us how.

DOC: I was following your other approaches in life, and those weren't working out so well for me.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, I know.

DOC: So this one -- so a couple weeks ago, we found about this J20. This is the Disrupt J20, where they're organizing all of the different little factions. Anybody who is opposed to some of our ideals, for whatever the little issue, abortion, gun control, whatever, to bring them all together in DC and do whatever they can to actually disrupt the inauguration.

On some level, to stop him from becoming president, which is a little nutty to me. We found out about it. My producer Chris Cruz said, "Okay. Let me try to get them on." And he amazingly got a lady by the name of Lacey MacAuley to come on. Apparently, she doesn't have access to the Internet to find out about me. So she actually agreed to the interview.

GLENN: But you were honest with her.

DOC: I was. I was. A lot of people think that by asking tough questions or that I'm satirical, over the top at times, that I'm going to treat them that way. And we didn't. We heard her out. She said some things that the audience objected to. Some things I did as well. I didn't debate every issue, but we talked about the Disrupt J20. And she said it's non-violent. They just want to disrupt. Civil disobedience. She used phrases like that.

And I said, "Listen, I will stand with you for your right to express your First Amendment rights. I will stand with you. But not for violence, not for breaking the law, anything like this."

So then James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous.

GLENN: Is she in the video?

DOC: She is not in the first one. But they mention her in the second one, which was released late yesterday. So after the first one was released, the day before yesterday, we interviewed her yesterday morning, and she said basically that the people in the video that were calling for stink bomb, acid -- I can't remember the type of acid it's called -- to be put in the ventilation or the sprinklers off, that they knew -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially they knew that the person that was talking to them was not one of them. And she said, we knew it was some sort of scam. We didn't know who. It could have been police.

GLENN: So you make it worse?

DOC: That was my question. I said, "Why would you incriminate yourself? They can use this as evidence." And she really didn't have a great answer for that. But she stuck to, this was all just a big ruse that they were putting on for whoever was interviewing them essentially.

GLENN: Right.

Uh-huh.

DOC: And then the video came out yesterday that seems to show a little bit more. So I have a clip if you want to hear it, of yesterday's interview with her, where she mentions a couple of things like that and then also talks about James O'Keefe.

GLENN: Okay. Here it is.

DOC: Once again, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to condemn any acts of violence or anything that would get anybody hurt this week in DC.

LACEY: Well, thanks very much, Doc. This is absolutely something that we articulate and reaffirm at every single one of the meetings of Disrupt J20. And, you know, this is a commitment to harming no one.

DOC: You believe James O'Keefe is working on behalf of Nazis, or he's doing the work of Nazis, white nationalists?

LACEY: Well, he basically is attacking our group, the DC anti-fascist coalition, and our targets are the people who are modern day Nazis.

DOC: They voted for Trump, they're looking for something different. But they don't necessarily stand with the Nazis. I mean, you understand the difference.

LACEY: Well, I think it's pretty clear to me that he's attacking a group that protests Nazis. So that puts him on that side.

GLENN: President-elect Trump until Friday. You don't think that he supports Nazi issues, do you?

LACEY: Well, I think there's basically a reason that these groups have been so celebratory of his policies.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

LACEY: Glenn Beck, your thoughts on that?

GLENN: Quite clearly misguided. I mean, I stand against fascism.

LACEY: Yeah.

GLENN: I stand against Nazis.

To tie Donald Trump -- actually tie him to Nazis is ridiculous. To tie Steve Bannon to the Nazi movement is not. But there is nothing in Donald Trump's history that shows that he is racist. Maybe the thing, Stu, that he went for the casino thing. That's probably the biggest mark of racist. But other than that, in his history, is he -- does he have that tendency that would show that he was a Nazi?

STU: Nazi, no. God, no. You know, even -- you talk about Steve Bannon, I mean, he -- there are obviously a lot of people in the alt-right that embrace those values and send people pictures of them in gas chambers and such.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But most people --

GLENN: They've sent them to us.

STU: Even Ben Shapiro, who is an ardent critic of Steve Bannon's, has said he doesn't think he believes those things. He's using them for --

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so either. He's using them.

And I think that there is a case to be made that Steve Bannon is connected and using them. And Donald Trump was taking advice from Steve Bannon, but I don't think he's a Nazi.

DOC: It's funny though. There are so many subtle levels of this. Yes, clearly there are people in America that identify with Nazis. These people are crazy, right?

GLENN: But literally --

DOC: But there's many -- it's not everybody automatically in the alt-right, the right or whatever, is a Nazi just because we disagree. There's many, many levels that gets you closer and closer to that.

STU: Even a lot of the Nazis weren't Nazis as we think of them today.

DOC: Right. They were just, I got to do this, right?

STU: Again, that's horrible, but I'm not even talking about -- there were people in the party who didn't do all those things. Even back then, to assign -- it's true. It's true.

GLENN: No, I know it's true. You and I are both -- we're more well read on the Nazi movement than 99 percent of the Nazis.

STU: Right. And there's no reason to draw gray areas about the Nazis.

GLENN: Yes, right.

STU: They're all obviously horrible. My point though is even people who would today identify themselves that way weren't people who have killed 6 million Jews. This is why everyone gets so frustrated with Nazi comparisons. We all know how that ended up, so therefore everyone jumps to the end point of that. However, there was a lot of stuff early on, it wasn't so clear they were going to wind up killing 6 million Jews, even though Hitler very -- was very clear about his intentions.

GLENN: Again, people not taking him literally, but taking him seriously.

STU: Yeah, point is though, you can't compare -- I mean, obviously a comparison like that, where you're just throwing everyone -- half of this freaking country in the boat of Nazis is completely absurd.

GLENN: And to disrupt the inauguration destroys the main thing about America. And that is, we have a peaceful transfer of power.

That is one of the most stabilizing points that we can make to the rest of the world. Look, we strongly disagree. But we always have a -- a peaceful transfer of power. Even though -- I mean, we can compare this -- you know, the -- the Secret Service was not in effect with Abraham Lincoln. We didn't have a Secret Service.

Abraham Lincoln did not understand how divided this country was, until he made it to Baltimore. Most people don't know this, but there was a plot against his life, coming in for his first inauguration from Illinois. And he took the train to Philadelphia. And he was supposed to then take the train to Baltimore the next morning.

What people didn't know is he actually took a train -- he got into Philadelphia, and instead of saying, he went out the back door. And in the cover of darkness, went to -- I want to say like Hershey or someplace in that area. And then took another train in the middle of the night to Washington. And completely bypassed -- actually, no, it wasn't Philadelphia. It was Baltimore. He made it all the way to Baltimore. And it was the next morning they were going to kill him at the train station. So he took another train out and then rerouted to Washington. But it was in him walking, down the street to get out, where he heard all of the anti-Lincoln and anti-North sentiment on the streets. And he couldn't believe it.

He said later, "I didn't understand how divided we were as a country, that there were people willing to kill the people in the North. It wasn't just me."

I think we're close to that point again, to where we are so divided and the extremes on both sides have been so wound up by politicians, that they think now is their moment.

DOC: Imagine if they get what they want on Friday. It's like the dog that catches the car. What are you going to do now? What do you think is going to happen? We disrupted it. He didn't get inaugurated. Everyone is just going to go back to their life. Obama stays president. All hell breaks loose if they disrupt that.

PAT: And he's inaugurated anyway. They'll just go inside and inaugurate him. I mean...

DOC: And he gets inaugurated anyway.

GLENN: That's right. But that's what happens -- that's what people want. There are a great number of people now that want a crackdown. They want the chaos because they want the crackdown.

PAT: And we were such --

GLENN: She says she's anti-fascist. Well, what do you think -- how are fascistic states created? They're created by crackdowns because crackpots went and burned down the Reichstag.

DOC: I thought it was with marshmallows and rainbows. I thought that's how it was created. Wasn't it? Something like that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. It's really frightening to see the left -- and, again, the media has called a whole group of people Nazis. Not -- not what I said.

DOC: Right.

GLENN: These are Brownshirt tactics. And there's a difference between Brownshirt tactics and Nazis. While they were both Nazis, one is describing a person and a group of people. The other is saying, "You're using the same tactics here."

DOC: Did you see the second James O'Keefe video? The Project Veritas one? In it, at one point, one of the guys talking, he's like, oh -- this is one of the Disrupt J20 people. Let me call my comrade and see if he can blah, blah, blah.

GLENN: Comrade.

DOC: So you anti-fascist people are communist.

GLENN: Are communist. They're communist.

DOC: You think that's better?

GLENN: Right.

DOC: These are the people that believe that they are opposite sides of the spectrum. I do not believe that.

GLENN: No, they're not. That's total government. Doc, thanks so much for bringing that in.

DOC: Thanks.

GLENN: You know, your mom can fix those pants.

DOC: Okay. I'm flying immediately after this segment to DC. These are my TSA pants. Because, yes, it makes me uncomfortable when TSA touches me. But with these -- because I make them pat me down as part of my civil disobedience.

GLENN: Are they ripped in the butt or something?

DOC: Yes, they are. Right here. See right here. It's definitely going to make them uncomfortable.

PAT: Thank you for sharing that with me by the way. Thank you. That's okay.

DOC: That's for you, Pat. Rump shaker. Rump shaker.

GLENN: All right. Thank you. You've got to go off the set now. We're never going to get --

PAT: Don't you need to hit a flight?

DOC: I do. I got to go. I'm glad you said that.

GLENN: There are some things you can't unsee. And that's one of them.

PAT: I know. Yikes.

GLENN: But Tania and I were in Vegas this weekend, somebody would walk by, and I would be like, "You can't unsee that one." And she's like --

JEFFY: That's what makes Vegas great.

GLENN: -- "But you can replace it. Replace it with that one." And these people were -- oh, there was a woman that I saw at a really nice restaurant, dressed as a very nice hooker, I think. And Tania pointed out, "She might be." And I'm like, "Okay. Yes. I did see Pretty Woman. Maybe she is. But I don't think she was." You know how women go to Vegas and they dress like hookers?

STU: It's actually their city slogan.

GLENN: This woman was -- yeah, this woman was plump. And she honestly had a dress on. And she was probably 40. And she had a dress on where I could see the -- the cheek come down. Okay. I could see the cheek meet the leg.

PAT: Uh-huh. That's great.

GLENN: Now, she was standing with her butt toward me. And I said to Tania, "I'm torn. Because I want her to turn around to see how this works on the front." Because I said, "Just draw a mental line around." So I want to see how this works in the front, and yet I really don't want to --

STU: Especially in a food environment.

JEFFY: You have to see that.

GLENN: No, no.

JEFFY: You can't go to Vegas not to see --

GLENN: Again, there are things you cannot unsee.

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

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

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

A history of violence

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

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

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

Dismember the dragon

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

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

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

One‑sided freedom

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

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

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

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

Censored belief

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

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

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

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

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

Faith on trial

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

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

The real test

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s not what we hear.

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

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

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

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

That’s an everlasting promise.

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

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

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

“Take me instead”?

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

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

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

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