BLOG

EXCLUSIVE: Jim DeMint Weighs in on Russia and His New Role at Convention of States

Jim DeMint has found the perfect home after being let go by the Heritage Foundation: The Convention of States Project. The former senator joined Glenn in his first post-Heritage interview and the two talked about the movement, as well as recent developments with Russia.

"So, Jim, the Convention of States, I think has new life to it. And a lot of it is coming from places like California, of all places. I think this is a real opportunity... Are you reaching out to the people on the left who are more Libertarian-minded?" Glenn asked on radio Tuesday.

DeMint confirmed the Convention of States (CoS) is beginning to see bi-partisan support.

"They understand that what we're trying to do is not tell people what to do or to tell California they have to do something and South Carolina does something else. What we're talking about is where things are decided," DeMint responded.

Supporting the Tenth Amendment and states' rights in order to limit the scope of federal power has been a key agenda item for CoS.

On the election front and Russian hacking controversy, DeMint laid the blame squarely at Obama's feet.

"Everyone in the Obama administration knew that this was a risk, and the fact that it was not addressed, that more was not done, is a gaping hole in our security," DeMint said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip, listen to the full segment or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: We were really excited when Jim DeMint went to the Heritage Foundation. Jim DeMint, if you remember right, in the day, was the only guy in the Senate. This was before we had Mike Lee. This was before we -- we had Rand Paul. This was before we had anybody. He was the lone guy back in -- in '06, '07, and '08. And then the wave election happened. And then he left. Went to the Heritage Foundation.

I hated losing him in the Senate. But he thought he could make some real difference at the Heritage Foundation. I think he did.

But they didn't like the direction. So he left. Where is he now, and what happened at the Heritage Foundation? His first interview since leaving begins right now.

(music)

GLENN: Let's go to Jim DeMint now. Jim DeMint, formerly the former senator from South Carolina, and then with the Heritage Foundation for I think four years or so and made a real impact there. Jim DeMint, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

JIM: Glenn, I'm doing really well. And it's good to be back on your show.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Jim, I know you're such a Southern gentleman, you're not going to want to, you know, say anything bad about anybody, and I'm not looking for the bad stuff. But can you tell us what happened at Heritage? Because there's been these stories that, you know, you were too conservative, that you were -- you were taking it too -- too conservative. I don't know what that means for the Heritage Foundation. But trying to take it too conservative. And they wanted to be more G.O.P.-centric.

JIM: Well, Glenn, frankly, I don't know. And the board just decided they wanted to do something different in the future. And, frankly, I feel like the Lord knows what he's doing. And where I am right now, realize that I'm in a place where I can make a much bigger difference. There are some great people at Heritage. But I'm ready to leave that chapter behind and get back to work on two fronts: I realize -- and I'm sure you see it from where you sit, that we can't just work in one area. It's not just enough to be a senator or elect a senator. We have to do a lot of things, if we're going to stop this out of control federal government. And the two things I need to work with conservatives on the Hill and try to equip them and support them. Because as you mentioned, when you started the show just a minute ago is, a lot of times, it's just one or two people working to try to do the right thing. And the system tries to take them apart.

But I've also realized that no matter what happens, no matter who we elect, Congress is never going to stop spending. That they're going to keep spending and creating debt, until we have some kind of crisis or meltdown. And our Founders knew that that was a possibility, that they gave us the fire alarm on the wall, to break the glass and pull the lever. And that's in Article V of the Constitution, where they've said the states could come together and propose amendments to the Constitution. In this case, we have to get the states to force the federal government to have physical restraint. To limited jurisdiction. And hopefully even to term limit members of Congress and maybe even the judiciary.

GLENN: Okay. So you're now going to the Convention of States. What role of Convention of States Project are you going to play there?

JIM: I'm what they call a senior adviser. I'll be working with Tom Coburn and a good team around the country to work with state legislators. Because the secret here is to get 34 states to pass essentially the same call to convention. This is not a constitutional convention. This is nothing about a free-for-all, to rewrite a Constitution. Article V is clear that states can propose amendments. And we want to propose particular amendments that will help force the federal government to not only balance its budget, but limit taxes. But also limit what it can do. Because the Tenth Amendment is clear, that whatever is not prescribed to the federal government in the Constitution, to be left to the states and the people. And the federal government has just run all over that.

And so I look at my fight -- I'm just fighting on two fronts. I'm not going to give up on helping conservatives. And we've started a new nonprofit to do that. But I'm working with the Convention of States, hoping that the states will call a convention to propose amendments, to limit the power and the spending of the federal government.

GLENN: So, Jim, the convention of the states, I think has new life to it. And a lot of it is coming from places like California, of all places. To where liberal are saying, you know, the government is out of control.

Yeah, because now your guy isn't in control. And California had a real movement to actually secede from the union.

I think this is a real opportunity, but it also could be used to exploit the -- the -- the framework of Article V.

Are you reaching out to the people on the left who are more Libertarian-minded, and are you concerned at all about a hijacking from the traditional left?

JIM: Glenn, that is one of the arguments that opponents of this use. But, frankly, it -- there is literally no chance that this -- you can have a chance that proposes some kind of crazy amendment, that in 38 states ratify. I feel much more comfortable in that second balance, than I do with what the courts could do in Washington, or even what Congress can do.

You mentioned something that's very insightful, actually. Because liberals, once they understand this concept, like it -- at least a lot of them do, because they understand that what we're trying to do is not tell people what to do or to tell California they have to do something and South Carolina does something else. What we're talking about is where things are decided.

And that's the difference here that -- the thing that creates disunity all over the country now is you've got so many things being decided in Washington about what we should do and how we should live our lives.

What we need to do is let states and local communities and people themselves make more of their decisions. As long as power keeps gravitating to Washington, the more I think this disunity we're going to have in America.

GLENN: Uh-huh. So let me take this now -- for the liberals, let me take this -- the conservatives. Do you think the conservatives fell asleep on Article V after Trump was elected, and has that changed?

JIM: No, I don't think so. Because I believe that most of what President Trump is trying to do are things that we agree with. But we see that ever since he was elected, that they have made this big deal of Russia. If Russia did anything, that's on Obama. I mean, Obama was supposed to be watching our country and our security systems and stuff like that. But I think what we've seen is despite the strong personality of Trump, he's put some good people in the agencies. They're still making it almost impossible for him to get anything done. And even with Republican majorities, we see in the budgets that they pass, we're going to keep spending and keep growing the government. Hopefully we can have some small successes. But I don't think the country is falling asleep. And I see this as a mission that the grassroots, the folks who are involved with the Tea Party, who are discouraged now, that people can see, this is a very focused idea. If we come together, this is maybe the only way we can restrain an out-of-control federal government.

GLENN: Jim, the -- who are you more disappointed with? Congress or the presidency? Because I have to tell you, Congress is, in my opinion, absolutely shameful. Shameful the way they're acting and spending. And, you know, the way they dealt with Obamacare is just -- is mind-boggling.

JIM: Yeah. I agree. No, I'm disappointed in Congress. I frankly think the Trump administration has done a lot of good things that they can do on their own. But they're in a boxed canyon. Everybody is shooting at them, including Republicans. You go to the White House, it's just surrounded by tents of media people who every day are looking for something they're doing wrong.

But one of the things I want to do on the Hill is work with conservatives to try to make him more effective. Because once you get there, whether you're in the House or the Senate, you're in your own little foxhole. Everybody is firing at you, every time you try to do something right. They try to throw you off a committee or get you back home with your constituents. We can do a lot better uniting and equipping conservatives once they're elected. And that's what I'm going to try to do, along with a small team, is to get them to work more closely together and try to protect those who are trying to do the right thing.

GLENN: More with Jim DeMint, who is now one of the senior advisers of the Convention of States Project, in just a minute.

[break]

GLENN: Former senator Jim DeMint is with us now. He's with the Convention of States. Just left the Heritage Foundation.

Senator, let me ask you a couple of questions. As a former senator, it came out last night in a very weird sort of way, the head of NewsMax left the White House at 5:30. Went over to PBS to do the news hour and said that President Trump is considering letting go of Bob Mueller and shutting down the independent counsel. Paul Ryan said today he has confidence in Mueller. The White House has since denied that that is happening. But has said that he's at least thinking about it.

What would that -- what would your reaction be if -- if you were a senator to something like that?

JIM: Well, I think that now that he's in place, it would probably be a mistake for the president to -- to terminate that. I think it was a mistake to appoint a special prosecutor because if you look at how they worked over the years, they almost have to find something. And if they can't find something that they were supposed to be looking at, they'll look at something else.

And I was hoping, when it happened, that maybe it would settle. The Russia thing. And Trump could go on to leading the country. But apparently they're not going to let that happen. I just think that now that he's in place, they're going to have to ride it out for a while, at least until there's some more testimony that proves that Trump has not only never been under investigation, but there has been no evidence since all this started, that Trump or his team had anything to do with it.

So more testimony like that, I think it would be good if members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, called on a resignation and the termination of a special prosecutor. But the president needs some help with this. So if Republicans are taking cover, it's going to be hard for him to do it himself.

GLENN: Jim, there is evidence that came out today -- we're going to share it in about five to eight minutes -- there is real disturbing evidence now that has nothing to do with Clinton or -- or Donald Trump, that the Russians did target our election in incomprehensible ways. And hit and actually broke into 37 of our states and got into the polling numbers in 37 states. Did not, luckily, affect the election. But that is the one thing that I got out of the testimony last week that I don't think the media or anybody else is paying attention to, because we're so busy playing politics.

JIM: Right.

GLENN: The Russians are not just coming, they're here.

JIM: Exactly, Glenn. We've known for years, Russia has the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the world. And has been interfering with elections for decades. It's one of the problems we've seen in Ukraine and former Soviet republics. They're constantly destabilizing governments and being engaged in elections. Everyone in the Obama administration knew that this was a risk, and the fact that it was not addressed, that more was not done is a gaping hole in our security. So it does concern me that our cyber security for our US government and our country is so weak. We've lost military secrets, and now they're in our election booths.

GLENN: We were talking about this earlier today. I think in any other time in American history, with what they did -- what I believe they did with WikiLeaks. You know, how they hacked into the DNC. And now we have stark evidence that they hacked into 37 states. I think at any other time in history, that would be akin to an act of war. Am I wrong or right, historically?

JIM: Well, it's definitely the new type of warfare. And we've lost billions of dollars in military secrets, not only to Russia, to China. We need to do a whole -- I know I worked on it some in the Senate, to build a better cyber security system. But the government is always ten years behind. And they've been hesitant to use a lot of the private sector sources, haven't figured out what to do there. But we need to catch up on that because lives are at stake on our intelligence system. And certainly if our whole Democratic system now is in jeopardy, then that's a huge problem.

GLENN: We're in Texas, Jim. I know 12 states now have called for the Convention of States. Thirty-two other states are considering it this year. I didn't think Texas was going to -- I mean, first I thought it was insane that Texas wouldn't pass it. Then I thought, oh, my gosh, the Texas legislature isn't going to do it. They eventually did. How are the other states shaping up? And did Texas make a difference in momentum?

JIM: Texas always makes a difference. That's one of the reasons we're working now with Texas on school choice. The more they -- they set a pattern for the country in a positive way. The opposite of what California opposite does. But it's the grassroots strength of the conservative movement in Texas that made the difference with your legislature there. Because there were a number of people trying to block it or hide from it. And that's what's happening around the country. The Convention of States Project is building a grassroots network of millions of people who have come to understand that this may be the only way to save our country. And so they're engaged in every state. And during the next legislative cycle, you're going to probably see ten or 20 states come play with a lot of grassroots support. So that's what I'm going to do all over the country. Call on people who have been trying to elect good people. Who have worked in the Tea Party. Who have been active, to come help us call this Article V convention of the states.

GLENN: And it's -- it is -- I really, truly believe this is the -- this is the fix. This is the Founders' fix. I wish we would have thought of it when the Tea Party was roaring because we could have really gotten things done. But we need people to be involved in the Convention of States. The things that you want to -- and believe you can get done if the convention is called.

JIM: It's in three categories. The thing that interests me most about how we're doing it, with the convention of state project, is we're not proposing the specific amendments. Because we found, like, for instance, if you're working on term limits, then everybody wants term limits, is going to disagree, whether it's six, eight, or 12 years.

GLENN: Yeah.

JIM: But what we're doing are three areas, that we will pass amendments restrict fiscally what the federal government can do to borrow money. Generally it will deal with a balanced budget. But also tax and spending restrictions. The other is jurisdiction and authorization. It will restrict what the federal government can do on the regulatory front, on what it can do, for instance, controlling education, health care. Give states much more latitude there.

The third subject is to be to put term limits on federal officials. Congressmen. Senators. And perhaps even federal judges.

GLENN: What do you say to people who say -- and I've got about 30 seconds for this answer. What do you say to people who say, you know, you put term limits on, then it's going to be the bureaucrats that are going to be running everything?

JIM: That's just not true. Every time you have a new wave of people coming in, they bring a lot of their own people. They will get something done. They know they have a short period of time, and they're not going to put up much of this, let's do it after the next election. So it's a way to clean the plate up and get people to think about the country rather than a political career.

GLENN: It is always an honor to talk to you, Jim. Thank you so much for your service of the country. Thanks for what you did at Heritage Foundation. And now, joining the Convention of States Project. If you want to get involved with the Convention of States, how do you do it, Jim, quickly?

JIM: Just go to the website. Just Google "Convention of States Project," and you'll be right there on our site. GLENN: Former senator Jim DeMint is with us now. He's with the Convention of States. Just left the Heritage Foundation.

Senator, let me ask you a couple of questions. As a former senator, it came out last night in a very weird sort of way, the head of NewsMax left the White House at 5:30. Went over to PBS to do the news hour and said that President Trump is considering letting go of Bob Mueller and shutting down the independent counsel. Paul Ryan said today he has confidence in Mueller. The White House has since denied that that is happening. But has said that he's at least thinking about it.

What would that -- what would your reaction be if -- if you were a senator to something like that?

JIM: Well, I think that now that he's in place, it would probably be a mistake for the president to -- to terminate that. I think it was a mistake to appoint a special prosecutor because if you look at how they worked over the years, they almost have to find something. And if they can't find something that they were supposed to be looking at, they'll look at something else.

And I was hoping, when it happened, that maybe it would settle. The Russia thing. And Trump could go on to leading the country. But apparently they're not going to let that happen. I just think that now that he's in place, they're going to have to ride it out for a while, at least until there's some more testimony that proves that Trump has not only never been under investigation, but there has been no evidence since all this started, that Trump or his team had anything to do with it.

So more testimony like that, I think it would be good if members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, called on a resignation and the termination of a special prosecutor. But the president needs some help with this. So if Republicans are taking cover, it's going to be hard for him to do it himself.

GLENN: Jim, there is evidence that came out today -- we're going to share it in about five to eight minutes -- there is real disturbing evidence now that has nothing to do with Clinton or -- or Donald Trump, that the Russians did target our election in incomprehensible ways. And hit and actually broke into 37 of our states and got into the polling numbers in 37 states. Did not, luckily, affect the election. But that is the one thing that I got out of the testimony last week that I don't think the media or anybody else is paying attention to, because we're so busy playing politics.

JIM: Right.

GLENN: The Russians are not just coming, they're here.

JIM: Exactly, Glenn. We've known for years, Russia has the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the world. And has been interfering with elections for decades. It's one of the problems we've seen in Ukraine and former Soviet republics. They're constantly destabilizing governments and being engaged in elections. Everyone in the Obama administration knew that this was a risk, and the fact that it was not addressed, that more was not done is a gaping hole in our security. So it does concern me that our cyber security for our US government and our country is so weak. We've lost military secrets, and now they're in our election booths.

GLENN: We were talking about this earlier today. I think in any other time in American history, with what they did -- what I believe they did with WikiLeaks. You know, how they hacked into the DNC. And now we have stark evidence that they hacked into 37 states. I think at any other time in history, that would be akin to an act of war. Am I wrong or right, historically?

JIM: Well, it's definitely the new type of warfare. And we've lost billions of dollars in military secrets, not only to Russia, to China. We need to do a whole -- I know I worked on it some in the Senate, to build a better cyber security system. But the government is always ten years behind. And they've been hesitant to use a lot of the private sector sources, haven't figured out what to do there. But we need to catch up on that because lives are at stake on our intelligence system. And certainly if our whole Democratic system now is in jeopardy, then that's a huge problem.

GLENN: We're in Texas, Jim. I know 12 states now have called for the Convention of States. Thirty-two other states are considering it this year. I didn't think Texas was going to -- I mean, first I thought it was insane that Texas wouldn't pass it. Then I thought, oh, my gosh, the Texas legislature isn't going to do it. They eventually did. How are the other states shaping up? And did Texas make a difference in momentum?

JIM: Texas always makes a difference. That's one of the reasons we're working now with Texas on school choice. The more they -- they set a pattern for the country in a positive way. The opposite of what California opposite does. But it's the grassroots strength of the conservative movement in Texas that made the difference with your legislature there. Because there were a number of people trying to block it or hide from it. And that's what's happening around the country. The Convention of States Project is building a grassroots network of millions of people who have come to understand that this may be the only way to save our country. And so they're engaged in every state. And during the next legislative cycle, you're going to probably see ten or 20 states come play with a lot of grassroots support. So that's what I'm going to do all over the country. Call on people who have been trying to elect good people. Who have worked in the Tea Party. Who have been active, to come help us call this Article V convention of the states.

GLENN: And it's -- it is -- I really, truly believe this is the -- this is the fix. This is the Founders' fix. I wish we would have thought of it when the Tea Party was roaring because we could have really gotten things done. But we need people to be involved in the Convention of States. The things that you want to -- and believe you can get done if the convention is called.

JIM: It's in three categories. The thing that interests me most about how we're doing it, with the convention of state project, is we're not proposing the specific amendments. Because we found, like, for instance, if you're working on term limits, then everybody wants term limits, is going to disagree, whether it's six, eight, or 12 years.

GLENN: Yeah.

JIM: But what we're doing are three areas, that we will pass amendments restrict fiscally what the federal government can do to borrow money. Generally it will deal with a balanced budget. But also tax and spending restrictions. The other is jurisdiction and authorization. It will restrict what the federal government can do on the regulatory front, on what it can do, for instance, controlling education, health care. Give states much more latitude there.

The third subject is to be to put term limits on federal officials. Congressmen. Senators. And perhaps even federal judges.

GLENN: What do you say to people who say -- and I've got about 30 seconds for this answer. What do you say to people who say, you know, you put term limits on, then it's going to be the bureaucrats that are going to be running everything?

JIM: That's just not true. Every time you have a new wave of people coming in, they bring a lot of their own people. They will get something done. They know they have a short period of time, and they're not going to put up much of this, let's do it after the next election. So it's a way to clean the plate up and get people to think about the country rather than a political career.

GLENN: It is always an honor to talk to you, Jim. Thank you so much for your service of the country. Thanks for what you did at Heritage Foundation. And now, joining the Convention of States Project. If you want to get involved with the Convention of States, how do you do it, Jim, quickly?

JIM: Just go to the website. Just Google "Convention of States Project," and you'll be right there on our site.

RADIO

The surprising link between Hamas, the Palestinian flag, and Biblical prophecy

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...

RADIO

“HE HURT GIRLS”: High school athlete who REFUSED to play against an adult man speaks out

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.

RADIO

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?