New Video Series For America’s 250th Teaches Americans Why They Should Love Their History

'We can’t remember it very well if we don’t know it very well. And so, part of the purpose of this series of lectures is to remember.'

Punch a cop, get a charge — even if you’re in Congress



With a recent assault on the very federal law enforcement officers they are charged with overseeing, Democrats haven’t just embraced criminals; they’ve become them.

Last month, three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Rob Menendez Jr., Bonnie Watson Coleman, and LaMonica McIver, all from New Jersey — led a mob of protesters in storming the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They waited for a bus full of detainees to arrive, then rushed the open gate and physically clashed with federal officers.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

This wasn’t symbolic. This was an elected mob laying hands on law enforcement.

The video tells the story: shoving, punching, and chaos. These three members of Congress — who represent more than two million Americans — assaulted officers doing their jobs. Then, astonishingly, they claimed they were the victims, despite clear footage proving otherwise.

All of this over what turned out to be nothing.

After the chaos, ICE officials offered the lawmakers a guided tour of the facility. The Democrats quietly admitted they found no signs of mistreatment. Their entire stunt, billed as a protest of conditions, collapsed under the weight of reality. They walked in demanding accountability and walked out with nothing but bad footage and a pending felony charge.

Yes, a felony.

Rep. McIver now faces a federal charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer, announced on May 20 by Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have made it clear: This administration backs the rule of law. If you punch a cop, you get charged — even if you have a congressional pin on your lapel.

The left tried to frame the incident as “congressional oversight.” But oversight doesn’t mean storming gates or skipping security checks. ICE policy allows members of Congress to tour facilities — even unannounced. But it does not allow them to create security threats, bypass screening, or lead mobs onto federal property. Those procedures exist to protect staff, detainees, and lawmakers alike.

This was not oversight. It was lawlessness, pure and simple.

RELATED: Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Since President Trump restored control of the southern border, anti-border Democrats have become unhinged. No longer able to rely on waves of illegal crossings, they’ve begun imitating the tactics of the very criminal aliens they once defended — storming barriers, resisting authority, and attacking officers.

Now, that’s the legacy of the modern Democratic Party.

But legal consequences alone aren’t enough. Congress must act.

The House should censure all three lawmakers involved. Censure is not a punishment; it’s a statement of principle. And lawmakers have been censured for far less than leading an assault on federal agents. The House has a duty to uphold the integrity of its own body. That means sending a message: If you behave like a thug, you’ll be treated like one.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

America’s founders warned about this.

In "Federalist 1," Alexander Hamilton posed a choice: Would Americans build a government based on “reflection and choice” — or surrender to “accident and force”? That question remains. If lawmakers now claim the right to break the laws they swore to uphold, we’re no longer living in a constitutional republic. We’re living under mob rule.

And if we let this slide — if Congress fails to hold its own accountable — then we’ll have no one to blame when the next mob storms another federal building under another political banner.

Democrats love to remind us: “No one is above the law.” Fine. Then prove it.

Trump Should Buck Rogue Judges, Not Buckle To Them

Last week, unelected District Court Judge Brian Murphy told the Trump administration that it must bring back an illegal alien who was deported because, according to Murphy, the alien needs due process — and the Trump administration buckled. In court filings on Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said it would bring back the illegal […]

Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said



When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”

That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.

Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.

The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.

That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.

Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”

Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.

What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution say

The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:

1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):

“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):

“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”

3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”

4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):

“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”

6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):

“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”

The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude

7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”

8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”

9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):

“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”

Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere

10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):

“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”

11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy(1950):

“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”

13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):

“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”

Due process does not guarantee entry or residency

14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):

“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”

15. Galvan v. Press(1954):

“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”

16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

Deportation is not punishment

17. Turner v. Williams (1904):

“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”

18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.(1893):

“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”

Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

No, The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Anti-American Agitation

The First Amendment is not a suicide pact between a nation and foreigners who wish it harm.

Which will it be, America? God, greed — or the grave?



Worldview is destiny. That’s why I’ve always focused on it during my show — to explain how a powerful nation like ours can draw lessons from history’s triumphs and failures. Right now, I believe America faces three distinct paths forward, each emerging after years of abandoning the foundational values of our forefathers.

But before we can choose any path, we need to face a hard truth: Our current trajectory is unsustainable. We cannot continue pretending this is one nation when some states believe they have the right to seize your children if you don’t consent to irreversible medical procedures — something Colorado voters are considering right now.

Conservatives need to face a hard truth: There’s no political appetite in America for meaningful cuts to government if those cuts involve personal sacrifice or accountability.

Just as we couldn’t share a country with states that once sanctioned slavery, we cannot share one with states that reject basic parental rights. We lied to ourselves back then, too — until a civil war jarred us into reality. History doesn’t let us ignore deep moral divides forever.

We won’t nuance our way out of the three possible destinies we face. Nuance requires spiritual maturity — and we don’t have that. It’s the old question: “What’s the greatest commandment?” If you’re generally aligned with loving God and loving your neighbor, you’ve got room for nuance and a wider range of policy options. But when a nation turns godless — and news flash: We’re already there — nuance disappears. All that’s left is consequence.

The first path forward is spiritual revival. That’s the path of a humble people willing to repent of their foolishness and reorder their priorities. Revival would demand that we live within our means, stop printing money, and return to the principles of limited government.

It turns out that sound economic policy is inseparable from moral clarity. A moral people don’t justify redistributing other people’s money through welfare programs — that’s theft. They don’t dodge consequences by laying claim to what isn’t theirs — that’s covetousness. Strip away morality, and no economic system will save us.

Let’s be honest — we need to go back. Before America even became a nation, its foundation was laid by Puritans, church-chartered colonies, and multiple Great Awakenings. Back then, as now, spiritual revival wasn’t optional — it was essential. Without Christ, we don’t have the supernatural strength to restrain ourselves or sustain self-government. We just don’t.

That’s why one of the first acts of the U.S. Congress was to commission Geneva Bibles for public distribution. The Founders understood that a free people needed more than laws — they needed the fear of the Lord, which Scripture calls the beginning of wisdom. Without that, don’t even bother.

Even as a believer, I once might have tried to pitch you a more measured path back to sanity. But then I watched my fellow citizens wave the white flag — not just to gender ideologues and pandemic authoritarians, but to reality itself.

Instead of drawing lines in the sand, people leaned harder than ever on the same government that had just stripped them of their freedoms. We were made to be ruled — and without a moral foundation, we’ll always find someone else to do the ruling.

This also explains why politicians rarely lose elections by spending too much. Voters want it that way. We live under government by the consent of the governed — and what the governed want is more spending. You might see yourself as a victim of the system, but you’re also complicit in it.

That brings us to the second path: empire. This is the trajectory of a society that craves comfort and rejects consequences — the exact opposite of the humility demanded by spiritual revival. The math doesn’t lie. If we won’t cut spending, we’ll have to raise revenue. Forget fiscal restraint — bring on the second slice.

Conservatives need to face a hard truth: There’s no political appetite in America for meaningful cuts to government if those cuts involve personal sacrifice or accountability. Unless the DOGE saves us through divine crypto intervention, voters aren’t signing up to downsize the welfare state.

We worship our glittering idols of comfort and convenience. So unless someone pries them from our cold, dead hands, we’d better decide who’s going to foot the bill for our national appetite for gluttony and denial.

Democrats plan to bleed their own citizens dry to fund their agenda. The alternative is to make other countries pick up the tab — which is exactly what Red Caesar Trump is trying to do with his grand tariff gambit. Maybe it won’t work. We’ll know soon enough.

That’s why he’s eyeing Greenland. This is what empires do. They demand tribute from weaker nations in exchange for the privilege of doing business with them. I’d love to say we’re nobler than that. But let’s be honest: Nobility doesn’t exactly describe our national mood. We want what we want — and we don’t particularly care how we get it.

Even Ben Franklin — moral failings and all — warned that we could only remain a republic if we made the effort to keep it. But let’s stop pretending that preserving the republic has been a national priority for decades. We’ve chosen empire. That means more mergers, more acquisitions, more demands. That’s the terrain where Trump thrives. Whether we admit it or not, this is the road we’re on — and we chose it.

Unless we’ve simply lost all interest in acting like adults on any level, we’re headed straight for path three: death. But this isn’t just death in the traditional sense. It’s worse. It’s moral collapse. As John Daniel Davidson wrote in his book “Pagan America,” the endgame isn’t America ceasing to exist — it’s America becoming evil.

The real question isn’t whether tyranny will come — it’s who will bring it. Will it be the corporations aligned with the right? Or the communists dressed up as champions of democracy on the left? Call it whatever name you like — “sacred democracy” if you must — but don’t ignore the outcome.

And unlike other Western nations that have walked this path, America owns 300 million guns. So when this collapse hits home, it won’t look like Europe’s slow-motion slide into technocratic authoritarianism. It’ll be faster. Uglier. And bloodier.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s the math of human nature. I’m not offering a prophecy. I’m offering an equation. Our options are few, but we still have agency. We still have a choice.

This is a time for choosing, and what we choose will have consequences that stretch beyond policy or politics. We are staring into something deeper — something metaphysical. The clock is ticking. Everything is at stake.

The only question that matters now is: Who and what are we willing to become?

Leftists Hate Natural Law Because It’s The Only True Bulwark Against Tyranny

Politico Reporter Heidi Przybyla made an unfair attack on people of faith — and also got wrong the entire foundation of our country.

The Border Crisis Is The Definition Of A Foreign ‘Invasion’

The Founders would have immediately recognized current criminal cartel activities and their collaboration with a foreign state power as an 'invasion.'

Supreme Court Should Fire The Rogue Regulators At The Unconstitutional CFPB

In short, by removing financial regulation from America’s ordinary democratic political process, Congress violated the Constitution.

Glenn says THIS subject has been haunting him for years



Glenn Beck has been chewing on something for quite some time now — “12 years, maybe,” he says. But he’s never found the right time or occasion to speak about it.

He arranged to raise this subject in Gettysburg a few years ago, but the pandemic thwarted his plans.

However, through prayer, Glenn has realized he doesn’t need an event to speak what’s on his heart. He already has “12 million people listening to [him] every day,” and now he’s ready to tell his audience about something he feels is “the most important thing America can do right now.”

And that is “restoring the covenant.”

“America historically is a covenant nation,” says Glenn. “The pilgrims actually came here to establish what they called the New Jerusalem.”

“There in Lower Manhattan, [George Washington] raised his hand to the square and [put] his hand on the Bible, and he swore to protect and defend the Constitution ... [and] he made a covenant,” says Glenn.

Later, Abraham Lincoln “asked Congress to pass a Thanksgiving proclamation to rededicate ourselves to the American covenant. It passed, and people all over the country prayed, humbled themselves, and fasted and dedicated their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor ... once again to God's will.”

But people forget what covenant means. They forget that it’s a promise you don’t break.

It’s no wonder Americans have forgotten what covenant means though, as we live in a time in which “we expect that most people are just lying to us all the time. Our president is lying all the time; so was the last one, the one before that, and the one before that, [and] our media is lying to us.”

“With all of this lying, truth no longer matters, but you cannot have a society or a civilization without truth,” says Glenn, or at least not one with any meaning anyway.

“You know, we throw words around like ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty,’ [but] what does that mean?”

“To me, it means opportunity to speak, to worship, to live, to work and better myself and our children's lives,” says Glenn. “We wrote them down in this country as rights, and we also said they come from God — all of the things that have any meaning at all all come from God.”

But people seem to have forgotten that.

Perhaps revival in this country begins with remembering the promises we made all those years ago.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.