Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Gay activists bully business that did nothing, now they've shut their doors

April 02, 2015
Staff

WRITER

A local news reporter went trolling businesses in small town Indiana and chose to enter a small pizza shop, Memories Pizza. She asked the store owners what they thought of the RFRA bill. When they said that they believe anyone has a right to believe whatever they want, but they were a Christian establishment and wouldn't be catering gay weddings, well...let's just say the liberal media made the story go viral in the worst possible way. Now they've been forced to close their doors amidst a series of threats from the tolerant left.

ABC57 reported:

So, when Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, the family was not disappointed.

“We definitely agree with the bill,” says O'Connor.

When ABC 57 asked O'Connor about the negative backlash the bill has been getting for being a discriminatory piece of legislation, she says that's simply not true.

“I do not think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination,” says O'Connor. “It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”

After receiving threats for simply stating their beliefs, they've been forced to close their doors.

In response to the story, Dana Loesch and her team set up a GoFundMe page for the pizza joint last night. By this morning, it had raised over $60,000. And as of publication, people have donated over $210,000.

On radio this morning, Glenn interviewed Memories Pizza owner Kevin O'Connor.

Below is a rush transcript of the full interview:

GLENN: We have a great show for you today. Mark Levin will be on with us in just a few minutes. Top of hour two. Kevin O'Connor is with us now. He is the owner of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. He was on Dana's show last night trying to explain himself, if he was on other networks. That's exactly what they would approach him with. I want to find out how he's doing and how his business is doing today. His daughter Crystal was quoted on local television saying if a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, I guess we would have to say no. We're not discriminating against anyone. That's just our belief and anyone has a right to believe in anything. I don't think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination. It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief. Let's go to Kevin now. Hello, Kevin, how are you?

KEVIN: Hi, Glenn. Fine, thank you.

GLENN: How are you holding up, and how is the family? How is your daughter?

KEVIN: We're holding up. Emotions are pretty raw. But we're starting to get so much support other than all the first explosion of negative stuff. So that's helping a lot. People have been really great.

PAT: Are you guys closed for today, or are you going to open the shop?

KEVIN: I think we're going to be closed today. We were closed yesterday. And I think we'll be closed today too.

PAT: And that's because of the -- of the backlash of hatred you got. Right?

And threats?

KEVIN: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Kevin --

KEVIN: The phone at the store, just it was constant ring. I don't think there was a two-minute break between -- that was probably the longest break of the whole time. It just was constantly ringing. So there was no way we could do business that way. So we're going to probably keep it closed a couple of days here, and Crystal is a little afraid. So I'll give her some time to get herself back together and work up the courage to go back in and get it rolling again.

GLENN: So, Kevin, you are -- you're a local pizza place.

KEVIN: Right.

GLENN: You've never had a problem with anybody before, I take it.

KEVIN: No. No.

GLENN: How and why did this local television station decide to target you?

KEVIN: The reporter that came in said they wanted to talk to the people out in small towns. And I asked, well, how did you pick us? And she said, well, I just Googled, and your pizza place came up first and that's -- so that's where I came. And that's where it all began.

GLENN: But I find that hard to believe because I know how slimy these reporters are. And this reporter might have been fine. But you do have religious paraphernalia you -- I assume that you have pictures or something, it just says that you're a restaurant that is festooned with Christian paraphernalia. So I don't know what kind of slam that is supposed to be. But I imagine --

KEVIN: We have a piano in there, an old upright piano. And Crystal had decorated that for Easter. And then we have a sign up there --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

KEVIN: -- that we do prayers, and that's it.

PAT: Oh, no. Oh, my gosh. So that's festooned.

GLENN: That's festooned. Easter decorations up. Okay. So I find it hard to believe that you weren't targeted because you had something about prayer up in your pizza place.

KEVIN: Oh. I have no way of knowing that.

GLENN: You're a better man than I am. You are a better man than I am. Have you -- I mean, if a gay person comes into your establishment, you don't turn them away, do you?

KEVIN: No. No. We've never turned anyone away.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: So you don't ask anybody that comes in the door, excuse me, are you gay? Are you heterosexual? Are you atheist?

GLENN: Are you Muslim?

STU: You don't have certain toppings for each sexual preference?

KEVIN: No. We don't do any of that, no.

STU: But --

GLENN: So your daughter was just answering the question of, you being asked -- and I've never been to a wedding where a pizza place served. I find it amazing that she was going to -- just by random, just Googling, I'm looking for a small town pizza place, and she found you. Because when I think of someone catering a wedding, I immediately think of my local pizza shop.

STU: Have you ever catered a wedding, gay or straight?

KEVIN: No, we've never catered --

GLENN: Anything?

KEVIN: No. It was just a metaphor --

PAT: A hypothetical.

KEVIN: -- on Crystal's, part.

GLENN: So I want to make it clear. You've never catered anything, let alone a wedding.

KEVIN: Well, we have done for the school. They do a festival, and we run pizzas down to them.

PAT: Did you make sure there weren't any gays in the school before you catered to them? So stupid.

GLENN: Kevin --

PAT: This is so ridiculous.

GLENN: Kevin, can I ask you, because you must have thought of this in the last 24 hours, can you believe this is America? Can you believe this is the United States of America the way you're being treated?

KEVIN: No. And I thought of that before. I just -- it's hard to believe the way things have gone in such a short time.

GLENN: Can you tell us just so -- because we have people who listen to us on the left and they're not crazy, and I think what's happened is, they have turned a blind eye, all the normal friends who are Democrats and everything else, they've turned a blind eye to who is really running the show here. And they are -- they are really dangerous people. Just like if the right would just shut their mouth and turn a blind eye to dangerous fringe people on the right. What are the -- what are the kind of responses? I saw a teacher in Indiana, a high school teacher said, who will join me tonight to go to Memories Pizza to burn it down.

KEVIN: Yeah, I seen that. That's -- I don't -- I don't know what to say about it. I don't know what to think about it. It's just -- I can't believe the anger. The anger -- I don't think the anger is placed so much at us, but we became a place to vent.

GLENN: Are you getting death threats?

KEVIN: I haven't seen any. I've heard. But I haven't seen. And to be honest with you, I really got off the social internet here for the last day or two.

STU: That's a good idea. Although, there are some places that are nice on the internet right about now. Dana, on the Dana Show on this network, created a GoFundMe page for Memories Pizza that has $63,000 in it. You don't have to give us all the business details. But how many weeks of profit is $63,000 for a small pizza place?

KEVIN: Several.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Kevin, we feel for you. We want you to know that our families are praying for you.

KEVIN: That's more important than anything.

GLENN: Well, we feel for you. And my father ran a small bakery. And I know what shutting a small bakery down for two days would mean. And you may be closed longer than that. And I just want you to know that there are millions of people who are hearing you right now who will include you in their with the families at night.

KEVIN: Well, I covet those prayers. That's the strength. So --

GLENN: Listen to this guy. He's coveting. That's against a commandment. These Christians. Oh. Kevin, God bless you, sir, we wish you all the blessings that you and your family stand in need of.

KEVIN: Thank you.

GLENN: You're welcome. Thank you.

STU: The address is GoFundMe.com/MemoriesPizza.

PAT: What a nice guy. They just don't deserve it. You just can't make a comment at all anymore.

GLENN: We're not these people. We're not these people. And we can't be mad about it. If we respond in anger, we lose. We must listen to him. Listen to him. We have to respond in kindness, in gentleness, because when you put good versus evil side by side, if we're screaming and we're saying the same things that they're saying, kill them, burn them down, if we approach this with anger, we lose. We lose. We have to follow the teachings of our master. It's the only way to win.

[Music playing]

GLENN: Wow. Listen -- listen to the mocking.

PAT: No. What? That's reinforcement, my friend.

GLENN: I will let God be your judge on that one. Back in just a second.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.