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

Bruce Jenner transitioning into woman?

April 24, 2015
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Ahead of the highly promoted two hour interview airing on ABC tonight, speculation is swirling that former Olympic Champion Bruce Jenner will reveal to the world that he is indeed transitioning into a woman. This morning on radio, Glenn reacted to the publicity of the interview and explored some of the national conversation.

Glenn felt true compassion for Jenner, saying that if he really is transitioning into a woman, "if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been."

Glenn expressed that we should not "clam up" about these topics, but talk openly about them as adults and try to understand it. But, even more important is that we need to remember to love. "We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love."

See more of Glenn's powerful response below. Glenn's full response is provided in the transcript below:

Rough Transcript Below:

GLENN: Could I ask if we can do something as adults, as Americans, that we just don't do anymore, and that is have an open and honest conversation about a really sensitive subject, without hating each other, without throwing stones at each other. Just ask some honest questions, and really try to understand one another. There's this superhyped Diane Sawyer interview everyone is waiting for tonight, I guess, Bruce Jenner. He was spotted the other day wearing a dress, smoking a cigarette, in a full length dress. Quite honestly, I don't care what Bruce Jenner does. It does not affect my life at all. So if Bruce Jenner wants to be a woman, he wants to dress as a woman, he wants to change his sexuality, doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to me.

I think people are fascinated by this story because back in 1976, was it? He was a decathlon athlete, one on the best on earth, won the gold medal. He was on the Wheaties box. He was a man's man. So I

guess now to see him wearing a dress, you're like what? What? Did he feel that way then? What's happened? And I hope that we're not sickly fascinated like he wants to wear a dress. I don't think we are. I think we are to a point where we've liked this guy in the past, and so we feel for him and we're like what happened to you.

STU: Trying to understand.

GLENN: I want to understand, but I don't know if we can question anymore. So I'm going to try to have a real, open, honest conversation with you about this and about transgendereddism. I don't pretend to understand it. I don't understand it. Maybe it's totally fine, maybe it's not. I don't know. I don't know. What frightens me is if you don't blindly embrace, not just accept it, if you don't blindly embrace it, you are vilified and destroyed, an I think this is dangerous. I would say that about anything, anything. It's not just transgendereddism. A good friend of mine, Keith Ablow, has almost been destroyed. He's a doctor, psychiatrist. A year or so ago, he wrote, I don't see anything but toxicity from the notion of a person with a female anatomy feeling free to use the urinal in a boy's restroom while a boy stand next to her and uses one too. Well, he was viciously attacked. He was called a quack and worse, and he's not. He is a good, decent man.

Because he dared say that there were two genders, he was torn to pieces. Honest question: Who is the science denier here? Are there two genders? Or is everything fluid? And can anyone really claim that the bathroom situation is not a legitimate concern? This is new territory for humankind. So we're taking -- we should be taking baby steps and not runs towards anything, because we don't know. And we want to make sure we don't hurt people along the way. Either those who want to be transgendered or those who do not want to be transgendered. We don't want to do damage either way.

But are you telling me we all have is just blindly accept and embrace a male using a female bathroom and a female using a male bathroom, and then just -- we're all just supposed to blindly accept no genders. There's just go genders. You are not allowed to see any difference between a man and a woman. Now, this is a conversation that we can have as adults, and we should have, and we have to have as adults. And this is the situation with Bruce Jenner. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. What happens with me doesn't matter, because Bruce Jenner -- whatever, man. Whatever. I'm an adult, he's an adult. I'm worried about our children. And NBC now is running a series on transgendered children, a series on this. Children.

The one I saw was a seven-minute segment on the "NBC Nightly News", and it was about a 4-year-old. And he's gone from girl to boy. He's 5 now. And I mean this sincerely. This is not hyperbole and this is not just a rhetorical question: Are you sure this is the responsible thing for a parent to do; to all of a sudden say to your 4-year-old, you know what; you are a boy. You didn't like being a girl. You are a boy. Wear boy clothes, Tut your hair like a boy, we are changing your name. Everyone will treat you like a boy. Again, I'm not asking you with the answer. I'm asking you as a person that doesn't study this stuff. We all heard in the 1950s we shouldn't discipline our kid. We should tell them they are all winners. We should all give them trophies and ribbons, and we are seeing how that's turned out. All that advice was garbage. Can we slow down and really think? Because we are screwing with children.

And again, I'm not saying stop, because maybe it is the right thing to do. They said their son was uncomfortable being a girl starting at 2, so they went with that. Now, I'm a dad of four, and I will tell you your kids are born with their personality. They are born with their personality. Doesn't really matter. I mean, it does matter what you do as a parent, but there's some things your kids come out with and that's who they are. And they're that way forever, at least till 27.

That's as long as I can go. But they are who they are. So maybe -- I don't know, but in this segment, there was a heart-wrenching statement from the kid I want you to hear.

VOICE: If you talk to gay and lesbian adults, the vast majority will tell you they knew they were gay or lesbian when they were children, and gawking about a gay child would seem taboo or terrifying or bizarre. No longer. There are transgender children across the country. NBC's Kate Snow talked to one family about what it means to make a world accept that.

VOICE: Saying things like why did God make me this way? Why did God make me wrong? A child shouldn't have to live like that.

GLENN: So this is the question. God doesn't make anything wrong. He doesn't make anything wrong. If he was making mistakes, then he'd be a pretty crappy God. And I mean that -- again, I am not trying to be jokey about it. I mean that. He'd be a really lousy God, if it was like oh, man I really screwed that one up. He wouldn't be God, but in all this hysteria, the Bruce Jenner thing, the kids highlighted in NBC, can we even question this? Just as you can't have a religious viewpoint that's contrary to the feelings on home mock sexuality that we now have coming from the media, and from the elites, you can't have those anymore. You are shouted down, silenced, fired from whatever

job you had. Now, can you even say there are two genders, that there are male and female?

There are two genders, male and female, with the exception of 33 hundredth of 1% of births, you could be born a hermaphrodite. So now what does that mean? Did God make a mistake? Is there something beyond hermaphrodite that maybe the parts are parts, but something -- I don't even know. I don't know how it works, but there's something else inside the body that makes them feel like they're a boy or a girl when they're the opposite? Maybe. I don't know. But there's no such thing as gender neutral. Gender fluid, gender questioning, gender nonconforming, pangender, cisgender. Facebook identifies 51 separate genders. 51 separate genders. Another site lays claim to 63 different genders. I'm talking to you as an adult here. The way I was raised, you have a vagina or a penis, and that identifies you, okay? Now, do we have to open our eyes and say there's more to it? Maybe. Maybe we do, but can we please have it in a non-shout people down, calling people names kind of things? I'm not going to call someone a freak because they -- I'm not making fun of Bruce Jenner. I'm not going to shout him down, I'm not going to judge him. Don't judge others who say now wait a minute, wait a minute, is this right, especially when we are talking about children. Can we even ask these questions? This is going to be a real test. Can Glenn Beck get on his radio show and ask these questions in a humble way, really, truly seeking answers and asking the most important question, can we all have an adult conversation and not just jam this down everybody's throat, one way or the other. Can we have this and remain on the air?

Think of this. Bruce Jenner, we all thought was born a male. He thrived for 64 years as a male. He's now telling us he was born a woman, living inside of a male. Well, if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been. Can we ask questions? Can we watch Diane Sawyer and not gawk? Can wewatch Diane Sawyer and disagree, or do we need to shut up, sit down and applaud anyone who switches from male to fluid or female or pangender or one of the other 63 other genders. And do we really have to clam up about public bathroom usage during these transitions? I have daughters, I have sons. My son is 10. I don't want him going into a public bathroom because of the straight guys there, what might be child predators. Nothing about homosexual or transgender or anything else. I've got my hand full worrying about straight guys who want to touch my son. I worry about my daughters. Do we really have to shut up about this? Is there nobody that says hey, hey, hey, I understand. I do understand. Bruce Jenner is seriously confused. That's what he would have to say for his life. He was seriously confused for a while. Well, Bruce, that's the way the rest of Americafeels. We're seriously confused. We don't know what's right. I'm not gender confused. I'm just confused about the volume of genders

that there is now, and what we are supposed to do about it.

Stop acting, left and right, that this is just an open and shut case. I don't know of a time in human history when this has ever happened. This is new, because man can become God. Forget about male or female.

Man thinks he's God. The speed at which the world is changing is breath-taking, and quite honestly, when things change this fast, people tend to hold onto those time-tested virtues and values that are eternal truths, and many of those are found in our religious doctrine. And deeply held religious views do not change with the draperies. They don't change with the size of the pant leg or the length of skirts or the length of a collar, because if they did, they wouldn't be eternal. They wouldn't be from God. And none of this has anything to do with hate. People of faith are commanded to love. We must love Bruce Jenner, we must -- when we watch this tonight, if you watch this tonight, will your heart break or will you break the commandment and just flip by it and say, freak.

We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love. For those who want to shout religious people down, are you commanded to love? Can we have an actual conversation without shouting someone down, without destroying them, without driving them out of society? Or is that a bridge too far for this, quote, open-minded society?

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

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

A history of violence

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

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

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

Dismember the dragon

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

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

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

One‑sided freedom

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

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

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

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

Censored belief

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

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

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

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

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

Faith on trial

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

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

The real test

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.