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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Couple that refused to bake wedding cake for gay couple talks to Glenn

April 30, 2015
Wilson

Writer

TheBlaze reported Tuesday on the Oregon bakers who were handed a $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, claim the hefty fine could put them out on the street. They joined Glenn on radio Thursday to discuss their plight and how the Christian community is rallying to their aid.

Below is a rush transcript of this interview

You're not going to recognize your country. You will not have religious rights soon. The people that can tell this first-hand are Aaron and Melissa Klein. They had a bakery in Oregon called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. A lesbian couple came in and wanted them to make a cake for them. They said no because of their religious beliefs. It went to court. The court just ordered a fine of $135,000 for not baking this cake. They have lost the bakery, they have shut it down, and now they have to pay $135,000 fine because the lesbian couple, Rachel and Laurel, said that they had experienced all kinds of physical, emotional and --

PAT: 88 symptoms now, because --

GLENN: It's actually 90. Excessive sleep, they felt mentally raped, acute loss of confidence, doubt, dirty, shameful, they felt they had high blood pressure, impaired digestion, loss of appetite, migraine headache, pale and sick at home, shocked, stunned, weight gain, worry --

PAT: There's nothing you can do after being denied a cake other than start smoking again.

GLENN: True. I would like to get Aaron and Melissa on the phone and find out what they ever received. I'm sure they didn't have any worry, uncertainty, shock, weight gain, acute loss of confidence, doubt.

PAT: Are you guys smoking again?

GLENN: Hi, guys. How are you?

MELISSA: Good. How are you?

AARON: Definitely not a smoker.

GLENN: I don't think I would describe myself as good, if I were you

two. And you two are amazing people. You really are.

MELISSA: Oh, well you're amazing too, Glenn.

GLENN: That's what I mean. That's what I mean. You guys -- because Pat said he would say -- Early on the show today --

PAT: I put it like this. I would tell them not a dime are you going to get from me. Not a dime.

GLENN: He would not be as Christ-like, and you guys have not said anything bad about this couple. There's no hatred coming from you on this couple and that's got to be hard.

MELISSA: I mean, honestly, we don't feel any hate or frustration or upset-ness towards them at all. We really don't.

PAT: Even after all this?

AARON: I've got to be honest. The thing is that yes, one of the girls filed a complaint initially with the Department of Justice, which is the wrong venue for this, but they filed the complaint, got the ball rolling, but the state picked it up from here and the state really is the accusatory agency here, so you go this isn't the girls doing this to me. It is my own government doing it to me.

PAT: How do you feel about the list of 90 symptoms they have because you didn't bake them a cake?

GLENN: And how many did you have, of the 90?

MELISSA: Yeah, I definitely -- I don't even -- to be honest, I don't know what to say. We definitely have experienced a lot in this. It's been kind of tough on us. We have five kids, and there's been a lot of stress through this. There's -- it has definitely not been easy.

PAT: Plus, you're not making what you were when you had the bakery, right, that you guys -- you are making about half?

MELISSA: Our income has dropped drastically. I would say we probably are about, probably about half of each month, what we were making before. We are at about half of that now.

GLENN: What have you pulled out of this? If you had to do it all over again and those two walks into your bakery, what would you say today?

AARON: Number one, I wouldn't -- it was one and their mother, but the situation has not changed. God's word still defines marriage as what it defines it as. The hard part is this was never intended to hurt anybody. This was never intended to go after anybody based on sexual orientation. This strictly had to do with my faith, strictly had to do with my ability as a private individual, to adhere to my faith in the workplace. It comes down to -- I believe every American should be able to live and work by their faith.

GLENN: We have all believed that in the past, but I want to play something that Hillary Clinton said this weekend. I don't know if you have heard. I want you to listen to this and tell me what you think?

HILLARY CLINTON: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will; and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

PAT: So she is saying deep-seated religious beliefs, like the one you guys are talking about right now, have to be changed?

GLENN: How do you feel about that?

AARON: That would be reason 1,472 why I wouldn't vote for her, but, you know, that is the mind-set in the government, that is what is going on here. We're seeing almost a cleanseing of Christian faith. I mean, I wouldn't be in this situation -- at least I don't believe I would be in this situation if I was a follower of Islam.

GLENN: I think -- it wasn't Steven Crowder that went into an Islamic bakery and said he wanted a cake made for him for him and his --

STU: And --

GLENN: They said no, we won't do it. Nobody said a word about it.

PAT: With this judgment against you, this $135,000, what are you doing with that? Appealing that? Certainly --

AARON: Well, this is coming from administrative law judge. This guy doesn't hold a law degree nor is on the Oregon State Bar.

PAT: So it is not official?

AARON: He makes a recommendation to the Commission of Bureau and Labor try. And the commissioner, he will give the final say on what happens here. I can tell you, from looking back at his past rulings, we could probably look at an increase on this.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Oh, my gosh. What will you do, if it comes down like that?

AARON: Well, I'm going to appeal it. I'm definitely not going to appeal it. Not something I could come close to affording. The agenda has pushed us out of business, which is one thing, but now that's not good enough. The state still says, well, your personal assets are on the table. Now we are talking we want your house, we'll put you on the street, we want to take the food away from your kids, because that's reasonable too, and really, what this comes down to is almost like to see us destitute and begging on the street corner. That's what it would appear to be. I would like the commissioner to hear that. If that's what he wants, then go ahead and let this come down. If that's not what he wants, if he wants to protect the religious freedom in the state of Oregon, he ought to think differently about this case.

GLENN: So you put a Go Fund Me page together, but another bakery actually got them to take it down, right?

MELISSA: We didn't set up a Go Fund Me, but a gentleman here in Portland, another business owner, he called our lawyers, and wanted to set up the fund for us, and he asked our lawyers, should we do that? Is it okay? They said yeah, that's fine. I mean, I guess it was -- I think up for about eight hours, and it was just amazing to just see

the amount of support that came in so quickly. We were just -- I can't even like thank the people. I wish I could thank everybody individually, but it just -- the outpour was amazing. It got -- we discovered it got taken down. We didn't hear, though, until just recently, we saw in the papers that evidently, another business owner here in Portland was kind of gloating on their Facebook page that they got it taken down.

GLENN: So Franklin Graham stepped in. On his web site, samaritanspurse.org, he set up a donation page for you.

MELISSA: Yeah. We actually -- the next morning after all that happened, we woke up and we saw -- I can't remember where I saw it, online or where I saw it, but I saw he put on his Samaritan's Purse page, to help us out. I just was -- I can't even describe the feelings that I'm feeling with all of that.

PAT: This is a more egregious situation than the Memories Pizza thing. In just a couple of days, their Go Fund Me site went crazy. So hopefully --

GLENN: Hopefully people go to samaritanspurse.org and donate to Melissa and Aaron Klein. Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Look there are

that. We met you and you are so nice and so kind, and so gentle, so loving and so Christ-like I have not heard an angry word from you. I just pray that you stay close to the Lord and don't lose hope or don't -- you call us, you start to lose hope, you have a bad day, feel free to call us, please. I mean that sincerely.

MELISSA: Aw, thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: If you were haters, that's one thing, but you're not.

MELISSA: No. That's for sure.

GLENN: Right. So I just wish you the best and we'll talk again. God

bless you both.

MELISSA: You too.

PAT: Good luck.

Featured image via Flickr

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.