Nebraska Senator Questions Donald Trump on Core Principles

Newly elected Senator Ben Sasse joined Glenn's radio program to discuss how the presidential election is shaping up from a Washington, DC perspective Tuesday morning.

Glenn asked about a Twitter campaign the Nebraska senator carried out over the weekend, in which he questioned how Donald Trump would govern, should he become president of the United States.

"I have lots of concerns," Sasse answered. "It's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump."

He continued.

"Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president?" Sasse said.

Below are some of the questions Sasse posted on Twitter.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: We have very few friends in Washington, as you might imagine. We don't like a lot of people, especially in the capitol or in the administration. But there is one senator that is a new senator that we really, really trust. And he had an interesting weekend on Twitter. And we're going to start there with some questions that he posed. He joins us from Washington, DC. Ben Sasse, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome to the program. From Nebraska, Senator Ben Sasse. How are you, sir?

BEN: Doing well, Glenn. Good morning. Thanks for invite.

GLENN: How are things feeling in Washington, DC, with the way the presidential election is shaping up? It looks like Hillary Clinton is in trouble. And we may be looking at a Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side and possibly either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. How are people feeling in Washington? What are you hearing in the halls?

BEN: You know, I don't pay a ton of attention to my colleagues' chatter on that stuff. Just to be honest, it's amazing how much there's certainty in Washington, until there's not certainty. And there's another certainty two weeks later. I don't think Washington knows very much about all of life. But what's the old line? Often wrong, but never in doubt. So prognostications, predictions by politicians --

GLENN: But what I'm asking is, you know, the establishment has come out for Donald Trump now, and they're talking about deal-makings. And he's on the road talking about deal-makings with the establishment.

Are they concerned about a Trump or a Cruz presidency? Are they concerned about a -- a Clinton or a Bernie Sanders? I mean, I would imagine if you're the Democrats, you might be a little freaked of the idea of Bernie Sanders.

BEN: Yeah. I mean, Bernie is such a likable guy. But, you know, sometimes it feels like -- the ideas sound like we might have just gotten our finger stuck in a light socket for a moment, so I don't know how seriously many people are often taking that possibility. But I agree with you that Mrs. Clinton's legal predictions look very, very complicated.

But, you know, the whole deal-making aspect of it, you know that I'm new here. I've been here 13 months. I've never run for anything before in my life until I was elected to the Senate. And I still live in Nebraska, and I commute most weeks. I bring a kid back. We have three little kids, and I bring a kid back and forth with me every week. So my community or my neighbors are people at church and at the grocery store back home. And one of the great things to say amid all that is wrong in Washington, is most of America doesn't take this place very seriously. They're not addicted to politics. When I'm back home, very rarely do you find anybody in line at the grocery store saying, "If only there were only more insider deal-making in Washington, that would fix all of our problems."

(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. So why for the love of Pete, it's very dangerous and hazardous to your career and health to take on Donald Trump? This weekend, you went on -- you're not endorsing anybody. But you went on and you started doing a Twitter storm here on -- you said you've struck a cord with the American people, Mr. Trump, if I may quote. I think you've rightly diagnosed much of what's wrong in DC. You're very talented and on a roll. If I were betting, you're likely to be the next president of the United States, and congratulations.

But in our house, we've talked about your phenomenal campaign a lot. Good to see how people are talking directly about DC's big mess. But at the same time, we have questions of how you would govern. We'd like to ask some questions, if you're willing to take them.

BEN: Yeah, this is actually what we talk about in my house, with my family. But also with my dad and my brother and my sister-in-law and my grandpa. And there's a debate about, what does Trump actually believe in a whole bunch of issues? It's clear that he's tapped into a vein that most of what's happening in Washington right now is a mess and is broken and is not headed in the right direction. Okay. Good so far. Now, where do you want to take us?

I have lots of concerns that it's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump. And so, you know, if Cam Newton hadn't been so dominant the other night. If Arizona had had any defense, maybe none of this would have happened. But Sunday night, I'm watching the NFL game, and I was just back from New Hampshire. I spoke at the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire, and I heard the same things in New Hampshire that I hear in my house, which is, Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president? So we threw a few of those questions.

GLENN: All right. So here are the questions. You want to go through them, one by one?

BEN: Sure. Let's do it.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

BEN: Well, first, he has advocated for single-payer health care before, which I think is term for it was government pays for everyone. The government will pay all the bills.

GLENN: So you know, he said that just last year. He said that in September of last year.

BEN: And so now he's campaigning as a conservative. And I don't know of anybody who holds the conservative principles that most of life should be lived outside of Washington that thinks the best thing you can do is insert government bureaucrats between doctors and nurses and sick people in America. That's not a conservative position. And if he doesn't believe in single-payer anymore, that's great. I would be glad. I -- there might be a legitimate conversion story there, but I'd like to hear it. And I think people in New Hampshire and Iowa and certainly in my state in Nebraska people would like to hear it. If you don't believe in single-payer health care anymore, when did it change, and why did it change? And what are you precisely for?

GLENN: Next question.

BEN: There's some video out there that I've seen on the internet. I'm a big defender of the Second Amendment. It is my right because God made me a dad and a husband, to defend my property and my wife and my kids. No government gives me the right to defend myself.

And so we're big Second Amendment people in our family. And I've got a brother who pretty much if you rank ordered 100 different issues on earth and then you gave him 100 marbles, he'd put all 100 of his marbles on the Second Amendment and nothing else matters to him. So he asked the other day, what does Trump think about guns? Because there's this video going around where he's on 60 Minutes or somewhere saying I hate the concept of guns. I believe he's advocated for different kinds of assault weapon bans and things in the past. And so if he doesn't hold that view anymore, if he actually affirms the Second Amendment, how does he understand the Second Amendment? When did his view change? Why did it change? You know, what are his fundamental positions on that?

GLENN: I was in Iowa this weekend, and this is kind of what I said. I said, "Look, I understand people changing their mind. I understand people changing their opinion. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. I believe people can make mistakes. I'm the king of redemption. I needed it more than most. So I understand that. But my problem is, I haven't heard when these things have changed for him." And like you said, there might be a really great reason, but because of this administration, is not -- you know, because, "Well, the country is not going in the right direction or because Obama is doing these things or because it's not working," is not enough of a pain to make you fundamentally transform on government health care and "I hate the concept of guns," I'm totally behind the Second Amendment.

BEN: Right. And let's be clear. I want to underscore your point about redemption. I'm a big believer in sin. It's at the core of my identity that I'm a sinner and Jesus is my savior because of the fact that I'm a sinner. So I believe that. I believe you can change views. But you have to be able to explain it. You have to be able to walk people through a process that is coherent, other than saying, "Hey, there's a big constituency out there, and it appears they have a different view than mine, so now I'm going to adopt their's." That's not leadership. That's running in front of a mob. And maybe it's genuine. But I'd just like to hear the story, and I have not heard it.

GLENN: This is one of the reasons, I think, he doesn't want to appear on this program. When we asked him was after months and months of questioning, and we started asking him in late August, early September if he would come on the show. We asked him three times. And the reason why we wanted him on the show was, maybe he has a good reason for all of these things. Let's hear the reason for all of these things. And that's when he didn't want to appear on the show and all the trouble started.

BEN: Thanks for clearing that up, Glenn, because I actually thought it was because you had no audience. I thought there were four people listening and you were going bankrupt. And I was just here as a social call frankly for you and your loneliness.

GLENN: Gosh. Darn it. You let the cat out of the bag.

We're talking to Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Senator from Nebraska. One of the good guys. Number three.

BEN: Where does he stand on taxes? What is his view -- goal of trying to shrink government? We have a government that is out of control. We have 18 trillion dollars of debt. We've got something like three times that much in unfunded obligations that that the government lies about and keeps off their books in our entitlement programs in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. And a few years ago, Mr. Trump had a proposal that he thought he could address a lot of this. By raising taxes $6 trillion. Trillion with a T. That's not even stuff that Bernie Sanders dreams of.

So I'm just curious as to what his view is on taxes in the future. And, frankly, does he agree with Vice President Biden who said, "Higher taxes equal more patriotism?" If you have a view that there's a way to solve our problems by just raising taxes exponentially, I think that would collapse the economy. But I'd love to understand your position because I think most the people that are supporting him don't know he advocated for a 6 trillion-dollar tax increase.

GLENN: Number four.

BEN: Number four. I'm going to read this precisely because we got hit a lot in the press for this. People saying we said things that were quite different than the actual point we were making.

GLENN: No.

BEN: Number four was, you brag about affairs with married women. The key verb here was "brag." Have you repented, not only to the harm to children, but to the spouses that you stole from? And do you think any of this matters?

GLENN: Hang on. I don't know of these stories where he's bragging about having affairs about married women.

BEN: So I read a piece by Lash over the last week that summarizes some pieces of different books he's written. And I guess along the way -- and then I went and looked up one of them. He says, "I've had all kinds of women." And he sort of lists out categories. But one of the categories are beautiful women, famous women, women you would know, pro athletes, or whatever. I don't have the quote in front of me. But along the way, he said single women, married women. There's a sort of bravado about this that lots of guys have done in locker rooms since we were 17 and 24. And men often say and act stupidly.

But there's something quite different than just a question of whether or not certain aspects of fidelity and infidelity are private or public matters. There are reasonable debates to be had about a lot of that. It's something different to brag about having married women. So I'm just curious as to whether or not he thinks relationships and oaths and vows mean anything. Because I'm setting up the next tweet, which is going to be about the Constitution. The commander-in-chief and the president of the United States takes an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. And I'm curious as to his view of both.

GLENN: Have you had any response?

BEN: You know, strangely there's this thing called Twitter. I don't know if you've heard of it. But it turns out, on Twitter, if you ask a question and some people don't like it, they're able to create these computer programs called bots. And you can create news by having gazillions of people retweeting that I maybe stole a car or I stole some land, I evicted an old lady. Maybe I was involved in physical violence or sexual violence.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Well, that's why we had you on, on this washed up show that only has four listeners. We thought you had evicted and abused a little old lady, which was my grandmother, I hear. That's not true?

BEN: I've never been in politics before. You know this. Let's be clear about that. I mean, I am anti-establishment. That's not enough. You have to be more than that. I'm not skeptical of nonpoliticians trying to serve the American people by defending the Constitution. I'm raising my hand here on radio to say, "I've never run for anything before in my life, until a year ago when I was elected to the US Senate. I was a college president for the last five and a half years and a business guy for, you know, a decade and a half before that. So I'm all for lay governments of America. I am against the permanent professional, political class. So that is not my gripe with Mr. Trump.

GLENN: Oh, is that what they're saying about you? You're part of the political class now?

BEN: Oh, I'm sort of -- I don't even know.

GLENN: It's funny. It's amazing. Michelle Malkin. I just talked to Michelle Malkin yesterday. Michelle Malkin is stupid. She's one of the smartest women I know. I'm a washed-up loser has-been, which actually is pretty darn close to being accurate, compared to all the other things he says. But I've sold out. I'm betraying the Constitution. I'm betraying the conservatives. I mean, it's amazing --

STU: You can't even vote in Texas' open primary.

GLENN: Yeah, I can't vote in a Texas open primary.

BEN: You're a Canadian, aren't you? Glenn, I'm trying to level with you.

GLENN: It's amazing how many people we now have to hate if we're on the Trump bandwagon.

BEN: Well, I don't want to go too far afield and get accused of being too much of a nerd here, but it really is worth going back to the Founders for just a second and remember that America is fundamentally about a certain kind of anthropology, a certain kind of belief about human dignity. We are frail, and we are fallen, and we are broken. But we believe in the potential of self-restraint, of growth and discipline and local community and human dignity. And the reason you want self-restraint is because I don't want the government restraining everything. There's so many things that can go wrong in the world, but I don't want more power to try to compel all of life. I want more persuasion. I want more conversion. I want more voluntary engagement. But when you look at Twitter, you realize what some of the Founding Fathers were a little bit worried about --

GLENN: There's no self-restraint. Ben Sasse, thank you very much for talking about us. We appreciate it. I know you have to do something, probably evict an old lady. But we certainly appreciate it. Have you selected a candidate yet, or are you going to?

BEN: No, I don't expect that I will. Who knows where it will end at the back end. But I don't think Nebraskans elected me because they need a lot of advice on who to vote for. But I do think it's a wonderful thing that the Republican Party has a whole bunch of candidates that believe in the Constitution. We already have one party in the country that's gone basically post constitutionalist. If the Republican Party does that, where will we reform from in the future?

GLENN: Good for you. Thank you very much, Ben Sasse. Senator from Nebraska. And really, truly one of the really good guys.

Featured Image: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) (L) is ceremonially sworn in by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden with Sasse's wife Melissa Sasse, son Augustin Sasse and daughter Elizabeth Sasse in the Old Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol January 6, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.