Those Standing on Principle Are in Good Company

September 26, 2016

Writer

And then there was a baker's dozen, give or take.

Only a handful of conservative media voices remain firm in their opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. While the others have caved, a core group continues to stand for principles.

RELATED: The Gift Ted Cruz Gave Us

"I am to the point of, 'bring it on!' We are in good company," Glenn said on his radio program Monday. "We are in good company."

Glenn made a list --- albeit small --- of those still fighting the good fight, along with himself and his co-hosts:

• Steve Deace

• Erick Erickson

• Mary Matalin

• Michael Medved

• Ben Shapiro

• Charles Sykes

• George Will

• Leon Wolf

• John Ziegler

"I know there are more," Glenn said. "And a good portion of this audience."

Under enormous scrutiny and pressure, these voices have held fast to the principles and ideals that founded the United States. They are, indeed, in good company:

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – James Madison, 1788

And in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech. – Benjamin Franklin, 1722

The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. – Alexander Hamilton, 1787

They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure. – John Jay, 1788

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. – George Washington, 1779

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It is a government of the worst possible people.

PAT: Oh, that -- I mean, that's exactly what we are.

(chuckling)

PAT: Dumb name. But it's exactly what we are.

GLENN: You get there because you vote for the lesser of two evils. And by the end, you have compromised yourself down so far, that you're just dealing with people.

You know, "Hmm, should I have Pol Pot or Mao? I don't know. I don't know." And so you get the worst possible people that rise to the top. Because the good people stay at home and they're like, "I don't have anything to do with it." I think that's where we are now. That's where we are. And good people get into it, and they compromise themselves because they say, "I have to be in here, and I have to be a part of it." And I don't think you do.

PAT: And the guys who they didn't like when they were on the outside are those same ones who were schmoozing them and saying, "Hey, look, you support my bill, and I'm going to get you the chairman of this committee." And they start to like this person. And, you know, we saw it happen with Orrin Hatch, with Ted Kennedy. I mean, Ted Kennedy groomed Orrin Hatch from the very beginning in the Senate, and look what happened there. I mean, the guy is not conservative. Started out that way, but they don't end up that way. Nobody does. How is it that we're always co-opted and we co-opt no one?

GLENN: We co-opt no one, ever. Ever. Because we have convinced ourselves that the only way to win is to play the game. We haven't -- maybe we should all go back and watch WarGames. What was the lesson of WarGames? The only way to win is to not play the game.

PAT: Not play the game.

STU: I mean, every Matthew Broaddrick movie has a lesson like that we can take through life.

GLENN: I think so. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, yeah.

I don't understand -- does anybody understand the calculus here?

STU: No. I mean, it -- certainly I don't understand it now.

PAT: To win.

STU: I mean, what the hell was the point of the convention speech? What the hell was the point of that?

PAT: Right. Why didn't you just do it then?

STU: Just do it then. And I think everyone at that point would have been like, "All right. Well, he said he was going to support the nominee."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Well, may I give you a hypothesis?

PAT: That should maybe be our first question to him, "Why didn't you do it then, if you were going to do it."

JEFFY: Yeah. Why'd you wait?

GLENN: Here's my hypothesis: Reince Priebus was on the warpath and said, "I will destroy -- I'll destroy anybody." There's enough of your big tent, gang. Don't talk to me about a big tent.

PAT: Oh, they don't want a big tent.

GLENN: They don't want a big tent. They are just as bad as GLAAD and PETA. I mean, I'm only -- I'm waiting for the buckets of blood to be splashed on me or anybody like me because you won't get in bed with the party. That is exactly -- this is the way the left does it. And we're doing the same thing. And Reince Priebus is the head of that march. And you will all march in line like little soldiers, or we'll destroy you.

And so here's what I think, I think that they were playing the game and playing the calculus as everybody was. And his numbers were starting to go down. Roger Ailes joins the Trump team. You saw another Roger Ailes move this weekend when Donald Trump said, "I'm going to put Gennifer Flowers in the front, for the debate tonight." What happens? The campaign retracts that and says, "Oh, I'm sorry. And we're not going to do that." That's Roger Ailes.

And the response was, "Maybe we'll put one of the bed -- the mothers of one of the dead soldiers from Benghazi in the front." That's Roger Ailes.

STU: So the first one is --

GLENN: Donald Trump is, "I'm going to go after Gennifer Flowers." Roger Ailes is, "Benghazi, dude. Benghazi." And so what happened?

Roger Ailes comes in, and the numbers start going up. And I think if the numbers were going down at this point, Reince Priebus would probably start to torpedo -- or probably just unplug and start worrying about the House and the Senate. But the pressure started to mount. Pure speculation: Pressure started to mount, and the G.O.P. saw, "This is within striking distance now. All hands on deck. And we'll destroy you if you don't play --

PAT: Wasn't that the same message though they gave before the convention?

GLENN: Yes, but I think the convention numbers -- I think they were doing that, and then the convention numbers started to slide, and they kind of backed off. And now the numbers are coming back up. They start putting the pressure back on.

STU: And this is the issue. This tells me nothing new about Reince Priebus. It tells me a lot new about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz folding to that is not the guy I thought it was.

PAT: That's the problem.

GLENN: And here's the problem.

STU: Glenn, honestly, you think if Donald Trump was down 15 points right now, Ted Cruz would be endorsing him? No, absolutely not.

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Let's ask him that question. I mean, he'll say probably yes. But, I mean, if he was down 15 points right now and this was a complete disaster, there's no way he would be out there endorsing him.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that tells me way too much. Much more than I wanted to know. I wanted to live in the dark, and now unfortunately I live in the light.

GLENN: No. I'm actually glad I know.

STU: Of course I am. You know, I want to be the only one. I want all these guys out of here. I want to be the last man standing. I want Sasse on the phone. Get him on the phone! I want him folding too! I want Sasse! I want Lee! I want all of them to fold. I want all of you to fold. I want to be the only one. That's it.

GLENN: I do too. That's where I got last night. First -- my first reaction was, no one you can believe in. No one you can actually believe in. That was my first reaction. It would have been mass suicide for anyone who thought like I did on Friday when I hung up the phone.

I almost just -- and it wasn't out of anger. It wasn't out of anger. It was just --

PAT: Disappointment.

GLENN: It was so just disappointment and disconnect of like, "Nothing even matters anymore."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: As I was talking to him, I almost just -- I found myself actually taking the phone and looking at it like, "Where is the off button," while he was talking. "Where do I just -- okay. End call, right there." I mean -- and it wasn't like, "I'm going to hang up in disgust." It was like, "Okay. I don't have time for anymore of this."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it was just complete disconnect. Nothing mattered. And so it wouldn't have been good. It wouldn't have been good for me to have been on the radio.

PAT: No.

GLENN: Because it was that -- but now, I am to the point of, bring it on.

We are in good company. We are in good company.

PAT: Who? With the four of us? It's very bad company.

GLENN: I made a list, and it's a very small list. It's a very small list. Ben Shapiro. Michael Medved. Charles Sykes. Erick Erickson. Steve Deace. George Will. Mary Matalin. Leon Wolf. John Ziegler. I know there are more.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Uh-huh. Yeah.

GLENN: I know there are, but I couldn't think of them.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And a good portion of this audience.

PAT: That's eight. Plus us, that's 12.

GLENN: A Gang of Eight.

JEFFY: So?

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah, they -- yeah.

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah. And that article that Erick Erickson wrote last week was one of the best I've seen --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. You should read -- I read Steve Deace's book. What is it?

JEFFY: Nefarious.

GLENN: Nefarious. Oh, my gosh, I wrote to him last night --

PAT: He's good. Really good.

GLENN: That is C.S. Lewis. That is C.S. Lewis. That is brilliant. Why -- why I'm not an up-and-coming struggling talk show host and he's not the guy with the titan title, I don't know. He is so much smarter than I am and really brilliant. That is a brilliantly written book.

PAT: Billions of people can say that.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. I know that.

Featured Image: Founding Fathers via Flickr

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep