Tomi Lahren: I'm Brave Enough to Put Myself in a Position Where I'm Going to be Attacked

December 01, 2016

WRITER

A ridiculously-titled article from GQ Magazine labels Tomi Lahren of TheBlaze the 'queen of the alt-right.' The article follows an on-air interview Tomi did as a guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

"That is a ridiculous title for her. She was a Marco Rubio supporter. There's no evidence of that at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Additionally, during the interview with Noah, the host deliberately misinterpreted Tomi's comments about the Ku Klux Klan, painting her as downplaying or being ignorant of the group's horrific activities.

"This is what I'm trying desperately to beg the press not to do. Please, no one will listen to who the alt-right is. This is five percent of the right. No one will listen to who those people are if you paint the brush that everyone is alt-right. Because they're not. Tomi Lahren is not," Glenn said.

Tomi joined Glenn on air to discuss the interview with Trevor Noah and how she's ready, willing and able to take the heat.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Listen to the first hour of the podcast today, where we showed you what happened with Tomi Lahren last night in GQ, based on a Trevor Noah interview on The Daily Show. Which, he is just horrible.

But she was denounced as the queen of the alt-right. Tomi Lahren is not an alt-righter. She is not. And -- she is a Marco Rubio supporter, for the love of Pete.

And while we disagree on a lot of things, this is why Donald Trump won. Because people are so sick of the press getting away, editing, and saying whatever they want. The big gotcha moment was her saying -- and I'm just going to give it to you like the press is, "So what did the KKK do?"

What did the KKK -- well, if you don't know, I can't help you. That's the way the press is reporting it.

Let me give it to you in context. Look at what Black Lives Matter is doing. They're calling for the death of a group of people. They are terrorizing people. They are setting cities on fire. Well, tell me, what did the KKK do?

Well, gee, now, that's different, isn't it?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's why the press is despised. And until the press corrals themselves and starts looking at themselves, nobody is going to listen to them when they say, "This person is good. This person is bad."

Tomi Lahren is with us now from the Blaze. Hello, Tomi, how are you?

TOMI: I'm doing well. Thank you, Glenn.

You know, we're used to this as conservatives. We're used to this as being outside of the mainstream idea. So I knew -- I had an idea that this was probably going happen. But at least we put ourselves out there, right?

GLENN: No. And I actually thought you did well.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And actually so did GQ. I mean, GQ wanted to hate you. You know, they took their typical shots, but they couldn't even hate you. In fact, they said you didn't give them the stereotypical angry, you know, right-wing hatemonger that they were obviously wanting.

TOMI: Well, I smiled through the whole thing.

And I have to say, the way that some of Trevor Noah's fans and others on the left and what have you are responding to me is vile in many ways. I've seen Twitter.

But Trevor himself, after the show, I was actually very impressed with the way he handled me. He said, "Hey, you know, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I'm glad we could have the conversation."

Same thing happened with a few folks from the left today saying, "Hey, I think you did a good job. We disagree, but you held your own." I smiled through the whole thing. I was in obviously a tough crowd. I don't think that there was a conservative or a supporter in the crowd.

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: No way.

TOMI: And I just smiled and -- and took it. Because at least I'm brave enough to put myself in a position where I'm going to be attacked. And I think I held my own. And I'm happy with it.

GLENN: Oh, I think you did more than hold your own, myself. And Trevor Noah was -- I mean, he's just horrible. And I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything else. But he was just horrible.

And when it came to you -- we seem to feel this way. Did you feel this way? It was like he wasn't even looking at you. He couldn't make eye contact with you.

TOMI: He -- I think -- and I don't want to speak for him because I don't know what's in his heart and his mind. But I feel that a lot of times -- and you know this better than anyone, Glenn: The liberals, they want to come at you. They want to demonize you. And so they don't want to humanize you. They don't want to look at you and say, "Hey, you're an actual person." They want to look at you and say, "You're a racist. You're a bigot. You're the alt-right." And if they look at you and actually engage with you, it makes it harder for them to put you in that pigeonhole. So I think there's some of that going on.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Wow.

TOMI: I tried to laugh. I tried to have a good conversation. On the outset, I was told it was supposed to be late night comedy. We were supposed to have fun and disagree.

And then sat down, and right in with, "Why are you so angry?" And I sat down thinking, "I'm not angry. I'm typically a pretty happy person. But I guess if we want to go there right off the bat, that's fine. I'll play that game."

PAT: Tomi, did you ever ask anybody on the staff when did Trevor Noah ever engage in comedy?

(laughter)

PAT: Did you ever ask that question? Because that's a legitimate --

GLENN: Yeah, because we haven't seen any comedy coming from him. And neither has America. Neither did GQ.

They said, "It wasn't funny. But that was okay." Yeah, it's only okay because it's Trevor Noah. That's what you expect. But anyway...

TOMI: But to disagree with a liberal or you disagree with anyone on the left or anyone in Black Lives Matter or whatever, you disagree with them, and you're automatically a racist. They disagree with you, and they're a social justice warrior. And they really came at you, and they did, you know, some kind of a great deed for their cause. But as soon as I open my mouth -- it doesn't matter what I would have said. If I would have went out there and said, "I love the Black Lives Matter movement," it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, they were already determined to paint me the way that they wanted to. And at the end of the day, we're used to it. So I'm not going to cry myself to sleep.

STU: Tomi, I know that they heavily edited the interview. I think it was 26 minutes long, and they only aired maybe six minutes of it.

GLENN: What a surprise.

STU: So there was a lot taken out of it.

But one of the more amazing parts of what they showed on TV was he repeatedly said to you he could not understand your point. He -- and he kept saying it. I can't understand it. I've tried so many times to understand your point, that Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who kneeled during the national anthem to protest it, your point was, he has a First Amendment right to do it, but I disagree with him doing it.

How can you be for speech and against speech? He legitimately could not comprehend that point.

Did he ever at any point clarify, or did you ever get to an understanding on what seems to be a pretty basic First Amendment point?

TOMI: Well, he wouldn't listen to me. And that's the thing, he kept saying -- and everyone still says today, "You didn't answer his question. How is a black man supposed to protest?"

Again, I was telling him, I'm not talking about his right to protest. I'm saying, I think the way he did it and the outlet in which he chose to express it, being our flag and our anthem, was wrong in my opinion, and I voiced that.

But he didn't want to listen to what I said. And then he just kept continuing, "How should a black man protest?"

Well, Trevor, quite honestly, Colin Kaepernick didn't vote, so there is one way that a black man can protest in an appropriate way. I mean, that would be a start, right?

But it's all -- it's all their narrative. I don't think it would have mattered what I would have said.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: Because the left, they fail to understand because they don't want to understand. I -- you and I both have this in common: We legitimately want to understand the worldview of the left, of the liberals, of opposing views. We want to put ourselves in that position to strengthen our own arguments.

The left doesn't seem concerned with doing that. They are happy where they sit. They are happy and comfortable, and they feel like they're martyrs for the cause.

But I think like you said at the beginning, that's changing now. You know, we've got Donald Trump as president. Love him or hate him, you've got a lot of Americans that voted for him and, like you said, that are just sick and tired of this crap.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: We are tired of being labeled. We are tired of being scapegoated for everything. And we're tired of not being listened to. So the times are changing. And I think that the Trevor Noahs of the world are going to start seeing that.

GLENN: Well, here's the thing: I was really impressed with Penn Jillette when he went to the atheist, what was that? Reason rally.

TOMI: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. They do every year.

GLENN: And it's all these atheists. And he got up. And what he said was really, I thought, impressive.

He said, "We cannot hate or treat people the way we feel we've been treated. We feel that we were yelled at, called names, and everything else. We can't do that to anyone."

In other words, let's love our Christian brothers and our Hindu brothers and everybody else who said, you know, atheists are bad people. Let's show them how we should react.

Do you feel you did that last night with Trevor Noah?

TOMI: Right. I think I smiled through it. We had a good conversation after the fact. I don't have any beef with the guy. I expected it to be that way.

And, you know what, at least they were kind enough to have me on the show. I appreciate that much.

Sometimes, as you know, they attack us, and they don't even bring us on. And they just want to attack us. So at least he brought me on. I hope to do more of these things. I hope that they --

GLENN: You realize, though, Tomi --

TOMI: What's that?

GLENN: You realize -- you realize that you don't need them. They need you. You know that, right?

TOMI: Well, and there was a part -- if you look at the extended interview, where he tried to tell me that I was now the mainstream because I pulled big numbers on Facebook. That doesn't make me the mainstream. It means that I'm more viewed than you are, but that doesn't mean I'm the mainstream.

GLENN: Right.

TOMI: I've been able to dupe the mainstream. So that doesn't make me a part of it. It makes me smarter than it.

(laughter)

GLENN: Tomi, was it worth doing?

TOMI: It was. Any time you're able to have these conversations, it's worth doing. At least it got people talking.

Like I told him last night, I could have gone on Fox News and then watched them kiss my butt. I chose not to do that. I chose to put myself in an environment where I knew I'd be challenged, and I will never regret that.

GLENN: Okay. Tomi Lahren, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

PAT: That's great.

TOMI: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Tomi Lahren. You bet. From TheBlaze. An up-and-coming, I mean, media powerhouse.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Tomi Lahren with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.