Glenn regularly takes his daughters on daddy daughter dates, and this week he had the opportunity to see Madame Butterfly at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas.
Friday, Glenn treated his audience to a not-to-be missed retelling of the classic story.
Listen to this segment, beginning near mark 8:00, from 'The Glenn Beck Program':
PAT: Are you going to another opera in the meantime over the weekend? You going to hit the opera scene?
GLENN: Just because I do a father-daughter date and I do the things that my daughter wants to do, I don't know why you have to mock me for that.
PAT: It's pathetic.
STU: We seen you -- you're woke Glenn Beck, right? So this is you opening up to new cultures.
GLENN: No, I've gone to operas since my daughter started getting into this.
STU: Oh yeah, the whole thing is bullcrap.
GLENN: Okay, so let me tell you, this is the third installment, the third time I've gone to the opera with my daughter.
PAT: The last time I heard about this, I think it's The Nose in New York.
GLENN: Lincoln -- Kennedy Center?
PAT: And all they did was sing about a nose the whole time.
GLENN: No, a nose with feet that came out of the nostrils. It was really great. I am convinced that that is somebody who was high with his friend and went, you want to screw with the people that all think, oh, oh, I understand what this is all about? We're going to write the dumbest, craziest, and we're just going to say this is what it's about, and you watch. They'll all jump on.
Because I watched that thing and we want, come on, people! And the people were like, oh, isn't this brilliant? It's a nose with nostrils coming out so it can stand up and walk around and singing about communism. No, it's not wonderful.
STU: And it was feet coming out of the nostrils.
GLENN: Yeah. That's how it walked. So anyway. That was the last one. Before that I saw the Wagner Ring Cycle. I don't know which one. But it's the famous one, I guess, with the tree and the sword. That's all I remember from it. It's like, where is my sword! Five hours of where is my sword. It's right there! See the tree? (Laughter.) It's the only other thing on stage that isn't the tree! Laugh. Oh, my gosh.
JEFFY: That was at the met.
PAT: He was apparently very, very near sighted.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Where is my sword? Shut up. I almost ran up onstage. Here. Here it is! (Laughter.) So Madame Butterfly comes to town here in Dallas. And my daughter --
PAT: Is this a traveling Broadway thing? Don't know?
GLENN: I don't know. Let me preface it with you're not going to want to go after I describe what I've seen. But if opera was like this, I would go more often. It was really amazing. It was really amazing. The people that were singing were just -- this woman, I guess, is the person that you want to see as Madame Butterfly. I didn't even know what the story was about. I read it in Wikipedia on the way.
(Laughter.)
And it was really amazing. But may I just say this: If your story is about a 15-year-old beautiful, delicate, flower, a girl who is virginal, young, soft, beautiful, delicate, little, frail, youth, glowing, and so she comes out in the first act. The first guy comes out, he's supposed to be an American, and he's a big, hairy, Italian opera singer, singing in Italian, and he's the American, and he comes out and he talks about, (singing) oh, my beautiful flower, she's coming, she's coming, I can't wait to see her I'm going to marry her, she's not going to, it's a fake, no, don't marry her, like, that she's a beautiful flower, so delicate, don't crush her petals, no, no, no I'm going to marry her because I love here even though I'm going back to America-- (singing deep tones).
So I'm waiting for this beautiful, delicate flower, and it's a 40-year-old opera singer.
(Laughter.)
And she comes onstage and she's like, (singing) I'm a little flower. And I'm like, no, honey, you're not! No!
PAT: Isn't she somewhat rotund as well? Corpulent?
GLENN: I would describe her as an opera singer. Stick some horns on her and you've got the standard opera singer. So she's bigger than the American guy. Okay. And she's like, (singing) oh, I'm so young and small and fragile. No, honey, no you're not. So then she's -- she's singing to the guy who's going to marry her, and then her uncle comes, and she's got these Japanese family, these relatives, who are strangely all white people, and they all come on, and they're all singing, (singing) we're the family at the wedding. We just love the wedding. And then the uncle comes, and the music changes, and it's dark.
STU: Are they really explaining this, by the way?
GLENN: No, it's almost -- it's almost that. Yes.
STU: Okay. Sorry.
GLENN: So you don't have a problem -- it's not deep. What I've found is the lyrics are not deep.
STU: They're just saying the thing that's happening.
GLENN: Sometimes. A lot of times. Most of the time. It's not real subtle, you know. And now it may be the translation, because you're watching the translation up above the stage.
STU: You're not even watching the show.
GLENN: Yeah, you're watching, and okay, that's what she's saying. Well, you didn't translate that. What the hell is that? What did she just said?
PAT: Do they normally have the English translation?
GLENN: Some do and some don't. Opera is really weird. There's no microphones.
PAT: I thought you just had to know it or not.
GLENN: No. Some don't.
PAT: Huh.
GLENN: And they get really snotty, and they're like, if you don't know it --
PAT: But we in Dallas. We want to know.
GLENN: New York was like that.
PAT: They would to know the words.
GLENN: New York was like that too. I went to the symphony in -- with my other daughter on our father-daughter date Saturday. I almost broke my neck getting up so fast. I couldn't believe it. I come from radio, it's the pops and the orchestra and the guy comes out and shaking the hands of everybody, and standing up and he just walks up, and all of a sudden as he walks up to the platform, everybody jumps to their feet, and he points, and there's a snare drum roll. And I'm like, what the hell, and they start playing the national anthem. I couldn't get up fast enough. Everybody was standing up. I thought, wow, welcome to Texas.
JEFFY: No kidding.
GLENN: They do not do that in New York. National anthem? What? Anyway, so then --
PAT: Xenophobic.
GLENN: Then the uncle comes on, and the uncle is mad because she gave up her religion to marry him and become a Christian, and so he's mad. And all I can think of is, he's also in an enormous black man.
(Laughter.)
JEFFY: The uncle.
GLENN: The uncle. You have the beautiful flower who is not Japanese, she's Chinese; not 15, she's 40. She's thought delicate. She's sturdy.
STU: Casting maybe.
GLENN: I'm thinking, casting is not a problem in -- in opera. I think you're supposed to --
STU: It's just voice quality?
GLENN: I guess. I don't know. It's the only place when you -- I mean, what, it's all -- that's all it is. It's about the music. I really want to know the history of opera. Did it just start out -- because the acting is horrendous in almost every opera I've ever seen.
STU: Because it's not about that. Right? It's about --
JEFFY: A musical, right? On Broadway. A Broadway play.
GLENN: Could it be, and I apologize to everyone who's a musicologist and knows anything about opera.
STU: The three people that are out there.
GLENN: I thought it may have started -- the guy wrote the music, and it's like, this is great, let's get together Saturday and invite friends and blah-blah-blah, and they did that for a couple of weeks and somebody said, you know, it would be cool if we dressed up like the people. And they're like, you got to make costumes. Okay. We'll dress up. Kind of like, you know, a Star Trek convention where people are dressing up. They're like, I'll dress up as the character, and eventually they're like, you know what? I should pick up a knife or a fake knife and pretend it's that. Okay. And then it just started -- somebody said, I could build a set, and we could -- you're pretending. Why don't I pretend? But nobody ever thought, let's actually do a real performance. It's really about the singing. The rest of it is just -- because we had extra time on our hands. I'm not sure.
STU: Surely that's in a history book somewhere about opera.
GLENN: Either that, or they just have the worst directors, actors, and everything else.
PAT: Not good casting people.
GLENN: No. But really good.
PAT: Yeah, because your initial thing was --
JEFFY: It was incredible.
GLENN: It really was.
PAT: Doesn't sound it. Does not sound it.
GLENN: Pat, I bet you would like it.
PAT: No way.
STU: You liked La-La Land.
GLENN: You did.
PAT: Only because I'm so varied in my tastes. I'm so deep. This is complex.
GLENN: This is the Dallas Opera Company, I guess. I don't know anything about it. But this is the Dallas people. I don't think this traveling -- maybe she is traveling. I don't know. But this is absolutely tremendous. It's really, really good.
PAT: I'm sure they'll thank you.
(Laughter.)
LENN: None of the guys are going to listen to these reviews.
STU: Safe to say.
PAT: Dallas opera, you're welcome.
GLENN: You're welcome. Actually -- [Laughs.] -- I know they're not listening so I'm not saying this because they care. It was really good. I went home, I woke up Tania, and she said, how was it, and I always explain about going to the opera and I said, this one, Honey, I want to go again. They may not let me in. I may have to wear a disguise, but I want to see it again. It was really, really good. Really good. And I'm clearly not the biggest of opera fans.
[break]
GLENN: We were just talking about the opera is a wild place to go. I mean, on a Wednesday night in Dallas, Texas.
JEFFY: If you want to party.
GLENN: A few people in tuxedos. Every guy was in a tie and jacket. It was really formal.
PAT: That's unusual. Because we do not do that for anything anymore. Even Broadway, nobody dresses up for.
GLENN: No. Especially in Dallas.
PAT: In Dallas it's more so.
GLENN: In Dallas, there's cowboy black tie, can which means you wear a shirt, a tuxedo.
PAT: And jeans.
GLENN: And jeans. We don't even do black tie here. And it was amazing. And the theater here, it's like the Winspear theater or something.
JEFFY: Yes.
GLENN: How many theaters have we been to?
PAT: Many.
GLENN: We've been to some of the most beautiful theaters in the country. This is by far the most beautiful theater I've ever seen, and paid for by private money.
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: It is beautiful. Beautiful. Unbelievable theater. Must have cost those rich people a fortune.
PAT: If only Foreigner would play there, I'd get to see it someday.
GLENN: They'll take anybody. I asked, do you rent this place out? And she's like, yeah -- only in Texas. Yeah, we've even done birthday parties here.
I'm like, who the hell has their birthday party here? I want to know that.
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: Wow!
JEFFY: Ross Perot.
GLENN: Yeah. Probably somebody like Ross Perot.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
