Democrats Can't Make Gorsuch Into a Monster Because He's Too Humble

March 21, 2017

WRITER

Democrats are doing their best to come up with something on Judge Neil Gorsuch to derail his nomination as a Supreme Court Justice. Today, the first day of questioning, they tried to use an unsubstantiated --- and now debunked --- claim from a former law student in an ethics class.

"The image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person," said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, who joined Glenn Tuesday on radio.

To watch the Gorsuch confirmation hearings and get analysis, go to TrumpNominee.com, a website created by Shackelford’s organization.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Kelly Shackelford. How are you?

KELLY: Good. Great to be on, Glenn.

GLENN: Kelly has all the information at TrumpNominee.com. TrumpNominee.com, where you can follow it, see the videos, and get all of the background on Gorsuch.

What did you think, Kelly?

KELLY: You know, what I expected. A lot of preening. Speeches given by senators. Really, today is when it started. It already has started, the hearing. And that's when they're going to try to catch him. And, of course, they dropped their bomb -- the best they could do today. NPR dropped a story attacking him having some student that was in his class making claims that now all the other students are saying are false.

GLENN: What were the claims?

KELLY: That he teaches a class at the University of Colorado Law School. And they said that in the class he -- this one student said that he had said something about women taking advantage of maternity leave in the workplace. And a number of other students just totally disputed that. It's an ethics class. And he was talking about the different things that people are pressured by. And he gave that amongst many other examples. And then gave the arguments and counterarguments for both sides. But the attacker that was used by NPR didn't bother to say that.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

KELLY: So, you know, they don't really have much on him. So the attacks are very weak. And they almost always fall apart within seconds. But that's -- I think their only hope is during the questioning and answering, you know, which has already started already today, that they can catch him saying something. Otherwise, I think they're really in an uphill battle.

STU: I was looking at the article you mentioned, which I had not seen, Kelly, from NPR, which begins now with this: Editor's note, since the story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk's political affiliations. And those political affiliations are she used to work for a Democratic senator. That's the person who is accusing Gorsuch of this. A staffer of Democratic senator Mark Udall of Colorado.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: So this is, you know, nonsensical.

GLENN: Well, first of all, it's in an ethics class. Of course, you're going to say things that are unethical in an ethics class. You're exploring ethics.

KELLY: Yeah, the Socratic method is kind of what you do when you're teaching these sort of classes.

GLENN: Yes.

KELLY: And, by the way, one of the people that came forward supporting Judge Gorsuch was a very liberal Democrat student who totally disagreed with what NPR was saying. So I guess that's why they are updating it. They've even got people who are on the far left wing.

I do find some irony in the fact that NPR -- you know, meanwhile, we have President Trump cutting some of the money to NPR and these types of groups. And here they are, a somewhat government-funded entity that is attacking, you know, somebody to be on the Supreme Court. There's some -- I don't know. There's something really bizarre about all of that. And I think it gives extra credence to why maybe government money shouldn't go to groups who are going to do that.

GLENN: Let me -- let me ask -- the question that was asked of me over and over again yesterday was how -- how nasty is this going to get. Is this going to go to the nuclear option or not?

And I think we touched on this yesterday. I can't imagine they're going to do that because he's not -- I mean, if you listen to him yesterday, he's a very reasoned, soft-spoken -- he sounds like books on tape. He's just not that kind of a caricature, that I think the American people will be afraid of. And, you know, Chuck Schumer yesterday was calling for chaos in the streets. I mean, this is nuts.

Are --

KELLY: I agree with you, Glenn. I think he's -- they can make him a Bork. They can't make him somebody into -- the image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person.

You know, one of Obama's head solicitor general came out and endorsed him. Said, you have all these people that recognize what anybody does when you look at him, which is not this monster that they would like to create. So I think they're in a struggle though. I think the base really wants these Democratic senators to bring out the knives. So I think that's why we see them saying some of these things. But when push comes to shove, you have all these senators that were in states that were carried by Trump. And when they vote, that could cost them their seat. Because their seat is coming up. A third of the Senate is coming up in this next election. And a number of those were carried by Trump, those states. So I don't think we are going to see the filibuster.

Now, I think many conservatives kind of hope we do. Because if there is a filibuster, it's so unreasonable in this situation, that I think most people think that they will use the nuclear option, what they call the nuclear option and just change the rules and say, "Okay. There's no need for a filibuster. This is abusive." And that will make the way for the next time when it is going to be a huge battle about who controls the court, not using the filibuster. So many people kind of hope they do overplay their hand, but I just don't think they will.

GLENN: So, Kelly, do you think that the American people are going to sit through -- for instance, what Schumer is talking about is he's said, this is -- all the stuff that's going on with Trump. And he brings up -- he ends up with immigration reform. And he said, "You know, if this -- if this isn't solved -- you know, you want to build the wall. Maybe we should say, we're going to shut down the government." This is a quote, "We're going to shut down the government. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform."

Well, wait a minute. That is exactly what they said was irresponsible and was anti-government. Do you think people are even going to remember that, or do you think people will call bullcrap on both parties for playing this game?

KELLY: I think at this point -- I think people, you know, voted for some pretty dramatic change. They felt like the government was broken. And they wanted to see something get done. So they did something pretty drastic. And I think somebody just obstructing for obstruction's sake doesn't go over well right now. I think that's sort of the politics that people are tired of.

So I think that -- I really think that people like Schumer are playing to their base, which want them to do this kind of thing, but I think with the regular American, it's not something they like. And, again, they look at Gorsuch, and they think, this is the kind of guy I want on the court, you know. He's very mild mannered. He seems to want to do the right thing, just follow the law. So I think they're going to have a real hard time. You know, I'll tell people, Glenn. Watch for themselves. At TrumpNominee.com, where we've got our website there, the first link is just watch the hearings. And I think you'll see pretty quickly why they're having a hard time.

But that's their only hope, again, in my opinion -- their only hope is to catch him in something in these hearings. And, again, I think that would be a surprise to a lot of people, but I think that's what they're hoping for, knowing that otherwise, their arguments really do seem to fall apart whenever they really start because they just don't have much.

GLENN: Anything in particular we should watch for today?

KELLY: I just watch the Democratic senators -- obviously the Republican senators are going to say nice things, prop him up, do that. I'd watch the Democratic senators and see -- you might have some ask him about judicial philosophy, which might be very educational to people. But I think the real thing are the Democratic senators are going to try to go after him. They're going to try to force him to state where he stands on abortion and a number of issues which I would guess he's not going to answer. Because judges typically don't answer about policy issues that might come before them. They would want to see the facts of a particular case. So they don't want to prejudice themselves or look like they're prejudiced. So my guess is they're going to try to force him to answer, and they're going to complain. And he's not going to take the bait. And we're going to have a couple of days of this. And then eventually in, what? Three weeks? Four weeks? or whatever, we'll have Gorsuch on the court.

GLENN: Great. Kelly, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Democrats Can't Make Gorsuch Into a Monster Because He's Too Humble

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

Ancient evil, new clothes

A time for choosing

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

The new currency of power

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

The forgotten way

The only way

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

A restoration, not a renovation

The selective guardians of history

The real desecration

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

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.

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.

Beyond Venezuela

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine