New York Times Forced to Issue Correction for Rewriting History

June 15, 2017

WRITER

Hell must have frozen over. The New York Times actually issued a correction for linking the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin, a claim soundly debunked six years ago. The outrageous rehashing was included in an editorial regarding the attempted slaughter of House Republicans at a baseball practice yesterday morning.

"It's quite unusual . . . I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff, but one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant," co-host Stu Burguiere said.

Prior to the correction being issued, Glenn made the point that conservatives have plenty of reasons to claim incitement --- although he urged them to take the high road rather than retaliate in kind.

"Incitement? How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement? How about a play this week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so that the sponsor . . . Bank of America pulls out?" Glenn questioned.

The New York Times must have felt the heat from their blatant hypocrisy, not to mention the rewriting of history. The publication issued this correction on June 15, 2017:

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Again, before the correction came out, Glenn urged Americans to document the truth.

"Write a diary, because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth," Glenn said.

In point of fact, the Tea Party was the biggest American populist movement in which grassroots efforts changed the course of an election in two years.

"That wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why? Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened. This is a writing and rewriting of American history in realtime," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Today is the New York Times was full-fledged New York Times. Today, the New York Times today MSNBC, today, CNN, they're back to their old tricks. It didn't take them long before they started blaming this on the left -- I'm sorry. On the right. Before they started blaming this on Donald Trump.

Now, if we remember, they blamed the right and Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords, because she had released something about districts that needed to be targeted. "She used the word 'targeted.' In this atmosphere, with what they're saying, of course that's going to drive -- well, the person who used the gun to shoot Gabby Giffords was a lefty -- and nuts! Was not on the Sarah Palin email list. Let's just put it that way. Didn't see the targeting stuff. It wasn't Sarah Palin. And yet, the New York Times wrote this.

Conservative and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to man forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals.

They're right. Though there's no sign of incitement, as direct as in the Giffords' attack, liberals should, of course, hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. But there is no sign of incitement.

Okay. Somebody puts out a political piece and says, "We have to target these districts." That's incitement. But Kathy Giffords -- Griffin. What is her name?

STU: Griffin. Griffin.

PAT: Yeah, it's Griffin.

GLENN: Sorry. She was never a star in my world. I don't know what she did to think she was a star. But she'll never get her career back of that one gig a night --

PAT: Once a year.

GLENN: On CNN.

Anyway, incitement. How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement, how about a play that week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so, that the sponsor -- what was it, Bank of America?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Pulls out. Unsolicited, pulls out and says, "This is over the top." So much so, that even the New York Times' critic says, "This is over the line."

But there's no incitement there. No, no, no. Nothing as strong as, "We need to target these districts."

STU: And that is legitimately the quote. This is from New York Times, not in 2011, but today. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other --

PAT: Unbelievable!

STU: -- Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

This has literally been disproved and debunked for six years, and today they're still writing it.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Those -- those elites -- those in the newspaper -- this is why I've asked you for years, write a diary. Write a diary. Because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth.

Remember, the Tea Party, the biggest American movement of -- of -- of a populist movement. A movement where grassroots takes over and changes the course of an election in two years, the Tea Party, that wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why?

Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened.

This is a writing and rewriting of American history, in realtime, as historians go back.

But I will tell you, I've learned more from the lost diaries of the German people, than I have from any history book on what really happened in Germany.

Keep a diary.

So here's the New York Times saying this today and saying there's no link. Write in your diary and cut out any posts that you have, and make sure it's on paper. Cut on any post that you have, and make sure that you have the Kathy Griffin -- Griffith -- Grifford -- that one.

STU: Grifford, that's it. Kathy Grifford.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: That one. Whatever her name is, make sure you have the picture of her holding the bloody head two weeks before this shooting. Make sure you have the story of Shakespeare In the Park, one week, days before this shooting. And then I want you to write this: These things did not cause this crazy lunatic to shoot. It wasn't -- make sure you put that he was a Bernie Sanders volunteer. But then I want you to make sure that you put Bernie Sanders and what he said yesterday. Here's what he said yesterday.

BERNIE: Madam president, I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.

I am sickened by this despicable act. And let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. And I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

GLENN: Stop. I'm asking you one question -- I want you to listen to this one question and only answer this question. Do you believe that he believes what he just said? Pat.

PAT: Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Jeffy, do you believe that he believes what he just said? That he condemns violence.

JEFFY: I'm not sure.

GLENN: Wow. Stu.

STU: I mean, his actions from last time this happened --

GLENN: That's not the question.

STU: That's not the doubt. The literal words he says, yes. He does not want violence. He condemns it.

GLENN: He has a long history of condemning violence. However, question number two, is he a political human being? Pat.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Stu.

STU: 100 percent.

GLENN: Which explains what he said after Kathy -- after --

STU: Kathy Grifford.

GLENN: Whatever. After what he said about the other shooter.

STU: Yeah, Jared Lee Loughner. He raised money off of it. He said he blamed it on right-wing reactionaries: This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area, where it appears threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate. Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

I believe -- I believe that yesterday Bernie Sanders, when he found out that this was one of his guys that was a campaign volunteer, I believe he was horrified that somebody could say that -- not for political reasons. I believe Bernie Sanders would not want somebody shooting at Congress members.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Period.

Now, we don't get that respect from the press. We don't get that respect. They won't give that to us. They're still relitigating a false claim of -- of a shooting that happened by a crazy person on the left. They're still blaming that on Sarah Palin. And relitigating that today. They're, still, on MSNBC -- there was a tweet that went out and said, "Donald Trump is responsible for this."

I'm going to give you two answers to the question on who is responsible: Who is responsible? I'm going to give you two answers. And both of them are absolutely true. But both of them are separate and apart from each other.

You want to belly up to the big boy table? You want to hear things that -- that everybody will tell you today, to make you feel good, that you should tune to another show -- if you want to hear the truth stick around. I'll share it, next.

Continued in hour 3

GLENN: Hey, before we get into -- before we get into what we can do, could -- I think it's important to start with the correction of the New York Times today. The New York Times has issued a correction to what they had printed about Gabby Giffords. Do you want to go over that? This is unusual and remarkable, I think.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's quite unusual, especially from -- because, I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff. You know, details -- they do issue a lot of -- to correct one of their editorials, one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant. Here's what the correction reads: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

GLENN: That's amazing.

STU: I don't know how it gets to print. I don't know how they don't that know before they put the actual editorial up.

PAT: Wow. Yeah.

STU: But I'm glad they corrected it. And it is important. There is absolutely zero evidence -- in fact, it is proveable that this had nothing to do with it. You know, to the point of, he was obsessing about Gabby Giffords three years before the ad came out. And, you know, there's -- if he had any leaning, as we said -- an acquaintance called him a liberal. But it was not a political assassination. It was not that.

I mean, this is a guy who believed grammar was a conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's almost incomprehensible what --

GLENN: Yesterday, it was a political assassination attempt. Yesterday, it was about politics. But it had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders rhetoric or anything else. This guy was nuts. This guy believed what he believed, and he's the one who loaded the gun, got the gun. Lived in his van for two weeks. I mean, the guy was nuts, period.

It was politically motivated. Who had anything to do with that? Did Rachel Maddow wind him up?

STU: No, she -- he tweeted about Rachel Maddow. He tweeted about Ed Schultz. He tweeted about all these shows.

GLENN: I will tell you this, if you buy into that, then you better check his Facebook and what he tweeted and what he Facebooked about. A lot of stories from Russia Today.

STU: Yeah, Russia Today is another one.

GLENN: So was he wound up by the Russians?

STU: And I don't know if this was been widely reported, but he was also pretty much -- he was very pro-Sanders. Anti-Clinton, right? Like he was that left-wing socialist, wants Bernie, but not Hillary type of guy.

But he loved a lot of these left-wing shows. Is it their fault? No. Of course not. It is not their fault at all. It's not Rachel Maddow's fault. It's nobody on MSNBC's fault.

GLENN: You could make the case that the uber, uber left, just like the uber, uber right, they do want revolution. And he may have been a supporter of the Antifa movement, I don't know.

STU: There are groups certainly that advocate for violence.

GLENN: That want revolution.

PAT: Wouldn't it be refreshing if the left did the same thing we're doing right now?

STU: Wouldn't it be?

PAT: Wouldn't that be great? Give it -- a balanced look at it. A fair and balanced -- since Fox just dropped that, we can take it from them. We got a fair and balanced look at --

GLENN: Did they say what they were replacing it with?

PAT: I think most watched, most trusted.

GLENN: Isn't the most trusted name in news, isn't that the CNN most trusted --

PAT: I don't know. But Fox has actually won every poll along those lines for years now. So maybe they're going to take it from them. I don't know.

STU: And there were some examples today -- for example, of the Jared Lee Loughner thing, you said, wouldn't it be nice?

GLENN: Yeah, there are.

STU: Chris Hayes, for example, on MSNBC, when that out, people on the right were criticizing. How can you tie this?

And he said, yeah, I'll step up here and say that's completely nuts.

PAT: Wow.

STU: These are tough examples. It's hard to do that when you're on the left in a moment like this, and those people should be given credit. We should also criticize the people who don't -- who don't do that, and who break the -- you know, who create a double standard for themselves and blame the right for 2011 and don't do it here. When here it actually -- there's at least a tie.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Jared Lee Loughner didn't support Sarah Palin. There is an absolute -- that is provable. Here we have a situation where this person did support all these left-wing causes. But that still doesn't make them responsible. That is not the way this works.

GLENN: Right. So it is really easy -- it's really easy on the left to do what the New York Times did at first. It's really hard for them to issue the correction.

It is really hard for people on MSNBC to come out and say, look. Just like with Gabby Giffords, it was crazy then, it's crazy now.

It's really hard for people on the right to say that. And not throw stones. Because everything depends on clicks now. Everything depends on ratings.

I mean, it was really interesting to listen to Bill O'Reilly talk about ratings earlier this week. He's on with us tomorrow, by the way. But when he was on with us, he talked about ratings and how everything is done for ratings.

Well, how do you get ratings? You get ratings by dividing people. You get ratings by calling out a bogeyman. Because that's what -- that's what people want. They want the red meat. So who are we going to be able to work with? Who can we -- who can we trust to give us the news and give it to us straight? Well, people like Jake Tapper, who were consistent then and are consistent now.

Those are the things -- these are the times that we can learn, who is trustworthy? Who is going to say it, when it was tough?

STU: Let me give you a little flashback here, which is perhaps maybe the best example of this. We haven't even discussed since this whole terrible tragedy happened.

This is back in 2010. A couple hosts on the program, Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere, filling in for Mr. Glenn Beck that particular day. And there was a shooting, eight people killed at a workplace. And we talked about it. I said, a guy like that, who is a little bit unstable anyway, can't help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olbermann on the air on MSNBC, talking about all the racism there is out there. Because that was his complaint.

And then we said, Keith Olbermann was responsible. Keith Olbermann was responsible for the shooting. And Media Matters did a big report about how we --

PAT: That's right.

STU: We -- blaming Keith Olbermann for the shooting. What an unbelievable charge. How dare you.

Of course, they cut out the next paragraph and next few seconds where I said, "Obviously we're making a point here." Let's move that to the case of the Tea Party members. They're constantly convinced the government is after them, and they're going to come take their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So, therefore, he's responsible every time anyone does anything. They actually had to issue a correction because they --

GLENN: Media Matters.

STU: Media Matters issued a correction. Because what we were saying at that time, when it was hard for us, was, you know what, Keith Olbermann is not responsible for a murder. He can say anything he wants in a political context, outside of actually saying specifically go murder people. And it has nothing to do with the shooter.

Media Matters intentionally cut that off and later got caught and had to issue a correction about it. And here we are, years later, where the same crap happens, from many of the same people, and, you know, we have to choose whether -- you know, what kind of people we want to be. Do we want to be the people who actually stand up and say -- and can live with ourselves and sleep at night, knowing that we have consistent principles, or do we just want to throw around the same crappy accusations the other side does in those moments?

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep