Tonight's Florida Primary: Ann Coulter weighs in

Ann Coulter called into the radio show today to discuss the Florida primary and what she expected to do down in the Sunshine State. What did she have to say? Read the full transcript of the interview below!

GLENN: Florida elections today and Ann Coulter is on the phone with us. Hello Ann.

COULTER: Hello Glenn Beck.

GLENN: What do you think is coming today.

COULTER: One thing I've noticed is the media seems to be encouraging raised expectations for Mitt Romney so if he wins by anything less than 15 points it will be declared a victory for Gingrich. And the upcoming caucuses if Romney loses a single one, wow, it's a Newt Gingrich bounce. I note that in that regard that an editorial is strongly encouraging these debates go on.

PAT: This Washington outsider Newt Gingrich is coming on so strongly right now with his brand new ideas that are complete separate from Washington. I love that about him. And I love the fact that the establishment, the Republican machinery is all behind Mitt Romney.

GLENN: There's really only one guy who can even make that claim, and even he is not an outsider, and it's Ron Paul. But at least

COULTER: Why wouldn't I say why isn't Romney the outsider.

GLENN: You're right.

COULTER: It isn't such a terrible thing. You do tend to choose politicians from politics. I think we saw in the choice of Republican candidates Herman Cain. Even when he was in right he was stuck for an answer. Yet and still don't go around calling yourself an outsider if you spent your entire life in Washington first as a congressman, and trading on your influence in Washington.

GLENN: So he's never had a real job.

COULTER: I guess there would be an assistant professor 30 years ago.

GLENN: I wouldn't call that a profession. He's a historian for Freddie and Fannie. There's the first line I cut. You need a historian. What is the hell is that?

COULTER: That was not a good answer.

STU: I find it amazing as they keep going to Gingrich as the antiestablishment guy. Here's a guy who voted for the Department of Education. And it's one thing and at least the fact that he was around to vote for the Department of Education's creation shows you

GLENN: Try this on for size. Here's a small government guy. Do you have the State Department audio. This is one of the most amazing pieces of audio I've heard from a Washington outsider that wants to return the power to the people.

COULTER: Hold every last

GLENN: Not that one. He sounds like the Taliban.

COULTER: Giving the conservative stress on the federalism as Rick Santorum has said if a state wants it can ban contraception. This focus on the federal government solutions is the federal government that created these problems and at least with a state it's easier for a state to modify. It's easier for states to see what other states have done, and how it worked out. You have more control over the officials you are electing to smaller area a town or governor or legislature. Which is why I find the comparison of Romney care, and Obama care so baffling other than it's generally the same subject area. And you can describe it to a politician's name to the word "care." One is constitutional, and one is unconstitutional.

GLENN: I would agree with you on that. Who thinks I don't care if it's a state or not, who thinks that they can actually fix it by having the state run it? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

COULTER: I think that the big issue on Romney care there isn't much any governor can do. The problem with the healthcare was created by the federal government and it can only be fixed by the federal government by repealing stuff.

GLENN: By reducing the size of the federal government.

COULTER: Right, and in particular the federal law requires hospitals to treat all comers. And Massachusetts was spending $1 billion a year, $1 billion on uncompensated medical costs so they are

GLENN: Wait a minute. Let me play devil's advocate here. So you're going to let vagrants die on the streets.

COULTER: I'm not going to say that the taxpayers is on the hook when they wander in to sleep off a drunk.

GLENN: What if they're really sick.

COULTER: I think in an ideal world what I would do, I don't have to have tax incentives to tax us less to begin. That's the world we're living with. For the tough cases let's fine I don't care if the federal government is going to pay for the tough cases. The federal government is going to set up poor people's hospitals. At that point we can pay for with the amount of money we're paying for the Department of Education now. But you don't wreck the whole system to deal with the hard cases.

GLENN: I think you go back to what the Ben Franklin did. You have people like Jon Huntsman. He built the Huntsman cancer institute, and you have people that build hospitals, and they can partner with the states or with corporations or whatever, and they get tax incentives for.

COULTER: Charitable hospitals.

GLENN: Let's not put all of the Catholic hospitals out of business. That's a different idea. I've not heard this anywhere.

COULTER: We have to rethink the State Department, and I have to said inn crease its size by 50%. To be able to have a truly professional modern high technology State Department.

GLENN: How are you feeling about an increase of the size of the State Department by 50%?

COULTER: That is raging against the machine in my part. But he has this tendency to give precise numerical figures when he's talking about his head. You have to increase it by 50%. I remember during 2007, and 2008 every month he was giving a different prediction of 80% chance Hilary will be the next President. And next the month Hilary's chances have fallen to 25%. And 25.4% of women have been raped in college.

STU: There's a lot of the things in his speech pattern. I think that the fundamental will file for bankruptcy if Newt Gingrich doesn't win the nomination. It's like is or the to this guy. Everything is a fundamental something.

COULTER: Now I'm having all these words are being stripped from my vocabulary, and I hear them, and it gives me a problem.

GLENN: A fundamental rash.

COULTER: Because frankly.

GLENN: Let me ask you this. What is the deal with the Sarah Palin's endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

STU: She hasn't officially endorsed.

PAT: Basically to all intents and purposes she has endorsed.

GLENN: What's up with that?

COULTER: It may be a disagreement on whether you think it's a good thing for this rancorous primary to continue, and whether that makes it more or less likely to defeat Obama in the fall. We've had 20 debates. I think this primary is quite a bit a nastier than others I've seen. I think it's going to hurt whomever, and Romney the eventual nominee. And I don't think it's a good thing for the debates to go. The lead up to the "New York Times" let the debates go on.

GLENN: It's crazy. We're cannibalizing ourselves. I'm not getting any new information out of these debates. Is anybody else?

STU: It's enough.

GLENN: Enough. All that's happening. Let these debates go on. Now let's have a rule that they can't talk about each other. They can talk about what they will do, and compare it to the Democrats, and Barack Obama, and you can do that. But I don't need to have them taking each other apart anymore. It really bothers me.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: They sound like a bunch of third graders.

COULTER: I dispute the aphorism that which does not kill you makes you stronger. Really you could gouge your eye out, you could live. Does that make you stronger?

GLENN: I don't think if it's self inflicted. That's probably why it doesn't apply here. But maybe it's just me.

COULTER: That seems to be the argument. The one who baffles me the most I reject the cynical explanations for people coming out on the other side. We may disagree, and particularly in the case of and the one I have the Thomas Sole. I think there's not a ray of light in the difference in our opinions and I respect him, and I've been baffled by his columns in favor of Newt Gingrich. And he has I think it's today complaining that Romney is lying about or being deceptive. I don't think he uses the word lie. And Newt does. And the ethics complaint. Unquestionably Gingrich resigned. The ethics reprimand was a lighter sentence. That was a majority House of Representatives. They were trying to protect their leader. There were a lot of the honorable Republican including Porter Goff who was the head of the ethic committee who thought that a reprimand was deserved. It was two years later that Gingrich resigned in disgrace because he was having a long term affair in the middle of Republicans having an unmistakable argument between Democrats and Republicans and the Democrats being adultery, and sodomy.

GLENN: And sodomy.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: Why haven't we had her on the every day of the show. Ann thank you very much, and we'll talk to you tomorrow when it's a huge huge disappointment because Romney didn't win by 80 points.

COULTER: That's. Good to talk to you.

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.

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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.

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!