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.

Without civic action, America faces collapse

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.