Dan Liljenquist forces Orrin Hatch into primary in Utah

April 23, 2012

Writer

This weekend, Orrin Hatch was forced into a primary race for his Senate seat in Utah when he failed to gain 60% of the convention votes he needed in order to secure the nomination. Many conservatives in Utah, especially among the Tea Party, see Hatch as having served too long - a total of six terms. He first assumed office in 1977, and is the longest-serving Senator in Utah history. Tea Party groups are rallying around Dan Liljenquist, a candidate that Glenn has also expressed support for - although not endorsed. On radio this morning, Glenn invited FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe (a sponsor of The Glenn Beck Program) on to the show to discuss the upset.

Rush Transcript Below:

GLENN: Two years ago Freedom Works and Tea Party activists in Utah defeated Robert Bennett, an 18‑year incumbent on the floor of the state convention delegates chanted TARP, TARP, TARP because of his support for $700 billion in financial bailouts. This year Hatch's challenger Dan Liljenquist can ‑‑ I mean, I kind of hope that he doesn't win just because I don't want to say his name over and over.

STU: Change your name to Smith.

GLENN: Yeah. Rallied activists on the convention floor saying, "No senator is too big to fail." Matt Kibbe ‑‑ this was not supposed to happen. Matt Kibbe is from Freedom Works. He's on the phone with us now. Matt, Matt?

KIBBE: Yes. Yes, I am here, I am here.

GLENN: This was not supposed to happen. Orrin Hatch hasn't faced a primary in 36 years.

KIBBE: And he is a little steamed about it, too.

GLENN: I'm guessing he is. He hates your guts.

KIBBE: Yeah, I don't think he likes me too much, but I think he really resents the fact that so many citizens in Utah are literally holding him accountable for his record and the old rules of saying one thing back home and doing something else in Washington D.C. just don't apply anymore for Orrin Hatch.

GLENN: So what happened? First of all, you know ‑‑ don't ‑‑ don't wound a bear. You don't want to ever wound a bear because then they come back and eat you.

KIBBE: Yes.

GLENN: Are you sure that Dan can win against Orrin Hatch? Because Orrin already doesn't like the Tea Party movement. He already has said that ‑‑ what was the phrase last week? That it is the ‑‑ he despises them?

KIBBE: We're radical libertarians, he despises us, and you don't come mess with me without getting punched in the mouth.

GLENN: That's an amazing statement.

KIBBE: That sounds like a threat.

GLENN: Yeah, it does. It does. I think he's targeting you.

KIBBE: Yeah.

GLENN: It's an amazing statement from Orrin Hatch. But now you've wounded him and he's going to ‑‑ I mean, he's got a ton of money. He's got the system behind him because he's been in place for 36 years. He hasn't faced a primary for 36 years and now he has to face Dan who, I mean, really, how much money does Dan have in comparison and what machinery does Dan have?

KIBBE: Well, what he has is ‑‑ and understand the numbers going into this convention. Orrin Hatch spent over $6 million trying to solicit the votes of 4,000 convention goers, and he picked on Freedom Works for America a lot because we've spent $670,000. So he almost outspent the pro reform groups by 10:1 and still failed to come up with the votes. I think what's changed in America today and certainly changed in Utah is that all this money coming from Washington D.C. to support the reelection of Orrin Hatch will be trumped by those activists on the ground who are willing to do the work, are willing to act on principle, and we have until June 26 to build the name recognition and understanding of what Dan Liljenquist stands for, and I think that's a big opportunity for us. It's not a long shot. It's a 50/50 proposition. If we do our work, we will win.

GLENN: Okay. I think we need to decide what his name is because now you just said Liljenquist and I think it's Liljenquist.

STU: It's not Liljenquist. There's definitely no J like that's actually pronounced. It's a silent J.

GLENN: It is. I think I heard somebody this weekend call him Lil‑jen‑quist.

STU: It's not Lil‑jen‑quist, is it, Matt? No way.

STU: We had him on the ‑‑

GLENN: That's a stupid name.

STU: We had him on the air. He didn't say Lil‑jen‑quist. Why would you ‑‑

KIBBE: I'm pretty sure it's Lillian‑quist.

GLENN: He didn't say Lillian‑quist, either.

STU: I don't know what he said. I'm ‑‑

GLENN: Let's just call him Dan. Dan for Senate. Dan for Senate, Dan L.

KIBBE: Let's call him Dan.

GLENN: Dan. Dan's my guy. How's that?

STU: The thing I like about this is now, I think, you know, with all the money that's been spent on this race, it all is going to ‑‑ it all comes down now to the actual people making the decision. They now have the opportunity that it's not going to be done by the Insiders, right?

GLENN: Well, not necessarily. This is one of the dirtiest fights. I mean, tell me if you think I'm wrong here, Matt. This is a dirty, dirty fight and I mean, I can't believe it, that it's coming from Utah, but it is. It's nasty.

KIBBE: It is, this is the nastiest fight I've ever been in. I've actually never seen a U.S. senator behave the way that Orrin Hatch has behaved. And to be honest with you, that's not how Utahans prefer their elected officials to behave.

GLENN: Well, he is saying now ‑‑ let's be fair to Orrin. What he said when he came out, he said ‑‑ I couldn't believe he said this was, I'm the underdog.

STU: (Laughing.)

KIBBE: Well, that's great spin, right?

STU: I don't even think it's a good effort at spin. The guy's been there in power for a million years. How can he possibly be the underdog?

GLENN: Because he's up against people who want change. I don't know. Don't ask me to explain it. I don't know. But that's what he's ‑‑ that's what he's saying. He's saying now that, you know, now I'm the underdog. And, you know, generally people like Orrin Hatch, I mean, I ‑‑ you know, Orrin Hatch, you know, probably now wants to punch ‑‑ what did he say? Punch you in the face?

KIBBE: In the mouth.

GLENN: In the mouth. So he probably wants to punch me in the mouth now, too, and I don't want to punch him in the mouth, but, you know, people generally like Orrin Hatch because they think he's a nice guy who threatens to punch people in the mouth. But ‑‑

KIBBE: Well, what's so frustrating is you get these accusations of dirty campaign, campaigning and lying on our part and all we've done is we went through his voting record and published a fairly exhaustive analysis of every time we thought he violated the conservative principles that he claims to espouse, and it's quite a long book and there's quite a number of big issues that matter a lot to limited government free market types starting with the creation of SCHIP when he partnered with Ted Kennedy. And what was so remarkable about that, that was the year after Republicans defeated Bill Clinton at the polls in 1994, running against government healthcare. What did Orrin Hatch do? He decided to partner with Ted Kennedy on Hillary Clinton's Plan B which was children first. And that's not something that a small government conservative does. And you can't say that I'm for a balanced budget amendment but never actually take on the programs that you would have to cut to balance the budget. And not only not do that but then create new programs that grow beyond your wildest imagination.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ I don't know if you paid attention at all what happened to Chris Stewart. Did you see this at all?

KIBBE: No, I didn't. I mean, I know ‑‑ I know there was a lot of game‑playing on the convention floor.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I've never heard of anything like this. Maybe you do. I mean, you've been around politics more, about you they actually had to cut the mic of somebody. They actually, the GOP cut the mic of somebody when there were 11 competitors for this one race, Chris Stewart, one ‑‑ probably, I would say one of the five most honorable men I know and he's a straight arrow. He doesn't really want to serve. He's doing it because he feels it's time. You know, he feels like I have to serve and his wife doesn't want him to serve, but she also, you know, they're both, they made that decision on their knees. And they're like, no, really? Seriously? And so they're doing it, they are doing it like Washington did it: "Okay, well, I'll serve because somebody has got to go do the right thing." And there's eleven candidates that were running in this district. They wanted to have a, you know, a primary runoff. He needed to have 60% to not have the primary. So he would just be the candidate. And all of these candidates, the other ten started to collude together and did buttons ABC, anybody but Chris, they made a website that said that he was a liar about his service record that he was discharged on, you know, uncertain circumstances, which is all so easy to verify, said that he lied about his speed. You know, he set the around the world speed record in the stealth and they ‑‑ he said that they made ‑‑ he made that all up and everything else. Again, very easy to verify. All ‑‑ just smeared him over and over and over again. One guy, all nine of them start to speak and they are all tearing them apart. He gets up to speak and he says, "I don't know what I've ever done in my life that gives anybody the impression that any of this stuff would be true. The Republicans are supposed to be about truth; you figure it out." The next guy gets up, Milt Hanks, and he gets up and he says, "I just want you to know I'm running against Chris, but all the things that are being said here are all lies about Chris," and he starts pointing to the other candidate. This guy did this, this guy did this, this guy talked to me about this," and he rats them all out.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: It's a 20‑point swing and Chris wins. This guy, Hanks, should be commended for his courage. They had to escort him. They tried to cut his mic off, they had to escort him out with armed security to get him out of there. It was a melee from what I understand. It's crazy.

KIBBE: Wow.

STU: When did Utah turn into Chicago 1934?

GLENN: I have no idea. I have no idea. But it's really, truly amazing, and I'd love to get your opinion, Matt. I think between "I'm going to punch you in the face," or mouth, and what's happening there. If this is happening in Utah, I can't imagine what else is happening, and you're going to see decent people who are standing and are not part of the system and don't want to be a part of the system, you're going to see them taken apart by anybody because you play ball or we'll destroy you. Is that accurate?

KIBBE: Absolutely. Well, that's accurate. And to be honest with you, that's happened to activists on the ground when they tried to participate within the Republican apparatus in state after state I hear this story. So Utah's not that different. And what it is, it's the pushback from the establishment that wants to stop the citizen takeover of our government to restore our freedoms, to restore our liberty. And it's a takeover because the shareholders are demanding accountability for management and it's becoming a hostile takeover because management is circling the wagons and saying we're going to do anything we can to stop you citizens from coming back and taking back your government.

GLENN: Matt, I appreciate, appreciate you. We'll talk again soon. I will tell you that Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works, guy that I totally respect, guy I think totally gets it, and I want to actually ‑‑ can you hang on an sec, Matt? Do you have time?

KIBBE: Sure.

BREAK

GLENN: Matt, are you there?

KIBBE: Yeah, I'm back.

GLENN: Okay. Now we've only got 30 seconds. You blew it, pal. I mean, this was it. This was your chance to be a star.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: That is one sexy tax plan. Let me just say that to you.

KIBBE: You know, I think the whole ethos of what we're trying to do is simple, low, fair and honest, treat everybody the same as everybody else. This so upsets the progressives who want to micromanage everybody's behavior through the tax code. About you that's not what it's for. Why would you ‑‑ why would you try to manipulate everybody's behavior? You should let people be free, fund the necessary functions of government and move on.

GLENN: They know better.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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.

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