Glenn reacts to Chick-Fil-A controversy: What happened to free speech?

The past few days and weeks have seen fast food chain Chick-Fil-A  embroiled in controversy over the owner's comments expressing support for traditional marriage. But the debate has quickly focused squarely on freedom of speech. While the left claims to be clamoring for diversity, the most important type of diversity is being lost - diversity of thought and opinion. While the left claims anyone who disagrees with their position are hatemongers, the truth is that many who supported Chick-Fil-A are standing up for the right of a private business owner to openly their opinions and values without being greeted with hate and vitriol from those who disagree. On radio, Glenn reacted the controversy and explained what was really happening as this story becomes a bigger part of the national conversation.

Glenn opened the monologue by making it very clear that this controversy is not about gay marriage or intolerance, explaining that he doesn't want to surround himself with anyone who would hate another person if they were gay.

"This is not about homosexuality.  This is about the First Amendment.  It's the right to speak your mind on a controversial subject, especially in a respectful way, and still continue to be able to maintain your livelihood," Glenn explained.

"Tolerance does not put people out of business.  To speak up without fear of prosecution or persecution or ruin.  You should be able to speak your mind.  That's why hundreds of thousands of Americans, just everyday Americans, stood up," he said.

"We have said nothing for too long.  Meanwhile the actual hatred and bigotry coming from the other side has been nothing short of shocking.  The viciousness of the tweets about those going to Chick‑fil‑A yesterday, wishing death and disease on the participants.  It's yet another wake‑up call, America."

"There's no difference between those people that were tweeting those things and the Westboro Baptist Church.  There's no difference.  From the 'God hates fags' and the 'God hates the Chick‑fil‑A' people. There's no difference.  It's the same hatred, just a different cause, a different mask.  A different side."

"Hatred has many facets.  As does tolerance.  Most of us have finally realized that respect and tolerance are not the goals with most of these people.  Because tolerance for the most part has already been achieved.  It's been achieved over generations of people struggling just to say "I am a man."  Most of our children don't hate black people, don't hate white people.  Most of our children don't hate homosexuals, don't hate straight people.  They don't hate people.  Most of our children are not filled with hate.  If we have a problem with our children, it's not that they hate.  It's that they don't care."

Glenn took particular issue with the idea that political spin of this controversy. While the left is trying to push this as a civil rights issue and that somehow Chick-Fil-A is oppressing an entire minority group because their owner made a comment about supporting traditional marriage - never mentioning gay marriage - the truth is that this controversy is being used to shut down the voices of those who don't agree with the left.

"And you know why most of this is happening?  It's not even really about homosexuality.  It's not about chicken sandwiches.  It's about a stupid election.  They're dividing us again for election points," Glenn explained.

"But the goal now is to get somebody elected, and the goal is to totally and completely silence you, eliminate another point of you altogether.  And that we must not and will not ever tolerate."

Glenn believed that the reaction to the hatred from the left, which resulted in thousands turning out to support Chick-Fil-A, comes from two things: 1) Americans are fed up with having their opinion shouted down by those that disagree and 2) They want to support Chick-Fil-A because they are taking a stand for their values and principles.

"These are good, decent people.  They're not haters.  They're people who have taken a risk.  I mean, who closes their national chain on Sunday?  They're being blessed for it," he explained.

Ultimately, the reaction from the left will only energize conservatives.

"In November if we continue to do the right thing and stand up, then we'll show up at a polling place and we'll taste the delicious fruits of our four years of labor and send the ultimate sandwich message:  Mr. Obama, welcome back to the general public.  Have a sandwich."

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?