Ann Coulter discusses her new book, The View, and the election

If Ann Coulter joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss her new book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. Ann's new book explains the Left's agenda to patron minorities, in particularly black Americans, and lie to the rest of the country while they're doing it. After being attacked by Whoopi and the most of the ladies of The View for "daring to write a book about black people," Glenn was a much friendlier interview.

"How dare you talk about race! Have you ever been black, Ann Coulter?" Glenn asked sarcastically, mocking the confrontation that occurred between her and Whoopi the previous day.

"Basically what she said to you Ann was how dare you talk about black people," Glenn commented.

"Well, it did become clear during the interview that they haven't cracked the book," Ann responded.

She noted how that actually made it a great interview, because they were throwing all of the myths out that she wrote about in her book.

"As I told Whoopie it's not how black people feel, and hurting America, and black America most of all," she added.

Not all figures on the left are opposed to Ann's book. Left leaning Juan Williams, a political analyst at Fox News, actually likes the book.

Glenn even noted that his eyes were opened up even more after reading the book. It incomprehensible how he is always labeled the racist because he doesn't have any black supporters as a conservative.

"We try to reach out over and over again - we want to be inclusive," Glenn said, "but the left continually paints us into everything that we are absolutely not. And somehow or another that's our fault."

Ann agreed, and commented on the huge historical events that have been warped to fit the liberal agenda. Most blacks were originally Republicans , because it was Republicans who led the movement to put an end to slavery. It was the GOP that, for the next 100 years, kept introducing the Civil Rights legislation that was repeatedly shot down by the Democrats.

It was the Republican platform that had anti-lynching legislation, anti-poll tax legislation, public accommodation legislation, etc. The Republican platform in 1956 endorsed Brown vs. Board of Education. The Democratic platform did not - in fact, in 1956 they ran a segregationist on their ticket.

"All the segregationists were Democrats, and they were not conservative Democrats - like we're always told," Ann noted. "They were liberal Democrats and they're still being honored by Democrats like Bill Clinton, who invited J. William Fulbright to his inauguration — an extreme segregationist. William Fulbright voted against the Civil Rights Act of '57 and '60, pushed by Eisenhower, and of '64 and '65 — he signed the Southern Manifesto, and Bill Clinton gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And at the speech, he commended Fullbright for teaching Americans to see Russians as people too. Well, he couldn't see black Americans as people too."

"And this is the history of our party. The roles have been reversed. As I said in my column this week, 'someday when America society comes to an enlightened understanding about the evil of abortion, as they did with slavery, the roles are going to reverse the history of that too. And suddenly, the Republicans are going to be the pro-choicers, while Democrats fought to save little baby fetuses sleeping in their mother's womb'. It's just a completely inverted history."

The question that leaves us with is how? How was that history changed? How did they erase everything Republicans were? The left now goes as far now as saying that the GOP is a party "that Lincoln would be ashamed of." When in fact, quite the opposite is true. He would be ashamed of the left. Frederick Douglass would be ashamed of the Democrats.

In Ann's book, she quotes Frederick Douglass, who said:

"Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow countrymen, have attempted to do anything for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you. When the planters of the West Indies used to attempt to puzzle the pure-minded Wilberforce with the question, How shall we get rid of slavery? his simple answer was, "quit stealing." In like manner, we answer those who are perpetually puzzling their brains with questions as to what shall be done with the Negro, "let him alone and mind your own business." If you see him plowing in the open field, leveling the forest, at work with a spade, a rake, a hoe, a pickaxe, or a bill—let him alone; he has a right to work. If you see him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands—let him alone. Don't shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn—let him alone. Don't pass laws to degrade him. If he has a ballot in his hand, and is on his way to the ballot-box to deposit his vote for the man whom he thinks will most justly and wisely administer the Government which has the power of life and death over him, as well as others—let him alone; his right of choice as much deserves respect and protection as your own. If you see him on his way to the church, exercising religious liberty in accordance with this or that religious persuasion—let him alone.—Don't meddle with him, nor trouble yourselves with any questions as to what shall be done with him."

This reminded Glenn of the clip that was released yesterday of the woman in Ohio with her "Obama phone."

This is exactly what you're talking about right now.

"I mean, this is slavery. This is slavery," Glenn said referring to the dependency on government Americans are being led to.

"And it's heartbreaking," Ann responded. "So much horror that has been done to the black family and the black community with specific policies by the Democrats. As you will find in my book, blacks were much more likely to be married than whites, up until the Great Society programs."

It's hard to believe that anyone who understood the magnitude of the Civil Rights movement would be, now, slapping it on all the other issues they care about as a tool to push their policies forward. Things like abortion on-demand, "homeless rights," gay marriage, and voter fraud.

She noted that, on the issue of voter fraud and voter i.d. laws, the left doesn't seem to mind insulting black Americans to make their "arguments" against the legislation. Based on their own word, they seem to think that being that black people are too stupid or too poor to get an i.d.

"The only people that have been keeping the blacks from voting are the Democrats, and the Republicans fought to get blacks the right to vote," Ann added.

Ann's book is mostly about more recent events and current figures on the left than the history of the Civil Rights movement. In her book she goes through public figures, like Chris Matthews, who are always shouting "racism" at the people they disagree with, but really have no foothold in the black community. It's simply a talking point and a tool they use to shutdown the people who disagree with their political ideology.

So how do you combat that? How to you beat a narrative being run by the mainstream media and half of our political leaders?

"How do we repair this? How do we come together as a people? A divided house is not going to stand," Glenn said. "And does Romney win?"

"I still think he win. The only danger is that the racial from the left will work again. I think Obama or any Democrat would have won in 2008 no matter what. We were running John McCain. The economy collapsed right before the election. It is a fact that more white people voted for Obama than they had in 50 years," she answered.

"But the point of this book is to remind people of the racial bullying has never produced anything good."

Ann Coulter will be joining Glenn's radio program occasionally through November 6th. You can get Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama HERE.

'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.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?