Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Colorado Undersheriff: DHS told police to monitor "people who take The Bible literally"

April 12, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this week, Glenn told audiences about the undersheriff in Colorado who claimed that the Department of Homeland Security was teaching police in his state to look at Christians who interpret The Bible literally, believe America was founded on Godly principles, or are "fundamentalists" as potential members of the sovereign citizen movement. Today, Glenn interviewed that undersheriff, Ron Trowbridge, about exactly what he saw during the training session and why he decided to speak up.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Okay. I want to go to Prowers County, the Colorado undersheriff Ron Trowbridge. Last Monday he attended a Colorado State Patrol training session and they were warned by the State police to watch out for sovereign citizens and Christians who take the Bible literally or say that America was founded on Godly principles, and fundamentalists because they're trouble.

Ron is with us now. I'm sure this caused a firestorm in Colorado. Again, the undersheriff from Prower County ‑‑ Prowers County, Colorado. Welcome to the program, Ron.

TROWBRIDGE: Thank you, Mr. Beck.

GLENN: Thank you. First of all, thank you for having the guts to actually expose this. Because I have to believe at some point you thought that yourself or maybe you talked to your wife and said, "This could turn out ugly for me; do I say anything."

TROWBRIDGE: Yeah, I did. You know, it offended me greatly at the time. It took me back so much, I just ‑‑ I just went back to the office right away. I regret that I should have said something there at the time, but it stuck with me, it stewed with me and ‑‑ but I ‑‑ you know, I teach to my kids, I teach to our people that we're to do the right thing no matter what the cost, and I think this is the right thing. I think they need to know.

GLENN: Okay. So here is the statement from the Colorado State control: Law enforcement training class offered by a Colorado State control April 1st, Southeastern Colorado has come under scrutiny from one of its attendees, blah, blah‑blah. Baker, the guy who was teaching it, Baker's statement went on to note that the officials had spoken with several officers who attended the same training ‑‑ I'm sorry. It was not Baker. This is ‑‑ Baker is the ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Kluczynski.

GLENN: Yeah, and Baker is the guy who was the Colorado State patrol sergeant that released this thing.

Baker's statement went on to note that officials had spoken with several officers ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ who attended the same training and they did not interpret the comments delivered by Kluczynski in the same manor as the undersheriff. We regret that he misinterpreted the training material in a way that is clearly not the position of the Colorado State Patrol.

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I don't know how you misinterpret those who believe the country was established on Godly principles, those who believe the Bible is literal, those who take it too serious, I don't know how you misinterpret that. I am one of those people.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: And that was the statement was that he said that those who interpret the Bible literally are dangerous, are extremists or ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, he didn't say "dangerous." What he was trying to do was show that, hey, these people tend to gravitate towards this sovereign citizen movement and they're potentially ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me what a sovereign ‑‑ tell me what a sovereign citizen is.

TROWBRIDGE: Well, there's no direct definition for them, but generally they're people who, they like to dodge their responsibility for debt, for ‑‑ they don't pay taxes, they don't recognize laws when it concerns them. They often use the court system to bully those who stand in their way.

GLENN: Extraordinarily anti‑police as well.

TROWBRIDGE: Oh, absolutely, yes.

GLENN: Right. Stu, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sovereign citizen is the movement that I came out, this was right maybe even before the Occupy Wall Street and I said this movement is going to happen from the left and here, look at this movement because this is extraordinarily anti‑police. And weren't they saying that they were going to build bombs and blow up police stations?

STU: Yeah, you're talking about a specific militia group ‑‑

GLENN: I think it ‑‑

STU: ‑‑ that was related to this, yeah. But that's correct.

GLENN: Okay. So now he's talking about this and this group is a threat and ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Yes.

GLENN: And so he's talking about this and so then how did he get from those guys to Christians?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, see, he ‑‑ he never really described those guys and that's what angered me so much. I get the point that many people hide behind the banner of Christianity while they preach anything but Christianity. And had he explained that clearly, well, yeah, no problem. But he never really got there. He explained it as simply, just as I described, those people who take the Bible literally. He never really went into any depth on it.

GLENN: All right. So I take the Bible literally as well. Are you, are you telling me then that he said that they were sovereign citizens or they should be watched, or how, what ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, he wasn't saying that they were necessarily sovereign citizens, although several of the people kind of laughed about that saying, "Yeah, I guess I'm a sovereign citizen then." But what he was saying was that these people have leanings towards sovereign citizen ideology. And he described it as, you know, a chunk of icebergs is what I'm trying to think of in the ocean and the big portion of it is underwater and that's where these groups tend to be. They're kind of, they're legal, and he emphasized that they have the right to their opinion, but that when something ‑‑ something may happen that might spur them on to illegal behavior.

GLENN: Okay.

TROWBRIDGE: And so he kind of lumped us all together.

GLENN: You talked to ‑‑ when you released this, what has the blowback been? What's happened since?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, I've ‑‑ I got a lot of support from several people around the country, and I certainly appreciated that. I don't mind telling you I'm scared to death and ‑‑ not for myself but ‑‑ I'm not worried, but really about, did I do the right thing or not. And I spent many sleepless nights wondering about that. I ‑‑

GLENN: Why do you question it?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, because unfortunately there are those who took that opportunity, who took my statements to make threats and attack the troopers at the state patrol. And I think that was wrong because they're good people. They ‑‑ many of them believe just like I do. They've got a tough job to do and they're trying to do it and ‑‑

GLENN: Well, I don't think this is about anybody ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: ‑‑ they don't deserve that.

GLENN: Maybe I'm the only one that read it this way, Ron, but I think this is only about the guy who made that statement, and he's leaving the State Patrol to go to the Department of Homeland Security.

TROWBRIDGE: That's the way intended it to be.

GLENN: Right. And that's the way I at least read it. I mean, am I alone in that? I don't see this as something against the state troopers. I see this as a guy who is packing his bags. I mean, isn't he ‑‑ is he now no longer part of the state patrol?

TROWBRIDGE: Yeah, he said at the class. He at the beginning of the class he said, I'm going to the Homeland ‑‑ Department of Homeland Security. Friday is his last day and this is his last hoorah.

GLENN: So your sheriffs have kind of rallied around you, have they not?

TROWBRIDGE: Yes, he has. The sheriff's been very supportive.

GLENN: But I mean the sheriffs around Colorado, in Colorado, have they not all kind of ‑‑ isn't there a group of you that are kind of standing together?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I don't know. I think that's probably too strong of a statement.

GLENN: Okay.

TROWBRIDGE: I think they're not sure about my stand or why I'm making the stand. I think that's why so many in that class, why they just don't get it, why ‑‑ what I'm bothered about, why this upset me. So there have been some who have called and the sheriff spoke to them. I did ‑‑ I spoke to one and he seemed supportive but I can't really say that for sure.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Ron, there's a lot of people that would say things like this and try to become famous or they try to have their, you know, their five minutes of fame or they would try to become more powerful or anything else. I sense from you that you are an extremely reflective man, a decent man who, you are reluctantly saying this, you feel compelled to say it. I think that's honorable, Ron. Have you heard from any of the state control?

TROWBRIDGE: Yes, I have. I spoke to Major Copley. I've known Major Copley for several years. He tried to reassure me that the way I took the class was not the way it was intended to be taught.

GLENN: See, I got a problem with this. I mean, I'm sure you know him, and I'm not saying ‑‑ I am a huge supporter of our police, I am a huge supporter of our state patrol. I have been ‑‑ when Pat and I worked together 30 years ago in Baltimore, Maryland when they were just shooting at the state patrol on the highways as they ‑‑ I mean, it was bad. I have been a ‑‑ I would never want to do any of your jobs and I have tremendous respect for you. With that being ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I've got to tell you I would rather go into a big bar fight than deal with this again.

GLENN: Well, I know. I will tell you that ‑‑ and that's what they want you to learn, by the way, Ron. I will tell you that what bothers me about this is it's one thing to say, you know, "Well, I'm sorry for the misinterpretation" because that's not really ‑‑ I mean, if he said those things, what they should have said is, "That's not our policy." If, you know, "We've discussed it with him and he said that wasn't his meaning, we're sorry for the misinterpretation but we want to make it extraordinarily clear we disagree with those things," and I ‑‑ I guess I kind of see this. You know, "We regret that he misrepresented the training material in a way that clearly is not the position of the Colorado State patrol." Are they talking about you, or are they talking about Kluczynski on that line? Do you know?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I'm not sure about that. Other statements, of course, are that nobody else in the class took it the way I took it and so I tend to believe they're referring to me on that.

GLENN: Do you know if anybody else took it that way? I'm not asking for names or any ‑‑ pardon me? You didn't talk to anybody else?

TROWBRIDGE: I'm sorry? I ‑‑ you know, I have not talked to them about it really and, you know, I'll make my stand where I need to make it. I think that assume look at it as a battle not worth fighting. Some, I think many look at that as ‑‑ and think that, "You know what? I don't see the problem with it." So I think that I probably stand alone in the group.

GLENN: Ron, when you're you standing up for the truth, there is nothing that at the end of the day is more honorable than standing alone, and I congratulate you for it and I wish you well, and we will keep you in our prayers as we will all of the sheriffs around the country, all the state control and all the police as well as we head into turbulent times in our nation. God bless you.

TROWBRIDGE: Thank you.

GLENN: Thank you very much.

This is the kind of guy who is ‑‑ we need more of. I wish I would have handled my career that way for a longer period of time.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.