Stu finds his happy place, tries to keep sanity among insane news

June 13, 2013

Writer

Stu filled in for Glenn on TV last night and gave a solid monologue that featured him trying his best not to let the aggravating news of the day ruin his mood. It proved to be harder than it sounds, given the extremely frustrating news breaking this week about the increasing NSA scandal and immigration battle.

Tonight, I want to begin with the immigration bill. The bill has Republicans divided. It’s 1,076 pages, fully endorsed by Barack Obama. That should be enough to unite Republicans against it, right?

Normally, I would’ve read the bill, of course, before hammering it, just to be sure this wasn’t an actual attempt by Obama to cede some ground and compromise, but I value my time. And all you have to do is listen to the way supporters are talking about it to know that passing this bill is like buying a lifetime subscription to progressive porn.

Of course, Obama’s version of compromise over the years has been I’m totally willing to compromise as long as they are willing to accept every one of my ideas. We can work together. I’ll write the bill. You vote for it. I mean, Obama couldn’t even bring himself to approve a bill opposing the slaughter of babies born after botched abortions. Remember that Gosnell guy? I mean, Obama didn’t want to ban all of that because he was more concerned with the oh-so-slippery slope that leads to more babies remaining alive. And Lord knows we can’t be punishing people with babies. I mean, that’s not right.

You don’t have to see every aspect of this bill when you see what supporters are saying about it. Marco Rubio has had some good moments in the past, but now he’s part of this Gang of Eight, and that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Even the Heritage Foundation is calling him out. Here’s a rising star of the GOP pushing amnesty. Progressives must think they’ve died and gone to heaven.

What is Rubio thinking? Did the NSA get to him? Are there Rubio wiener pics out there somewhere they’re holding him hostage with? And by Rubio wiener pics, I don’t mean Rubio with Anthony Weiner, although I guess you never know, and who am I to judge? Look, I’m trying to follow Glenn’s lead here and build bridges with those whom I disagree, find areas we unite on and start from there. I’m really trying, but they’re just being so stupid – really, really stupid.

You want me to take you seriously on immigration reform, and you come at me with it’s not amnesty or anything like that. It’s just a pathway to citizenship, and that pathway to citizenship isn’t conditional on securing the border, and it doesn’t punish anyone who’s broken the law, at least not beyond a slap on the wrist. Really? What kind of bridge can I build with that?

The only bridge idiotic progressive ideas like that make me want to build is a bridge to a remote, uninhabited island off the coast of Belize. And when I get there, I will blow the bridge up so I never have to hear them again – ever, ever, ever, ever again.

You might notice here that the whole be nice and be like Mahatma Glenndhi thing is kind of going a little bad right now. It’s something I need to work on a little bit, but I’m going to keep trying. And this could help. I did catch a little MSNBC last night. One of the hosts, it was either Chris Maddow or Rachel Hayes – I couldn’t tell by looking at them – said something that actually sounded sane.

VIDEO
Chris Hayes: In the abstract, do you think it’s okay for the government to be able to access millions of Americans’ phone records and Internet activity as long as those tools are just for catching terrorists, and they’re never, ever abused? You would be tempted to say yes. That’s totally okay. But there’s a pretty major sticking point, and that is the as long as it’s not abused part, because history tells us that is not actually a thing, a non-abused massive governmental surveillance apparatus. That is not what Dr. Martin Luther King tells us.

I love that. That is not actually a thing. It’s quite an impressive admission by a Progressive, since Progressives usually believe government should be in control of as much as possible. Unless I forgot that I took heroin for the first time last night or something, this was actually a good, honest argument made by Hayes on MSNBC. He made good points, points you’d agree with.

Moments like that make me feel like building Gandhi bridges again, like we can get somewhere. Maybe there is some hope, but then I went on Twitter, and it’s back to work on my bridge to Belize. “One of the most disturbing details hinted at but not quite confirmed is the idea that the NSA is ‘storing’ everything it collects.” That’s a great point, but not quite confirmed?

Chris, I mean, come on. Don’t tell anyone. This is the NSA’s 1.5 million square foot data collection superstructure in Utah. Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “data collection” in the title refers to data collection. Now, I’m not going to go down this road. I’m not going to do it. I’m not going down negative town. A guy on MSNBC actually did a really good monologue about the size of government, and I’m complaining. It’s ridiculous. I need to find my happy place. I’ve just got to be glad.

Honestly, when someone this blinded by Obama love is starting to turn, it’s a miracle Obama’s approval rating isn’t even lower. It’s finally starting to drop. Right now, his approval rating stands at 47%, but his approval rating should be more like 4.7%. He’s a borderline superhero for enduring what he’s endured – Benghazi, the AP scandal, the Fox News scandal, the drone stuff, the IRS targeting conservatives scandal, the NSA thing.

And his best excuse is usually like, Yeah, it wasn’t me. I just found out about it, you know, in the news. I was watching the news, and I saw it, just like you. Not to mention the new normal is gas permastuck at three to four bucks a gallon, and unemployment is north of 7%. Who is still supporting this guy? He never had Conservatives. He never had Libertarians. What about Progressives? They were whining about Bush surveillance programs, and Obama has just grown them.

By the way, welcome to our gigantic NSA audience listening to the show and reading the e-mails we send during the commercial breaks. Liberals should be mortified as well. I mean, he’s arming radical extremists in Syria. Gay activists, he’s done nothing for you except say he likes you. Where’s the proposal to legalize gay marriage if you’re so concerned, Mr. President?

Environmental activists, he’s done nothing for you either. Where’s the cap and trade he was promising you all the time in the campaign? Who’s left? Can we build bridges with the left on some things, yes. Here’s Chris Hayes again, talking with of all people Julian Bond.

VIDEO
Chris Hayes: There’s been some polling that suggests that Democrats have had quite a change of heart on this issue, and I think part of that is just the natural way that trust works in a political system. People are inclined to trust Barack Obama if they’re Democrats for all sorts of reasons. They feel their world views align.
What do you have to say to folks that find themselves conflicted by the news this week but have a tendency to trust someone like Barack Obama, who they feel is a good person with a good vision, and they voted for, and they support?
Julian Bond: I’m conflicted too. I have a lot of trust. I want to trust, but I’ve seen this happen before. I’ve seen us go down this road before, and I’m afraid we may well go down this road right now. I don’t see anybody stopping it or telling me that we’re not doing it. Just telling me to trust people is not enough for me.

Yes, even if it’s your guy, when government is too big, you’re going to end up in an ugly place. I’m not sure why the left can’t apply that logic to healthcare, taxes, the IRS, global emission schemes, and everything else, but I’ll take it. That’s someone on MSNBC who was at least honestly considering the facts and talking about the truth as he sees it. And then you have the other side, this idiot.

VIDEO
Chris Matthews: His whole life has been crystal clear and clean as a whistle and transparent. We know his whole life through all the great, excellent education he’s had, the good work, pro bono work he’s done throughout his life. He’s never been a money grubber. He’s never done anything wrong in his life legally, ethically, whatever. His family is picture-perfect, the way he’s raised those daughters. Everything is clean as a whistle, and yet they just refer to him as evil. They just refer to him as – I just gotta believe it’s ethnic with these people. They’ve just got a problem with this guy being president.

If only we racists had some other basis to oppose this president on, like 800 scandals happening simultaneously. You’re so onto us, Chris. There are no bridges to be built there. But tonight we have the latest on all the scandals Chris Matthews doesn’t know anything about, including the NSA, where the smear campaign on Edward Snowden is already going on, reporting, you know, there’s reports attacking his credibility, attempting to poke holes in his story.

He spoke from hiding this week and said he’s neither a traitor nor a hero but an American. After the girlfriend he abandoned was identified by the media – kind of appears he’s not as smart as we all thought he was. But the administration is standing by PRISM, arguing that it’s not a snooping program but a data management tool. Belize sounds so, so, so, so nice right about now.

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.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.