WATCH: Man's Law vs. Nature's Law

All right, what is liberty? Ask anybody, what is liberty? Well, it’s freedom. Freedom from what? What does it mean? I want to show you what liberty is. I want to show you what is worth fighting, and I want to show you what common sense is. I want to show you the solution to all of your problems.

Man’s laws, nature’s law. What is nature’s law? Nature’s law is anything that happens in nature. I have a right to defend myself. Why? Bears do, you know? Nobody feels bad – I feel bad for somebody who, you know, thinks they have a right to go up to a baby seal and take a club and beat them to death just for sport, just for fun. You don’t have a right to do that because nature, it doesn’t happen that way. No other animal just beats something to death and just like ha ha. That’s not nature’s law. That evil.

However, do you feel bad for the person that goes, and they’re going to try to like, I’m just going to go, and they’re fully aware, they have their senses, and they go, I want to go and just cuddle the kitty cat, and it’s a lion, and the lion eats them? Nope, lion has a right to defend itself. The lion feels there’s a threat, he’s going to eat you. That is nature’s law.

Man’s law is different. Man’s law has never been what America is about. Man’s law is you must – these are the new ones now – you must raise your child the way the state says not even towards common sense. They can come into your house now, if you have had your child draw a picture of you with a gun, the state sees that and says wait a minute, wait a minute, and they knock on your door. What are you going to say to them?

Yeah, so what, my kid drew a picture of me with a gun? We go hunting. That’s not what the state does. The state says we have to now see what’s going on in your house. They have a right to come into your house. Man does not have a right to raise his children as he sees fit unless the state says it’s okay.

You only have insurance if the state approves. When the president said if you have insurance you like, you can keep it, no, what he meant was if you have insurance he likes, the system likes, the state likes, then you can keep it.

You don’t have a right to use the light bulbs or anything else. You don’t have a right to drive an old car if they don’t say it’s not safe. It’s not safe, not for other people, for you. It’s blowing too much blue smoke. It has too much miles per gallon, whatever. They have a right to say you’re not going to do it – hmm, okay.

You can’t fish without a license. You can’t hunt without a license. You can’t plant food on your own property unless the state says you can do it. There is no natural law that says that. If you have a plot of land, you can plant food there. In fact, I would say nature’s law goes a step further. I can plant food wherever I want, Jack.

I mean, why did the Indians sell us stuff? Do you know the Indians, don’t feel bad for the Indians. They sold us Manhattan for beads. Really? Really? Don’t feel bad for them. They were mocking us. They made fun of us. They were going back to their tribes, and they were like these guys think we own this land. We don’t own this land. That’s nature’s law. Nobody owns the land. We are stewards of the land. But you can’t fish, you can’t plant foot unless the state says so.

You can’t feed somebody who is hungry unless the state says and gives you a permit. That’s man’s law. That’s insanity. That is the end of civilization time and time again, okay? That’s where we are. Here is where we used to be, somewhat. We were never perfect, but this is what we were based on, and the idea was to get closer to this. We’ve lost all of this.

Natures law, again, you have a right to defend yourself because so does the lion. If the lion is afraid, he has a right to kill you. So do you. You have a right to raise your child. Your child is born to you. That’s blood of my blood, flesh of my flesh, not people in Washington. I have a right to raise my child as I see fit. Now, we have a responsibility if something is…I mean, if I’m beating my child in public or whatever, my kid shows up with black eyes all the time, yeah, we probably should as neighbors look in and say hey, dude, what’s going on?

I have a right to eat all the trans fats I can get into a 32-ounce cup, a 64, a 154 million-ounce cup. I can eat whatever I want. Do you understand why people who have cancer and have been given two months to live are not allowed to have experimental therapies? I don’t, because you can’t explain that one to me. It’s my body. I’m dying. I choose, I know it, I choose to put this in my body. If I am of sound mind, get the hell out of my way. Nature’s law tells me I can do that. Nope.

I have a right to live free. See, what liberty means, you have a right to have choices. I love this, the people who are pro-choice, they’re not pro-choice. They will fight for the right to kill an unborn baby, but they will fight against your right to have a 32-ounce soda. They will fight against your right to have a cigarette. They will fight against your right to be able to raise your child as you see fit, to homeschool them. That’s insane. That’s Fascism. That’s not liberty.

Nature’s rights, I have a right to live free. I have a right to create. I don’t need a permit. I want to build something. I’m going to create. And I have a right to keep the fruit of my labor. Abraham Lincoln said there is nothing more immoral, this is against slavery, but think of this with the IRS and what we’re doing now, there is nothing more immoral than taking the bread that has been baked by the sweat of another man’s brow.

In other words, how is it this man is going to go out and cut everything, and then I’m just going to go out and take all of the work that he has done, and I’m just going to take it because it’s mine. That was the case against slavery. Abraham Lincoln, I think you’re making the case against big government and Progressivism. Why? Because he was making a case on nature’s law.

See, man’s law can change. Man’s law tells you in China you can have slaves. Nature’s law says you can never have slaves. Man’s law changes, goes with the wind. This one comes from wisdom. This one comes from arrogance, pride, and greed.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.