Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

Glenn and Chris Stewart have been friends for a while, so when Glenn got home last night after a contentious interview with the congressman he called him to clear the air. To Chris's credit, he agreed to come back onto the show today and talk through the issues again and defend the job being done by the Republicans in Congress. Glenn's never had a guest come back after walking into a buzzsaw of an interview like that, so regardless of Chris's views, he gets big points for guts.

GLENN: Well, it feels a little bit "Groundhog Day," the movie, because at this time yesterday that a friend of ours, Chris Stewart, called in and received -- was on the receiving end of a pretty bad battering. I felt fine while we were doing it because I know our intent. We love Chris Stewart. He is a good friend. And a long-time friend and a guy I've wanted to work with for a long, long time. Tried to hire him here. But we have felt that we were -- we were concerned about the direction he was going, as along with people that we really respect in Congress.

PAT: Brenner went that way, Jim Jordan. Trey Gowdy said he wouldn't vote for Boehner.

GLENN: And we don't understand it. Last night I got home and watched the interview because Chris is my friend and I watched the interview and I felt it's not my best performance. That's not the way I want to -- that's not the way I want to be. But I still had good intent while trying doing it. So I called Chris last night. We haven't spoken. I left a message on the phone last night apologizing. Telling him that you know, I think he walked into a buzzsaw yesterday. However, I don't apologize for the intent and I don't apologize for having my opinions. And I don't apologize for believing he is absolutely dead wrong on John Boehner. And wrong that we have the facts wrong. We double-checked them yesterday. We're correct. With that being said, Chris Stewart is here because I would like to change the tone. Hello, Chris. How are you?

STEWART: I've got on my body armor, I've got on my combat gear. You can start slaying away again.

GLENN: I will tell you, you deserve a lot of extra points for having the balls to come on yesterday and then again today.

PAT: Again, yeah. No one else would have done that, credit is.

GLENN: No one else.

PAT: I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: Newt Gingrich --

GLENN: Newt Gingrich did it once.

STEWART: It's probably against my better judgment, but Glenn, here I am again. I'm actually glad to be with you.

GLENN: So Chris, here's the thing. We want you to prove us wrong in -- let's say by June. We'd like to have you back on where we can say, you know what, Chris? You were right.

PAT: Great agenda.

GLENN: Great agenda. You guys did it. Because I don't understand. There's nothing you can say. We double-checked all the facts on John Boehner and what he's been for and against. And I'm sorry, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. I'm sorry. We have the facts right. You can't convince me that John Boehner is a good guy, because a good guy yesterday doesn't do what John Boehner does and get up and start punishing the people who ran against him.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: That's breaks.

STEWART: I appreciate the invitation to come back in June. I look forward to that.

I'd love to come back in February and March and do a month-end recap of what we do. Because I think we may not be perfect, and you may not be entirely satisfied, but I think you and listeners by and large are going to see things begin to move you on. And I told someone the other night, the worst-case scenario over the next two years is far better than anything that we've lived through in the last two years. Because we've had Harry Reid who had jammed every piece of legislation that we've tried to do. And we're going to get past that now. We've got friends in the Senate. And the second thing is to your point about John and retribution, I agree with that. I said to the speaker, and I would say this to others, we're better United than we are when we attack each other. Can I just say quickly, the former military guy, it's in my D.N.A. that you stand by your brothers. You may -- you may not like them. They may be different. You may have different opinions. We're in a war, we're in a fight for the heart and soul of our country. And I don't think --

GLENN: That's --

STEWART: Speaker to divide or to --

(overlapping speakers).

STEWART: Attributing retribution against hem. I certainly don't agree with that.

GLENN: That's the biggest point, Chris, I think people like you may be missing because you're inside the beltway. You don't see the frustration outside the beltway. You know, when Elizabeth Warren who's one of the most rad cam people on the planet runs in the Democratic Party, they celebrate. They want her to run for president. But if you stand by the Constitution, you're a radical that's trying to destroy America. And I can get that from CNN. I can get that from MSNBC. I can get that from Barack Obama. I don't need that from the leadership of the GOP.

STEWART: Glenn, listen, you know my family. And I go home every single weekend. I spend every moment that I can out of D.C.

I'm anything but an inside the beltway guy. But believe me, when you say that I don't see that or I don't hear that, I mean, believe me, Glenn, I do. I hear it. I see it from my own wife, I hear from it my children, I hear from it my brothers, my sisters, and I hear it from every person that I meet back in the district. I hear it all the time. And I agree with it all the time.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the plan is, because I don't understand this vote. So what is -- what is it that they said yesterday that made everybody fall in behind John Boehner? What is the great change that has coming that John Boehner --

STEWART: It was nothing that was said yesterday. This this is a battle that's been going on for months. It's an ongoing battle. Just like every two years I know I'm going to be challenged. I know this seat is not a guaranteed to me. I'm going to be challenged and expect to be challenged every two years. I think the speaker expects to be challenged and they should be challenged. I support that.

GLENN: No, he doesn't expect to be challenged. Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people. But let's not focus on that STEWART: I think any speaker would. They know there's some people that are going to be unhappy with the way regardless of who they are and there were some viable alternative candidates. But none of them stepped forward. Trey Gowdy, for example, he's one of those who nominated speaker in November. And I tried to make this point yesterday. Louie Gohmert is a friend of mine. And I have tremendous respect for him. He's one of the most clever and one of the most articulate members of the House, but he is not the person to unite the House. And I think we saw that in the vote yesterday. He only got two votes and --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine. You could have voted for a cat. Let's please -- let's not concentrate on this. Let's concentrate, please, on what is the plan now?

STEWART: And I'm glad you asked that, because that is the primary thing that I think we should be talking about. And that's what are we going to do moving forward. I could talk to you -- I'm developing -- we're in the process of merging with other people. We call it 12 and 12 plan. 12 weeks, 12 major pieces of legislation. We start with Keystone, which is very important in energy independence and also job creation. But we can't go to our summit or move anywhere else beyond next week without coming back to border security and looking at what we did with defunding amnesty, what the president did is clearly unconstitutional. That's not a partisan opinion. It's clearly unconstitutional what he did with amnesty. We have to find a way to defund that and we have to do it early. Can't wait wait till February or even -- even late January. I want to move that legislation --

GLENN: But you -- you left on the table the defunding of Homeland Security and you gave him everything else. Do you really think that president doesn't want to have that fight? Doesn't want to get on television say, they defunded Homeland Security.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You immediately lose. Because the American people see the threat of terror and -- and he will spin it. You've taken away all other tools except for Homeland Security.

STEWART: Well, he will spin it. There's no question and the press will back him up on that. And our intention isn't to defund all of Homeland Security. Our intention is to defund every part that deals with his executive amnesty and to fund every other part of Homeland Security, including attaching to that the border security bill that I helped right that is for the first time in a generation truly committed to securing borders. But I don't think the question is not defunding the entire program or Homeland Security. Clearly we want to fund those parts that are important as you said, Glenn. People understand that terrorism is a real threat. But we have to in my opinion defund the amnesty part to that.

GLENN: Can you just sequester that money?

STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: You can just do it, just taking away this line.

STEWART: It's part of the appropriation process. Now that we have united House and Senate, for the first time in Barack Obama's presidency, we have an appropriation process that will work where you can specifically identify pieces of legislation for funding and not fund both.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this. John Boehner is, you know, best buddies, tongue down each other's throat with Jeb Bush kind of people and Jeb Bush does not -- will not agree on the amnesty thing. He just started the, you know, reach for the stars no matter where you're from, hey, everybody can be equal here in America kind of crap yesterday. Do you really think the progressive Republicans are going to be on board for actual border security?

STEWART: Yes, I do. I do. And by the way, Jeb Bush is not our nominee, thankfully.

GLENN: Yet.

STEWART: And I think his stand on immigration and Corpus Christi and other things will probably preclude him from ever being our nominee, thankfully, because I disagree with him on those issues. But he's not the leader of the party and there are others who have a strong voice in this that you know and that I know. But yes, I think we can have some progress on that. And it's not -- it's not up to the speaker. It's not up to leadership. It's up to the Conservatives in Congress and there are enough of us that we can push that legislation.

STU: Isn't the issue that you have a lot of conservatives who are really about border security. You obviously have another portion of the Republican party that is not so aligned with your views on that. And when you have a person like Boehner as you kind of described, his job is to unite the party and that's what frustrate people like us because you see people -- you want a strong border bill and then the effort is to unite the party with the people who don't want a strong border bill and then what you get is crap.

GLENN: Ted Cruz said it best. It's always next time. Well, next time is now.

STEWART: Yeah. I agree with that, Glenn. And I've been saying that for months now. I've been saying next time is now, since before the election. That is the reason we needed the election, to make it now. And coming back to the border security, because I really think that's an important point you're making, and that is, things have fundamentally changed on the border security bill over the last two years, in the two years I've been in Congress. And part of it was what we saw with unaccompanied minors last summer. The tragedy that happened and the atrocity where because of Obama's policies that encourage this idea, that if you're an unaccompanied minor, many of who were not truly minors anyway, but you would get across the border and find sanctuary. And there are other elements of that where the opinion of the Congress has significantly shifted to the right on border security.

GLENN: I believe it when I see it, okay, so that's one of your 12 points. Okay, so Chris, give me just -- I've only got about a minute left. Give me the 12 topics that you want to -- that you say you're putting together with a group of people that you're going to be able to get through in 12 weeks or you hope to get through in 12 weeks. Give he the 12 points.

STEWART: Let me go through them quickly. Keystone Pipeline, border security, Reins Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies and who have become the most powerful force in Washington. Tax reform. I want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Lois Lerner and others -

GLENN: Boehner was against it.

STEWART: We'll continue to work to repeal ObamaCare and also have a replacement for that expecting and hoping the Supreme Court actually finds the exchanges are unconstitutional, that they're not within the language of the law. Unborn Child Act which is prohibits abortion for those children unborn children who actually can feel pain. And we know now scientifically that they do. Audit the Fed. Some reforms in the EPA. And finally, the Antiquities Act which deals with federal land out here in the west and the president's ability to use a law that have nothing to do with that in order to claim for federal land.

GLENN: So you -- if you get all that done, I will throw a parade for you.

STEWART: Will all right, gets let some confetti.

GLENN: Yeah. You'll get more than confetti. You get all that done and -- are you working on the Senate with that, too?

STEWART: Yeah. And we have this historic opportunity and I wish I could just help people understand that. And it really is historic --

GLENN: No --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Chris, Chris.

PAT: People understand that. They just don't believe it because they've seen it before.

GLENN: We saw it under Bush.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: And we saw it with the same people, the same promises, the same bull crap. We're done.

STEWART: I agree. We did see it under Bush. I agree. I understand that. But what I was saying is that there's this opportunity with the House and the Senate we're having a summit next week for the first time, I don't know that we've ever done that, where we have the House and the Senate together for two days to do one thing and that's to define this agenda. How do we move this legislation in the first 12 weeks, maybe four months, of our term in power and I'm so confident that when we've done this and the American people see what we're trying to do and what we're able to do, it's going to eliminate some of the frustration of so many --

GLENN: I will promise you that as you get these done, we will check them off and 12 weeks -- we'll check them off week by week or however -- you tell us what it is. But you give us the date, we'll check them off and we will make sure that everybody knows, at least in our audience, that these things are being done. I have to tell you, between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I think you are in some sort of an acid trip that you think you can get this done. But I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

STEWART: Well, Glenn, we're going to try. We're going to try and I think we're going to have success. I really do, maybe not a all of it, but we're going to try and get as much done as we can and I want to go for all 12.

GLENN: Chris, thanks a lot. God bless you. Thank you, bye-bye. He's a good guy.

Featured image courtesy of the AP.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.