Pat's Pleasantly Political Mother's Day

May 09, 2016

Writer

If only Glenn had shown up in his Braveheart costume with blue-painted face to save Mother's Day. Unfortunately for co-host Pat Gray, no such luck. Pat's version of Mother's Day was riddled with politically progressive pleasantries.

"My son-in-law tends to be . . . he's got a . . . I'm going to put this very . . . he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?" Pat said.

Well, that's sweet, but there seems to be something more there.

"He's a bleeding heart liberal," Pat admitted.

What heated political topic drove Pat nuts this Mother's Day? Transgender bathrooms? Illegal Immigration? Right to life issues?

"You know what it was? Food," Pat said. "Food."

Some people, it turns out, don't realize they're making bad food choices that are harmful to their bodies.

Sounds like a case for government intervention.

"It's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics . . . and the issue, of course here, is that it is about politics, right?" co-host Stu said. "The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities."

Naturally, progressives think dumb people who don't know the difference between "good" and "bad" food need help from the government.

"Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses," Glenn said. "They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid."

"These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about," Pat said.

And what did Margaret Sanger and her ilk want to do to stupid people?

"Their idea was to eliminate them, and it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them," Glenn said.

"Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now," Pat said.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So I just unplugged this weekend from politics entirely. Pat didn't have that opportunity.

JEFFY: Just like you.

PAT: No, I didn't.

JEFFY: Oh, no?

GLENN: Yeah. Because Pat has allowed his children to marry.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Well, my -- my -- I -- my son-in-law --

STU: I think you as well.

GLENN: Yeah, but I approve. I approve.

PAT: My son-in-law tends to be -- he's got a -- I'm going to put this very -- he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?

JEFFY: He does?

PAT: He's a bleeding heart liberal.

And he's liberal on some things, but he's conservative enough on other things to where, you know, most of the time you can get along.

JEFFY: And that's what you talked about mostly all weekend was all the conservative stuff that you see eye to eye on.

PAT: No. No. No.

GLENN: It's not even politics that drove him nuts. It's not even politics.

PAT: You know what it was? Food. Food.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: So he starts going off on food and nutrition and all --

GLENN: What's he do? Is he a nutritionist?

PAT: He's going to school, and he's studying in -- one of his classes involves food.

GLENN: You know him really well.

PAT: So he and Jackie are talking about food. Because you know what a health nut she is in nutrition and all that stuff.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: And so they're talking about that. And I'm fine with that. And then he starts in on how there are people in this world who just don't know the food that's good for them.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: They just don't understand what food is good for them. And I said, "What?"

(laughter)

Who are these people? Because I've never met them. I mean, you might think by looking at me that I don't know, but I do. And I disregard all that knowledge and consume the food.

(chuckling)

Who doesn't know about food?

(chuckling)

GLENN: Happy Mother's Day.

(laughter)

PAT: And he's like --

JEFFY: Can you pass me the mashed potatoes?

PAT: And he's like, "No, Pat, people just don't. They don't know. A lot of people don't know. A lot of them." I said, "In the United States of America, there are a lot of people who don't know?" And then my daughter starts in, "Well, in your area, Dad, like you guys have really nice grocery stores. There's some people who only have Walmart." Walmart? You can get fine food in Walmart!

STU: And, by the way, that's where I go to shop with the choice of all the great grocery stores.

PAT: Right. Most of us do because it's really cheap, right?

GLENN: And it's good food.

PAT: You can get good food cheaply.

JEFFY: You can get other things there.

STU: Yeah. They also have --

JEFFY: It's all in one.

GLENN: Now, can you get Duck ‡ l'orange at Walmart?

PAT: No, but you can't get it where I shop either.

GLENN: Okay. I can't where I shop either. I don't know where you buy Duck ‡ l'orange.

PAT: I think you buy the duck and then you buy the ‡ l'orange, and you can put them together at home. I think that's what happens.

GLENN: Okay. I don't know.

PAT: But you can do that at Walmart too. And so, anyway, he's -- at one point, he said there was something -- something like a Hispanic woman that he saw outside his work, and she was drinking some large cappuccino or frappuccino or something with all kinds of cream. And it was huge. And he was like, "Do you think she knew what she was doing with her body?" Yes. And I think she disregarded.

GLENN: Why is it important --

PAT: Why -- and why don't you think it's -- she knew?

GLENN: Well, that's what I was going to ask you: Why did he point out she was Hispanic?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know. Because in Hispanic community, they have less knowledge than we do? I mean, I think that's really insulting to Hispanics.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: To blacks. And liberals do this though. They -- it is the -- it is the -- it's the prejudice of low expectations.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: It's the racism of low expectations.

JEFFY: It's way of saying, all she had to do was go to this fast food store.

PAT: I'm like, are there schools? Is there television? Is there internet? Has she seen a newspaper? Is there a magazine? Is there a flier?

GLENN: Is there a nutritional guide?

PAT: Is there a nutritional guide on -- which none of us look at, but are there all those things? And aside from that, you inherently know, ice cream is not as good for me as broccoli. I know because of the taste. Everyone knows it. But for some reason, we're supposed to believe that -- that minorities don't that know.

GLENN: Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Crazy houses. Idiot houses. They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid.

PAT: These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger. And so their idea was to eliminate them. And it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them.

PAT: Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics, which it was about food. And the issue, of course, here is that it is about politics, right?

PAT: It is. Because what do you do about it?

STU: Because the solution -- you have every right to think everyone else is an idiot and doesn't know what is in their frappuccino. The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities.

GLENN: I'll learn how to speak Spanish so I can say, "Lady, what are you doing, fatso?"

STU: El lardo, get out of the street. You'll do whatever you have to do.

GLENN: I don't think that's Spanish.

STU: I think it is.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: You have to put an O on street.

GLENN: Again, I don't think adding O to words is Spanish.

STU: The problem with the approach is you're doing it through government enforcing it. It's taking these beliefs that you have and saying, "Because I'm progressive and I'm smarter than everybody else, I get to be right and enforce it on everyone else, instead of letting them make their own decision."

PAT: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: It's amazing. Because these people are the ones that believe in Darwin. Survival of the fittest.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Then let them die in their fatness.

PAT: Yes. Or us. Because we're part of that, right? We're four fat guys sitting on two different couches that we barely fit on.

GLENN: I don't know if you know this, America is the fattest country in the world.

PAT: Except it's not. Except it's not. That came up in the discussion too.

GLENN: I was going to say, it sounds almost like -- you know that --

PAT: That America is the fattest -- that's one of the things he said was America's the fattest country on earth. And my son quickly thought, "Hmm, I don't think that's true." My 18-year-old son it up quickly on Google and finds out we're number seven. We're number seven. Mexico is ahead of us. Iceland is ahead of us. There's a bunch of countries. There's six countries ahead of us.

JEFFY: Is that true?

GLENN: I had no idea.

PAT: Yeah, most people don't.

JEFFY: We're always told we're the fattest.

PAT: We're always told -- and we just accept -- and I think at one time it was true. Five, six, seven years ago, we probably did top one of those lists. But I think in 2012, Mexico passed us. And now so have others.

GLENN: You know why? They've adopted our western way of life.

PAT: And that's why our western way of life needs to stop.

STU: It does seem to be winning a lot, doesn't it?

GLENN: I'd rather have the problem of fat than starvation.

PAT: Well, yes. That's the greatest problem that has ever faced mankind. Why would you rather do? Die of a heart attack when you're 65 or die of malnutrition and starvation at 16? I'm taking 65. Thank you very much.

STU: You talk about that story from the Soviet Union many times where they showed a documentary of what was going on in the United States about poor people.

GLENN: Poverty. This happened during the Reagan administration. This is when Gorbachev knew they were losing.

60 Minutes did this horrible, horrible piece on homelessness in America and how -- how bad the poor and the homeless were living in America. And he thought, look, they're taking -- they're taking themselves down. We can't be accused of propaganda. We'll take that 60 Minutes, and we'll play it on our state television and say, "This isn't coming from us. There's no edits here." It backfired because all the people looked at the poorest among us and went, "Holy cow, look at how they're living."

STU: They're overweight.

GLENN: They're overweight. They are -- look at what they have. Oh, my gosh.

And that was the story on poverty in America.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's a good problem to have, man.

GLENN: Great problem.

STU: It's a problem that has evaded every other country in human history in any other time. The fact that you have to worry about eating too much, not having the -- the official supply or enough supply to get through and, you know, keep yourself fed. That was always the problem.

PAT: They would say, it's only because we're eating the wrong foods.

STU: Yeah, by the way, that's not true. Study after study after study has shown the same mineral intake, the same vitamin intake, similar caloric intakes. It has nothing to do with that across the spectrum. Obviously, the food taste goes down when you can spend less on it.

GLENN: We were talking about this the other day. Imagine what food tasted like 100 years ago.

STU: Oh, it was probably horrible.

GLENN: Horrible. When everything had to be preserved with salt. So all of the meat, everything, all preserved with salt. Or smoke. Can you imagine how dark -- without sugar. How dark the food was? How salty and nasty food was?

PAT: Could not have looked appetizing.

GLENN: Oh, no.

JEFFY: But did you -- Pat, some people have to shop at Walmart.

PAT: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: I know. That's horrible.

PAT: I know. Really, it's crazy.

GLENN: Can you imagine?

PAT: Because you can't get lettuce.

STU: I love Walmart. I freaking love Walmart.

GLENN: Can you imagine taking people from any second world country --

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: -- and bringing them to Walmart. How they would just be overwhelmed. They would look at that and say, "Oh, this is disgusting."

PAT: The choices you have.

GLENN: Can you imagine? Not third world. Any second world country.

PAT: They wouldn't know what to do.

GLENN: Many places in Europe, they would come to that and go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at this." And we are rejecting it. Don't get me started. Because I'm about to go into an ugly, ugly place.

PAT: Thank you. Welcome to my Mother's Day.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

And now, this. Why didn't you call me? I would have gladly come and battled it out. I would have painted my face and come over there.

JEFFY: You were busy arranging.

GLENN: I would have -- I would have dressed and painted my face like Braveheart and come with a battle ax.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn's Show Prep