Note to Jeffy and Pat: 'The Walking Dead' Is Not a Documentary

October 24, 2016

Writer

Here's a no brainer: The Walking Dead is a fictional TV show. Therefore, when discussing the much-anticipated season 7 premiere, one should keep in mind that it's not real. Repeat. The Walking Dead is not real.

"There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad [people]," Co-host Pat Gray said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Co-host Jeffy concurred.

"Groups of people trying to survive with each other," he said.

Pat went on to marvel at people hanging on to their humanity in that type of situation.

"Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?" Co-host Stu Burguiere bravely asked.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these battered questions:

• What does Pat consider the greatest TV show before The Walking Dead?

• Is The Walking Dead torture porn?

• How did 24 turn into a commercial for CAIR and global warming?

• Why would Pat become violent with Jeffy?

• Is there a new standard in TV violence?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 38:28, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

The Walking Dead premiered season seven, is it, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Yes, it did.

PAT: Season seven, last night. And we'll start there, right now.

(music)

PAT: I'd have to say The Walking Dead is one of the best television shows of all time. Would you agree with that?

JEFFY: I would. I would agree with you. Yeah.

PAT: I mean, I -- 24 -- up until now, up until recently, 24 was probably the TV show that I thought was maybe the greatest of all time.

JEFFY: For you.

PAT: Every week was like movie-quality programming, during the best years of 24. And then at the end, it was like, "Shut up." It was a commercial for CAIR toward the end and global warming.

STU: And global warming.

PAT: Oh, it was agonizing.

STU: It's funny. Now you're seeing like a pushback against that. What was that movie? It was an English movie -- a bunch of English guys, and they were kind of like in their own little FBI, Secret Service. The -- oh, God. The Kingsman. The Kingsman. Anyone see the Kingsman?

The villain in that movie was a guy -- it was Samuel L. Jackson, who his belief was man was killing the environment so much, he had to wipe out most of humanity. And so he was starting out this like doomsday-level event to call all these people. The new movie with Tom Hanks coming out which is from the Da Vinci Code.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah, yeah.

STU: Seemingly from the previews --

PAT: It's called Inferno.

JEFFY: That's what it is. Right? Yeah.

STU: Inferno. The Inferno virus is something created by a crazy environmentalist who believes he has to wipe out most of the world's population because the earth is destroying it.

PAT: Wow.

STU: I mean, two from Hollywood.

PAT: Good.

STU: Kind of incredible to see that.

PAT: It is.

STU: Yeah, but you go back to the 24 days, that was a big thing. They break to say, by the way, we want -- sure, we shot and tortured a bunch of Muslim terrorists.

PAT: We didn't mean to. And don't ever think that any Muslim is ever responsible for any terrorism because that just can't happen. That can't happen.

JEFFY: Ever.

STU: This is fiction. And you shouldn't go beat up your local Muslim because we know you people. We know what you're like.

PAT: Thanks, Keeper. None of us could figure that out on our own.

STU: Exactly. And then global warming, I don't even know how that one was thrown in there. Look, if you're going to kill a bunch of terrorists, you're going to emit some CO2. And that's why -- that was just a bizarre tie-in. But I think it was one of the costs of liberals participating in a conservative show. It's like Kiefer (phonetic). Come on, do the show. It's a great show. It's about struggling against terrorism. Look, I'm not comfortable about that material. If I can do a message about global warming though, a serious message in the break and just say, "Guys, I know -- this is all fun and games. This whole terrorism thing, it's not real." But you know what is real: Invisible gas, changing your world. That is -- you needed to have that in there to get them to play along.

PAT: They did. And they deny it. I mean, we talked to Joel (inaudible) that one time. Had a get-together. And I asked him if, you know, he was forced. And he didn't think that they were doing anything out of the ordinary.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: And I don't know if he just -- if that was just the line he had to sell to feel better about it.

STU: Well, I think --

PAT: But it was pretty clear they had caved at the end.

STU: I think too, there's an instance of you're trying to be surprising, right? The thing with 24, there was always unexpected twists and turns. And you could say that, okay. The Muslim -- because there's always a low-level Muslim terrorist involved in every 24 plot. At the very lowest level, there's a Muslim terrorist. There's an Islamic extremist involved.

PAT: Yeah, but it's usually the president or vice president of the United States that's really behind it.

STU: Right. Who is really behind it, it's always like a Croatian. Okay.

PAT: A Croatian, but with help from the US government. You got to get that help from the US government.

STU: Always. It's always an inside job.

PAT: Always. There was a French guy one year. There was a Croatian. There was a French guy. I don't know which. And then there was some Frenchy guy in there.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: It was always --

STU: Nazis. There's the one Nazi who --

PAT: South African. South Africans are popular.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: You can make fun of them all day because of apartheid.

STU: So The Walking Dead doesn't do this. All the walkers are not Republicans or anything like that.

PAT: Actually, we don't to have deal pretty much with any politics like that.

STU: You're just beating the crap out of zombies?

PAT: Yeah. And live people.

JEFFY: Yeah, this year --

PAT: Really, it's kind of morphed into -- the zombies are sort of secondary now.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It's really the live people you have to worry about.

JEFFY: And, first of all, we don't call them zombies.

STU: They're walkers. I know. But if you don't watch the show, you might not understand them.

PAT: Hardly anybody doesn't watch the show, it's the number one show on TV.

JEFFY: Yeah, I'll be fascinated to see the ratings from last night.

PAT: Yeah, it will be interesting.

JEFFY: What they were. Because I was just reading, season six, last season, they were 48 percent higher than the top show on broadcast TV, season six, their ratings. 18-49.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's pretty impressive.

PAT: It's on AMC. Think of that.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I mean, there was a time five years ago we didn't think that was possible. There will never be a cable show that would beat network television. That just won't happen.

STU: It's not even close.

PAT: It's not even close. And now, because of The Walking Dead and other shows -- Breaking Bad broke a lot of ground and created a lot of buzz. And then that kind of built up for The Walking Dead. And now, look at where that is. The by far the number one show on TV. By far. So it will be interesting to see how well --

JEFFY: I want to talk about it really bad. And you're going to not want me to talk about the episode --

PAT: Well, they were saying there was a lot of violence, right?

JEFFY: There was quite a bit of violence.

PAT: A lot of violence.

JEFFY: With -- and there was quite a bit of violence done by Lucille, the bat.

PAT: If you divulge one thing -- because I haven't seen it yet -- if you divulge -- if you wreck this for me, the violence on that show will be nothing compared to the violence I'm going to reign down on you today. Don't even do it. Don't even do it.

STU: Well, I think it was Dana Loesch who is on TheBlaze as well, tweeted something to the effect of that it's essentially -- we -- it's torture porn. Like, we're to the point where now, we're getting to torture porn in this show.

JEFFY: Well --

PAT: That was one of the knocks on it. We read an article last week, about the decline or something of The Walking Dead. And their deal was, it started out as kind of charming violence or gore. And now it's become something -- it's morphed into something more than that.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they were -- in that article, he was talking about how he wanted the survivors to evolve. And he was saying the survivors haven't evolved enough. In the article, he mentioned Carol. But really, when you -- I think all the characters have evolved, quite a lot.

PAT: Oh, yeah. They have.

JEFFY: They've done the best they can to hold on to their humanity. I mean, that's what makes the show so good. Right?

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And we're at a point now where --

PAT: And you see that struggle all along, to hang on to some remnant of humanity.

JEFFY: Right. Right. I mean, that's what makes them different than the people they run into.

PAT: Because if you know about what the show is about, we're at seven years now into this apocalypse, where every -- society has completely broken down.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad --

JEFFY: Groups of people trying to survive with each other.

PAT: Yes. And they're trying to set up some form of hierarchy so that there can be some order among the chaos. And for anybody to hang onto humanity in that situation, it's pretty amazing. Pretty amazing.

JEFFY: Yeah. And this show shows you obviously how difficult it is with all the obvious around them.

STU: Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?

JEFFY: For instance, what happened last night, Stu.

PAT: So you're not going to tell us what happened last night?

STU: The Economist did an article about guns and how they get into films. And it's largely about how basically, you know, gun manufacturers -- like how specific guns get into films, they become popular and their sales go up. You know, just like product placement for anything.

JEFFY: Sure.

STU: But there's one little nugget in there that I thought was pretty interesting. Researchers have found that gun violence in PG-13 films -- and this doesn't necessarily go to all violence, but this is just specifically gun violence. In recent years has -- has tripled since 1985 and has even exceeded the violence in R-rated films.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And we're seeing this -- Walking Dead is an example of this, where it's become so violent. There's some scenes in Breaking Bad is another one. Is so incredibly violent and disturbing. And it's going further and further and further on that. And it's a weird line. Because for some reason, that's much more okay than -- than the oversexualized stuff and even the language.

PAT: And that's explainable.

STU: I think it is. I think it is.

PAT: You're much less likely to go out and murder somebody after you've seen violence than you are to go out and have sex with somebody once you've been stimulated in that way, right?

STU: Yeah, I think -- well, I look at it a little bit differently than that.

JEFFY: I don't know.

PAT: Oh, come on. It's a no-brainer.

STU: The difference between it is -- morally speaking, for a second, morally -- because I don't think that stuff -- I don't necessarily think that, you know -- it can. Obviously, like, you know, certain -- opening yourself to certain things that you watch can influence your behavior. It's certainly been shown in studies.

But I think like, more than that is, morally speaking, I have no desire to go out and, you know, torture a zombie or a walker for the next 45 hours. I have no -- maybe I would if I was in that situation. But there's no, like, inherent desire for me to commit violence against another person. Obviously there is inside of most of us, there is a sexual desire that you like.

PAT: Right.

STU: So, you want to see women naked. You don't necessarily want to see -- I have no -- I'm rooting for the person to avoid the violence in most of these movies. You want the person to get away. To escape. That's different motivation, I guess, when it comes to the nudity and such.

But, again, even -- even language -- I mean, Jeffy, ever since I've known Jeffy --

JEFFY: Language.

STU: -- one of the first things he said out of his mouth when we were doing radio is, "I'm not the word police," when someone was swearing on the air. "I'm not the word police."

Jeffy, you're supposed to press the dump button --

JEFFY: I'm not the word police.

STU: I'm not the word police. That was the big Jeffy thing. Ever since I've known him, he's said that.

But you think about it, we really do monitor language much more than we monitor violence.

JEFFY: Yes, we do.

STU: It's a shocking thing. I mean, if someone comes on the air and swears here, we're going to dump your words. But, I mean, there would be huge consequences if we didn't. You know, the FCC would be all over that. We could go on and on and on about extreme violence. And in some cases, to make points about war and terrorism and things like that, we have. We've talked to you about people being beheaded on the border and all of that. The crime that goes on there. You know, you could do that all day. But if you say a word that is a little bit salty, you know, the whole world collapses. It is a weird standard.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh. I know.

STU: I do think that is a strange standard. And we all kind of accept the violence thing. And sometimes it is, it can be really disturbing. I mean, stuff that was in Saw, you can now see --

JEFFY: It was there for the violence. That was the whole point of those movies, right? Was to just see how bad you could torture people.

STU: I think it was the problem-solving Jeffy.

JEFFY: Oh.

STU: How do -- it was more of an IQ test.

JEFFY: You're right. You're right. How to get out of it. I apologize. You're right. You're right.

STU: But, I mean, a lot of that stuff -- certainly on HBO, for sure. But even on AMC -- you know, a scene in Breaking Bad comes to mind, where they needed to get rid of a body, and they put it in a bathtub with acid and stuff like that. It was really disturbing.

PAT: And there's some disturbing scenes in in The Walking Dead. I mean, seriously disturbing. Things you thought you could never see on TV are right there for you.

STU: And it's the number one show on television --

JEFFY: I know.

STU: Remember how they used to say, well, like family hour. When you have shows that are aimed at a large audience, you don't put those things in there. I mean, this is -- while it's not aimed at family hour, by any means, it's still a show that's the number one show on television. And, I mean, it's probably the top three or four most violent shows on television.

PAT: Oh, yeah. By far.

STU: The stuff, they talk -- I listen to it. I cannot even discuss it on the air. I just went on this whole thing about how we can't say certain things on the air. I cannot even discuss on this show what was discussed on a recent episode of Law & Order SVU that I watched. I cannot believe that show airs.

JEFFY: I'll tell you, Criminal Minds does the same thing. Criminal Minds from time to time goes really deep into stuff we can't talk about.

STU: It's insanity. I mean, the fact there is a show that runs every week that is highly rated that every week, as a requirement of the episode, is a detailed description of a brutal rape --

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: That's the premise of the show, is that they're going to describe how a woman was brutally raped and left on some sidewalk somewhere. And, of course, it's a -- it's one of those shows where you're looking for sort of forensic information and everything. So they always, as a requirement of the show, go into extreme detail about how the crime was committed. What fluid was left where. What -- what it -- I mean, what the medical reports say. And it's insanity. I want -- I was a -- I was in a hospital for -- I had a relative who was in the hospital. And they, you know, of course -- as I think every day they run a non-stop marathon on like TBS or something. And that was the channel was on. So I was in the waiting room for hours and hours and hours. And it was episode after episode after episode of freaking Law & Order SVU. And, you know, I had watched the show a couple times, but never really put it together. These people have put together hundreds of rape story lines.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

STU: And it's on normal TV every single week.

JEFFY: And they put together fake rape story lines. And real rape story lines.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: And story lines that much -- the top story of the news.

STU: Oh, yeah. They like that.

JEFFY: And old rape story lines. I mean, it's amazing.

STU: It's incredible. The stuff that is discussed on just mainstream television. They always like to say, "Oh, conservatives, they're always trying to control the culture." If we are, we suck at it. I mean, we are terrible at that. I mean, the lines that get blown by every single day on television now, it's incredible.

PAT: It's unbelievable. Yeah, we're past Leave It To Beaver land.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh, yes. There was a scene last night in Walking Dead --

PAT: Gee, Wally, it wouldn't be real neat-o if you told me what happened last night. I'll crush your skull.

JEFFY: There was a scene last night.

PAT: It wouldn't be real neat-o to tell me.

STU: Come on. Let's just get a quick update from Jeffy of exactly what happened.

PAT: Just overall, was it a great episode?

JEFFY: I enjoyed it, yes.

PAT: Yeah. Okay. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up.

(OUT AT 9:23AM)

PAT: What do you think about this mega merger with AT&T, BellSouth, TimeWarner, Turner TBS, CNN, Warner Brothers, DirecTV, all under the same umbrella? All the same company. Wow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I mean, you want the free market to be free, but then you also think, well, isn't that like a monopoly? Don't we have --

STU: Yeah. That standard should be super high for that.

PAT: But, I mean --

STU: If you're going to get the --

PAT: You're getting pretty out of control with a company like that.

STU: Why? To do what? The worry is, they might restrict -- I mean, it's the same net neutrality arguments that get made over and over again. They might restrict people from watching Game of Thrones, because if you're not AT&T or DirecTV.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, first of all, they're not going to do that in their own interests. Second of all, should the government get involved because -- if they did this, should the government get involved because Game of Thrones can't be watched by anyone else? Let's just say they want to a ridiculous level they never would. You can't purchase it. You can't watch it. We won't stream it to you if you're on a competitor.

If you have Comcast, you cannot see the show from HBO.

And? Like is that where the government is supposed to step in and get involved.

PAT: Just worry about competition. I worry about -- I mean, this is almost everybody. I mean, this is --

STU: But, again, we've been hearing these warnings for how long. And it's like, have our entertainment options, have they increased or decreased? We've got the number one show on television that's on AMC.

PAT: Yeah. I know.

STU: I mean, we have -- this -- this world -- again, we're at a point where the shows that everybody is talking about are on a network that's not even a network. Netflix -- we talked about this last week on Pat & Stu, which by the way, airs on TheBlaze every single day. And this was a situation where it's Netflix that's spending more than anyone else on original programming. Netflix.

This is -- you know -- I mean, we have more options now than we've ever had before. More high quality television than we've ever had before. These are -- these are the golden years of television right now. I mean, you can go to channels you didn't even know existed five years ago and watch shows that are better than anything that was on television.

PAT: It's nerve-racking because just 15 months ago, AT&T acquired DirecTV. Now if they acquire TimeWarner, that gives it HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, and Warner Brothers. That's a -- that's a pretty massive company.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

Featured Image: Photos from Twitter/The Walking Dead (@WalkingDead_AMC)

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.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Note to Jeffy and Pat: 'The Walking Dead' Is Not a Documentary

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

One‑sided freedom

Censored belief

Faith on trial

The real test

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

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.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

But that’s not what we hear.

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

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

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.

Moral erosion

The buck stops with us