Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Oh the Irony, California and Oregon Unwittingly Support Constitutional Principles

November 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The folks in California and Oregon are fed up. They've had it up to here with the federal government taking their taxes and telling them what to do. Naturally, the next logical step would be secession. Or, hold that thought, perhaps they might consider following the Constitution?

"I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

RELATED: Donald Trump’s Election Spurs Secession Talk in Oregon, California

That's the beauty of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Our brilliant Founders created a system by which states could uniquely follow their own beliefs, without imposing them on other states. But what did they know? The Founders were old, racist men whose ideas have become outdated and irrelevant. At least, that's what progressive liberals would like you to believe.

"If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be. Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The Founders recognized that diversity would strengthen the United States of America, not diminish it. They built our system of government accordingly, making provisions for the states to be different and unique.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these relevant questions:

• If California jumped off a bridge should we all do it?

• Why is the Tenth Amendment the perfect tool for diversity?

• Why does each state have its own flag and motto?

• What does E pluribus unum mean, and why do progressives believe the opposite?

• Did Barack Obama help or hurt Democrats?

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

GLENN: Let's talk a little about secession. California and Oregon are talking now about seceding. And I find that amazing because, A, that was so un-American to talk about when Barack Obama was president. But now it's very, very popular. And I would just like to speak to California for a second. One of their big issues is they're tired of their tax dollars going to the federal government. They want control of their tax dollars and have their tax dollars stay at home for California.

JEFFY: Huh.

GLENN: And they want to make their decisions, not be dictated to by the federal government.

PAT: Huh. What a concept.

GLENN: We would just like to say, we want that too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You may be surprised that you're not a progressive if you believe in that. You're a constitutionalist. Because that's what the Constitution guarantees that we have now just dismissed.

So if you believe those things, then you're actually a constitutionalist, and you don't need to secede. You need to join us. You need to join us. And come with us on the Constitution. Because once we restore that, those feelings go away.

PAT: If that's their issue, Hillary wasn't the right candidate. You voted for the wrong person.

GLENN: I don't think these are Hillary people. These are Bernie Sanders people.

PAT: Well, that's even worse.

GLENN: At best. At best.

PAT: Bernie Sanders would have been even worse for that.

GLENN: No.

PAT: A socialist?

GLENN: No, no. No. Because here's what people -- here's the problem: People are playing politics, and they're not playing principles. So they're perfectly fine being California as part of the United States, as long as the rest of the United States does it the way Californians want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so that's called authoritarianism. They're not really for freedom. They are for their rule of law. And if the rest of the country won't go that way, well then, they don't want to be a part of the country.

PAT: Yeah, but Bernie Sanders is a strong central government guy.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: The strongest central government --

GLENN: Again, they would have --

PAT: -- we know of in public office.

GLENN: Right. Because they only care about what they want. They believe they're right and everyone else is wrong. And so, as long as we have a strong central figure in Washington that is forcing everyone else to live the way we want to live, well, then, that's great. Then we'll make everybody's life happy because we're going to teach those people in Texas just how happy they're going to be. Right?

JEFFY: It will be fascinating to see how much --

GLENN: You know what it is -- hang on just a second. It is exactly the argument that Jefferson Davis made. He said states' rights.

Well, no, he didn't really mean states' rights. Because if you joined in the rebellion, you had to be a slave-owning state. You had to be for the furtherance of slavery. So they -- they weren't talked about states' rights. They were fighting for their system of government.

That's the same thing with California. They're not talking about, "Hey, we want to be free in California." They're saying, "No, we want everybody to live this way. If you choose to, we're taking our marbles and going home."

Oregon is also going for this. And there's no sense of irony from the press. There's no sense of, "Hang on just a second, how did we treat Texans when they said this?"

And you have to understand, Texas has been saying this -- Pat's right -- since 1837. Texans have been saying this from the very beginning. I don't know how Texas ever became a state.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Because this is the way Texas has been from the beginning: secede. But California says, "Hey, we're the -- what is it? The sixth largest economy in the world. We'll take this economy."

Okay. I really don't -- I mean, I know this is very unpopular to say, "But I'm really okay with that." I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California.

STU: That's kind of what federalism is, in a way. It's a way of 50 countries under a very generalized group of rules, but they can do whatever they want inside those rules. I mean, in a way, it is 50 different countries inside a country.

GLENN: That's the way it used to be.

STU: That's the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be.

Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years.

GLENN: Otherwise, why do we have state flags? Why do we have state flags? Why don't we all just have one star that says, California, Texas? You know, just a flag more like Texas that is red, white, and blue, has the strips, but just one star. We're one of 50.

Because we're all unique. We all have different mottos. We all have different things we focus on. We all have different strengths. We all have different weaknesses. E pluribus unum. From many, one. But we're not -- the progressive idea is to not have many.

It's to have just one. I'll tell you, the Democrats are going to -- the Democrats have a hard, hard road. They thought that Barack Obama was going to help them. I don't think so.

Now, I do believe he's helped the Marxists. He's helped the socialist. He's helped the radicals of the party. But who are you going to elect four years down the road? It will be somebody like Bernie Sanders. It's got to be somebody like Elizabeth Warren. It's got to be somebody who is --

PAT: Radical.

GLENN: Radical.

STU: And this is the same thing -- think about -- go back in election history. John McCain runs and loses. Mitt Romney runs and loses. What is the reaction of the right?

It's to say, "Well, you didn't get anybody. You did this progressive-lite thing." You did this thing where you're basically running a middle-of-the-road guy that wasn't -- didn't have conservative principles. And that's why you failed.

Same thing is going to happen in the Democrat Party now. They're going to say, "Wait a minute. We have Bernie Sanders. He ignited the youth. Everyone was excited about him." His polling, by the way, if you go back and look at it -- and I think there's flaws with these comparisons. But his polling was great in a general. I mean, he beat everybody in a general, Sanders.

PAT: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think.

STU: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think if it was real life, but God only knows at this point.

PAT: I don't think -- yeah.

GLENN: I think it would have been close -- I said from the beginning, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, give a real choice. Because I think Bernie Sanders would speak to the next generation. He could be America 3.0.

Featured Image: Based on flag flown during the Bear Flag Revolt. Contains a single red star, a red stripe along the bottom, and a grizzly bear. The Bear Flag is the official flag of the state of California. The precursor of the flag was first flown during the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt and was also known as the Bear Flag. (Wiki Commons)

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.