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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Is There a Moral Way to Kill a Zombie?

November 14, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The latest season of The Walking Dead has dominated watercooler talk for weeks. People just can't seem to make peace with the new level of violence in the show. The early seasons, it seems, got rid of those pesky zombies in just the right way.

RELATED: #WerkPerks: ‘The Walking Dead’ Readies Jeffy for a Zombie Apocalypse

"It wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them," he said.

So if Glenn can't stomach The Walking Dead any longer, just what is he watching?

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

• Is hacksawing a zombie a responsible way to kill?

• What does Stu think about the new movie Arrival?

• What does Glenn call the greatest war movie he's ever seen?

• How many times has Glenn seen Schindler's List?

• Are there spoilers below?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Andrew Hertzog says that The Walking Dead has officially jumped the shark.

PAT: Well, is he talking about the first episode? Because he's right about that. That was out of control. That was out of control.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: That was ugly. And -- but now Jeffy's told me last night's was out of control as well.

JEFFY: Well, I mean, it was. Last night was way out of control.

PAT: As much or more than the first one?

STU: Wait. So the apocalyptic zombie series was a little too violent for your tastes?

PAT: Well, seriously --

GLENN: Oh, no, Stu. It got to the point I stopped watching it.

PAT: It's gotten ridiculous.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like crazy. It's man's inhumanity to man now.

JEFFY: We're definitely at that now.

PAT: So is this worse than the opening episode?

JEFFY: Well, violence-wise, no.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Inhumanity?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: This Negan thing is ugly.

GLENN: Ugly.

JEFFY: And our love of Rick --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: I mean, I haven't -- I haven't recorded my talking Walking Dead podcast yet. You'll be able to hear that later this afternoon on TheBlaze Radio.

PAT: Don't ruin it for people.

JEFFY: But this whole -- the Rick that we love --

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: -- needs to come back. Because the -- the Rick that Negan has developed --

PAT: Uh-huh. Not good.

JEFFY: Is bad. Is bad. Bad.

STU: There's not much you can give away obviously. I'm just surprised --

JEFFY: You don't want to. You don't want to on this show.

STU: I can understand not liking a certain amount of violence in your show. I get that. But I'm surprised that that's some line for you guys. This is a series.

GLENN: Because it was different. It was different because there are zombies. So it wasn't -- it was almost like it wasn't real.

PAT: It wasn't real.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't -- you know -- and it wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them. Not all of them.

PAT: This has definitely changed.

GLENN: Yeah. And now it's man's inhumanity to man. So it's different. And I don't like that. I don't like watching, you know, men do things to other people for sport, for entertainment. I just don't like it. It bothers me.

Did you see -- did anybody see The Arrival this weekend?

STU: I did. I did.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And what did you think?

STU: I thought it was good. You know, I thought it was good. I did not see it -- it's in the mid-90s in Rotten Tomatoes, which I did not see it as that.

GLENN: I think it's the best alien movie -- the best -- the most tense alien movie I've seen in a long time without it being, you know, something is falling from the ceiling. You know, without it being alien.

STU: You said it the most tense movie that really did not --

GLENN: I thought it was a great sci-fi movie, one I haven't seen like it ever before. And I really loved it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The ending -- it's just very cerebral. It's one that you'll walk out of going, "Okay. I think I get it. I'm not sure if I get it."

STU: That's kind of how -- they're supposedly -- they keep promoting it as having a big twist ending.

GLENN: Oh, stop it.

STU: I didn't think it did really.

GLENN: Because you were walking in, thinking it's going to have a twist.

STU: Yeah, that always ruins it.

Again, why I always talk about spoiler alerts and why I will be very careful here as I speak about this. Because it does ruin your experience. If you go in there expecting something, then it comes and it's not a big deal. And that might have been what happened to me. I didn't think it was that great, to be perfectly honest. I thought it was well done. It was interesting. It was one of those movies, I was like, wow, I'm going to figure out something big coming up soon. Where is it? Where is it? And then, oh, okay. See you later. Like, it was just like kind of a letdown, I felt like. But it was well done. It was well done.

GLENN: Yeah, it was really well done.

STU: Yeah. She's great.

GLENN: Mini spoiler here. Turn down the radio, just a mini spoiler --

STU: Oh, gee, come on, why can't you --

GLENN: No, no. It's not going to --

PAT: Don't. Don't.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Turn the radio down. Turn your headphone --

PAT: We can't turn the radio down.

STU: We work with you.

GLENN: Jeez, for the love of Pete.

PAT: Don't do it. Don't.

JEFFY: Go ahead. Stop it. It's not going to ruin anything.

GLENN: You guys are weak and pathetic. Pathetic.

JEFFY: It's not going to ruin anything.

STU: I mean, I wouldn't -- knowing -- you know, this is in retrospect, but knowing what I know about the movie, I don't know that I would go to it.

GLENN: Oh, I would.

STU: It's certainly not worth a second viewing for me.

GLENN: Oh, I would like to see it again.

JEFFY: Oh, so, Glenn, give us the spoiler. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: No, I'm not going to -- it's not a spoiler. It's not a spoiler. It's really not a spoiler. You wouldn't understand it until after it happened anyway. But I'm not going to give it. I'm not going to give it.

STU: Good.

GLENN: All right. So anybody see -- anybody see the Mel Gibson movie? Rex Reed just said it's the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan.

STU: Spoiler alert it's a war movie. Oh, come on.

GLENN: I 100 percent agree.

JEFFY: What did People magazine give it?

GLENN: I think that is just an outrageously great show -- or, movie.

JEFFY: Movie.

GLENN: Best war movie I've seen.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Really, really --

STU: There's been some good ones.

PAT: Is it better than like 13 Hours and American Sniper?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's really good. Really good.

PAT: Really? Because I thought American Sniper was tremendous. And 13 Hours. Both of those --

GLENN: It is. They both are very, very good.

PAT: And you like this better?

GLENN: This one -- yeah, I do. I like this better because I've -- I've just never seen a war movie like this. I've never seen one like this. Never seen the heroism. I mean, American Sniper, you know, you're looking at a hero. And, you know -- you know, the lone survivor. You're looking at a hero, not like this. Nothing like this. I've never seen a hero movie like this before. And this is true.

JEFFY: And they replicate the horrors of war really well.

GLENN: Like you won't believe.

JEFFY: And it's really, really good. But you don't want to watch The Walking Dead because it's too violent?

GLENN: It's like -- for instance, I have no problem watching Schindler's List once. I don't need to see that for entertainment. I wanted to see that for history's sake. But I don't need to see that for entertainment. So I don't want to watch a movie about Mengele. Hey, let's watch a show about Mengele and how creepy and icky he was. No. No, thank you. No, uh-uh. Not for entertainment purposes, no.

Nobody else has that line? Just me?

STU: Well, I think the line is sensible, that you don't watch hard-core violence so television. I mean, if that's your thing, that's your thing.

GLENN: No. It's not even hard-core violence. It's really not hard-core violence. Like, for instance, I took Raphe to Hacksaw Ridge. I saw it in advance. There's no swear words in it. It's a great message. The only thing -- there's no sex. There's no swear words. There's nothing.

The only thing in this movie is violence. But it is real violence. It's not gratuitous. It's a real depiction of war. And my son sat in the seat next to me. And, you know, he'll watch anything. And he's like Jeffy. He's just dead inside when it comes to playing video games and zombie stuff. The Walking Dead, not the man's inhumanity to man, but some of The Walking Dead wouldn't faze him. This fazed him. And I was glad to see it.

And he was like -- he reeled back a couple of times, like, "Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, Dad." I'm like, yeah, intense.

And he said, "This is what it's like?" And I'm like, "Yep, that's what war is like." It takes all the fun and games out of war.

STU: Which is positive.

GLENN: Very positive. Very positive.

STU: You do realize that.

So you're just saying you like -- you like when it's real and not when it's fake.

GLENN: Not that I want to watch snuff films, no.

STU: For example -- well, I mean, I -- to me, I would have almost, I think, the opposite line. Like, if it's just a -- you know, it's -- it's -- like I'll watch horror movies. I'll watch, you know --

GLENN: Well, that's what I looked at for like, for instance, The Walking Dead. But it wasn't hacksawing people, just regular people. It was hacksawing the zombies. And so I didn't have so much of a problem because it's really inhumane.

JEFFY: And they're telling us how to survive.

GLENN: I don't know. It's a weird line. I can watch an alien movie. And you can blow all the aliens up, and that's fine. Once you cross over into people and they're just regular people, no, I don't want to see that. I don't want to see that.

STU: Unless it really happened.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Unless those people actually went through those real things, then you want to see it.

GLENN: Or unless it's like West World, which I'm thoroughly enjoying.

STU: Oh, I gave up on it. It's boring.

JEFFY: I watched the first two, and I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so.

JEFFY: After the second episode, I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Maybe that's why I like it, because there's so much going on. And you want -- at least for me, I want to know what the heck is happening with the park. This is -- it's like Jurassic Park on steroids, except the people are the fakes. And you can go there and you can vacation and you can be whatever you want.

JEFFY: I love the idea of it.

GLENN: Oh, it's fantastic. And you can be a good guy, you can be a bad guy. You can be whatever you want. And you can do whatever you want because the people can't kill you, but you can kill them.

And so some people go with their families, and they have a nice little outing in the old wild west. Blah, blah. But the farther you get away from the town, the more violent and risky it becomes.

And they can't kill you, but you can kill them. And it's pretty amazing. Because there's -- because Anthony Hopkins plays this role that is just really good.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The concept is really interesting. The execution to me has been --

GLENN: I like it.

STU: -- dull. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. But there's a lot -- I mean, there's a lot of good stuff out there to watch. You can lose yourself in the world of entertainment, which I've had to do many times over the past year and half or so.

GLENN: Me too. I've watched more television -- I didn't watch television up until last year. I had no connection to television at all until last year. Now, I'm like, I can't turn it off.

Featured Image: Image from season 7 of The Walking Dead.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.