The Reason People Hate the Press

January 12, 2017

WRITER

We're not going to make it unless we can restore trust, integrity and truth. That's why our integrity must be unquestionable. Yes, we're flawed, imperfect, but we must strive for having the utmost integrity.

"There will come a time when nobody will know what to believe or where to go, and you have to be able to look them in the eye and say, Have I ever lied to you? Have I ever been grossly wrong on direction?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

It's imperative to restore integrity in our own lives first. But what can we do to restore integrity in our leaders and the media? We must model --- and expect from others --- reasonable and logical discussions about ideas, not people or events.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want to take you through -- I said last hour that there are three buckets of this story. There are three separate things. And they're all being thrown together as one story. And that's -- that's not true. And it's causing confusion and contention and arguments because everyone is looking at this as one story. It's not. It's many -- but they come down to three basic buckets.

The first one is the 35-page report and Buzzfeed. And that 35-page report that has stories in it of John McCain having the report, turning it over to the FBI. People are split on that. Is that right? That wrong?

That report includes Buzzfeed. They printed it. Should they or shouldn't they have? It includes the people that allegedly are part of the Trump team that were doing things that are absolutely, I believe, we can state false, but they are at least unproven, and the charges are given by Russian operatives to a source that we don't know.

Let's call those untrue. It also goes back to this -- this 35-page report. Was put together -- hired by the Republicans, trying to discredit Donald Trump. They didn't use it, and so they sold it to the Democrats, who also didn't use it, but it's been circulating since August.

There's all kinds of places to go on that bucket. And we're right now going there. But we're also conflating that bucket with this bucket, and that is the bucket of the two-page report that went to the president and the president-elect. And that one was to answer the question, is the -- are the Russians involved in trying to destroy our republic, or are they involved in trying to make America great again?

That bucket involves the two-page report, the Putin stuff, Trump, Clinton, all of the things that they have done and he said/she said, and spies, and, well, it's the war. And we're just trying to, you know, further a war with globalists. Blah, blah, blah.

And the third bucket is the charge that Donald Trump made yesterday, that should at least get serious consideration. And that is that the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, somebody in the spy community that doesn't like Donald Trump took this opportunity to teach Donald Trump a lesson by -- by releasing this information.

You can spend the day arguing in circular, meaningless arguments because people will jump from bucket to bucket. You'll make a good point for or against on the fake news. And then they'll jump over to, "Well, but the Russians aren't really doing this, or the Russians are really doing this." And all of a sudden, you're in the second bucket. And when you make a good point in the second bucket, "But it's the CIA. You know what they're like." That's the third bucket.

You can't argue when the facts are about so many different stories. And they really, truly are not connected. They're just connected because the events happened on the same day. That's the problem.

We can make this about people, and he did/she did, what he did, what they did. We can make this about people, and that's what small minds do. We can make this about events. The release of the report. The briefing with the president. We could make that about events. Or we could make this argument on this program about ideas.

What is the idea behind each of these buckets? Fake news. That's not the idea. We're not searching for fake news. Because that becomes events or people. We're searching for a way to agree on facts. We're searching for the truth.

Everybody is making this about, "See, they caused it." Instead of saying, "What is our goal here? Our goal is the truth." Now, if I have a perception that I am a conservative hack, what do I have to do to lesson that feeling among people so we can have a conversation and get to a place to where we can disagree on facts and we can agree on facts -- I'm sorry. We can disagree on policies, but we can agree on fact and we can continue a conversation?

Well, in my world, I figured the best thing I can do is stop worrying about everyone else and say, "This part of our society, this part of our problems, I own. I take responsibility for these things that I did." I won't take responsibility for all of it, but this is what I did and I own it, in hopes that someone else will finally come on our side or on their side and say, "You know what, I'm going to join him. I'm not going to worry about anybody else right now. I'm just going to look at what I did. Here's what I did. And I own this part."

And I'm not going to make anybody go on an apology tour. Good. Great. Let's talk.

How can we get to the truth now? How can we get more people to use actual critical thinking so we're not screaming over each other and at each other and getting nowhere and, in fact, making things worse?

That's what the fake news idea is. But the fake news stories are now just the people versus the press. That's all that is.

People versus the press. No. The idea is truth.

Let's do the two-page report. People are making this about Putin, Trump, or Clinton. Those are the small minds. The average minds are making it about the two-page report. Here's what it is.

Now, you have to report -- you have to talk about what average -- what the event is. But that's -- that's just to set the table. Here's the event. Now, we can waste our time talking about the event, or we can dive down into small minds talking about the people. Or we can say, "What's the idea behind the report? Why did this event even happen?" Because we're trying to decide whether or not Russia is a friend or a foe. Is that the idea?

No. We're trying to establish -- oh, my gosh, almost like the first bucket -- the truth. We're trying to find a way to discover truth.

And the third bucket: Donald Trump charged -- and this must be seriously investigated. I hope this isn't true. But it is a movie way things happen. Whether it's happening now, I don't know. But we have to dismiss it in a credible way. And if we don't dismiss it in a credible way, then the conspiracy theories will grow. Why don't we want conspiracy theories?

Because they -- they put fog all over the truth. It has to be a credible search for the truth and come what may. If we find that Clapper or anybody else was involved in trying to discredit the president-elect, that's important information. They need to be fired. If they broke the law, they need to be tried and go to jail. Period.

So we can talk about Donald Trump's charge. And it's important. Because if the CIA or Department of Homeland Security could do this to Donald Trump, what the hell chance do you have?

And I won't hear that, "Oh, well, the government would never do that," that's exactly what was said in the last administration about the FBI -- or, I'm sorry, about the IRS.

Yes. Yes. The government will do that.

What is the argument about the CIA and FBI really all about? Can we trust them to tell us the truth?

You see, the left and the right actually are striving in this particular case, for exactly the same idea. We're not going to make it unless we can restore trust, integrity, truth.

Remember when I said to you, everything you thought you could trust would be liquid -- or, would be solid is liquid, and vice-versa.

Is that not true today?

Do you -- do you fully trust our government apparatus, even our military intelligence, our CIA, our NSA? Do you trust that they're on the right side? I don't know. I think so. I hope so. But I don't know.

Do you remember when I said that would happen, and it's here? There was something else that I connected to that, almost every time.

That is why your integrity must be impeachable. Now, I don't know if you can be a person in the -- in the media and have that happen to you. I don't know if that could happen, especially if you're as flawed as I am and you continue to make mistakes.

But I know we have to strive for it. Your integrity must be impeachable because I said, there will come a time when nobody will know what to believe or where to go, and you have to be able to look them in the eye and say, "Have I ever lied to you? Have I ever been -- have I ever been grossly wrong on direction?"

Please, don't go there. Don't go there.

You need to tell your friends, please, don't make this about Trump or Clapper or the -- or the sex romps or the Democrats and the Republicans or John McCain or Putin or Clinton or anybody else. Don't even make this about the 35-page report, the two-page report, or Donald Trump's charge. Let's start with the idea. And the idea is integrity.

What can we do to restore integrity to our leaders and to our media? But that's an interesting exercise for all of us to have.

Perhaps it's more important for us to debate the idea, what is it that I can do to restore integrity to my own life?

With my own circle of influence, what have I done that I need to repair? Who have I alienated, that perhaps -- perhaps can be of aid, not in my cause, but in our cause of the American republic?

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

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

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

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

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

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.