Why Glenn Will Be the Happiest Man in the World if He Has to Apologize Every Day

February 01, 2017

WRITER

The country needs Donald Trump to be successful. And as long as he's leading and governing in a way that honors constitutional principles, Glenn will be the first in line to make apologies when he's wrong --- but there's one contingent.

"I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens. I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging, and I will trust God to work it out," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Let me go to Ken in New York. Hello, Ken. You're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Hi. Hi, Glenn. It's great to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I called you before Donald Trump's selection, and I argued with you that he needed to be elected because of the Supreme Court. And I was mad at you because you weren't promoting him. And I appreciate your apology.

It makes you a better man.

GLENN: Well, I told you --

CALLER: But now you're doing it again.

GLENN: Hang on just a second, Ken, I told you that I would. And the one thing that I -- and the only thing that matters to me is my integrity. I told you that I would, and I have. So I'm sorry that people are disappointed -- or, I mean, surprised that I would actually do that. It shows me that I --

CALLER: Oh, I'm not surprised.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Okay. So now I'm doing it again. How?

CALLER: I think you should buy one of those -- you should buy one of those Staples Buttons and change the wording to where it says "I'm sorry" because you're going to have to do it again.

GLENN: I'll be -- as I said during the election, I will be the happiest man in the world if I have to apologize every day because I was wrong about Donald Trump. I want him -- the country needs him to be successful.

CALLER: I agree.

The -- we have a famous president who was loved by all and endeared by all. And he made a quote one day, and that was, "Elections have consequences." And so our next Supreme Court pick, if it's Ginsburg who leaves us by hook or by crook, Donald Trump has every right to appoint a conservative constitutionalist again.

GLENN: Well, wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. If you think that I'm saying that Donald Trump shouldn't replace Ginsburg with a conservative, then I misspoke. What I said was --

CALLER: I totally misunderstood you then.

GLENN: Yeah. What if Ginsburg were the last radical, progressive on the court and it was a Democratic president, a progressive president, they would have every right and they should replace -- and I would look at that as fair. If we're looking at -- we're looking at a court now that really has no constitutional conservative on it, except Clarence Thomas.

The rest of them can go either way. And they'll all -- you know, John Roberts is absolutely useless.

STU: Alito is good. Alito is good.

GLENN: Alito is good. But if you have the lion -- if you have the lion of the side and your guy is in there, they should replace. If Ginsburg was the only voice that was really leading the charge, she should be replaced. We can't have a court that is -- that shuts out 50 percent of the country. We can't do that.

CALLER: Well, it would be nice if the entire court just believed the Constitution to be the rule of law and made their decisions based on the rule of law and the Constitution, and we wouldn't care what party and what affiliations they had.

GLENN: If you got strict constitutionalists that actually interpreted the Constitution as it was written, it would be the solution to all of our problems.

Unfortunately, we don't have those justices. If --

CALLER: No.

GLENN: But one of the reasons why we don't is because we have done a very bad job, not as conservatives, not as Republicans, but as Americans, of understanding and being able to teach and spread the word of the Constitution.

It's a lot like -- it's a lot like faith. Faith, many times, has become a tool to either get rich or to build a big church or to bring people into the fold that agree with you and then put a bunch of rules on them.

Faith, to me, religion, is used too many times to control people.

CALLER: Yes, sir.

GLENN: When you really understand faith, God has rules. But they're between you and him, not the organization or anything else. You and him.

And it is the most freeing thing. Those simple rules will free you and make you more free than you've ever been in your entire life. It's an amazing thing. The same thing with the Constitution. There are very few rules. Those amendments, if you just go with the Bill of Rights and we all really did that, no matter whose side it hurt or won for -- you know, well, now, wait a minute, that will hurt my religion or that will hurt my agenda or this or that.

No. You stick by those simple rules, and we'll all be free. And we'll all live happily ever after and together.

STU: That was one of the great things that he said. Gorsuch was, if you're not making decisions that make you feel uncomfortable, based on whatever your particular beliefs are, is because you're following the law, then you're not a very good justice. You have to be following the law. Sometimes that will disagree with what you want to happen.

GLENN: Absolutely.

STU: But you follow the law and the Constitution anyway. And sometimes that will make you uncomfortable.

GLENN: Right. And the Constitution is paramount. Not the law.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: The Constitution is paramount. You know, for instance, it makes me very, very uncomfortable to not be able to just tap people's phones who we just think, "You know, I don't know, that guy is shady. We should listen -- and especially if everybody in the room is standing around you, going, "Look, every other country is doing this. We got -- we got to be able to do those."

No, I'm sorry. And I will take the blame for this if it turns out bad, but I'm going to make the case that that is what makes us unlike all other countries.

No president or anybody else has the power to say, "You know what, put him on an enemy's list. Let's follow him. Let's destroy him. Let's tap him."

If we can gather enough evidence, guys, and go to a court and do it through the Constitution, as an individual, good, let's do it.

If you can't gather that evidence, sorry. That's really uncomfortable, if you're sitting there as the president of the United States and saying, "Gee, I don't know, man. Something happens, and if that guy gets away, then I'm going to be blamed for it." Yeah, you will be. Tough, isn't it? Because the one to really blame is the Constitution. And the Constitution is freeing in the end.

Otherwise, what happens? You say, "Oh, you know what, I don't have a problem."

By hook or by crook -- that's a quote -- we're going to pole vault into it if we have to. We'll do anything it takes to get this done, even though it's unconstitutional.

What does that lead you to? Somebody else that gets power in the Oval Office that says, "By hook or by crook, I'm going to do whatever I want by executive order." And all of a sudden, you don't like it.

The Constitution would take away everybody's need to protest in the streets.

CALLER: Are you still there?

STU: We are.

GLENN: Go ahead, Ken.

CALLER: I just want to say that during the campaign, you were very adamant about principle, that you didn't want to be drug into voting for something against your principle by voting for Trump.

And I'd just like to say again that I hope you'll rethink that philosophy because of the outcome of this election and how, you know, even I was wrong in some of the ideas that I thought was going to happen. But we really need to vote for the best president.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I will never rethink -- hang on a second.

I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens.

I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging. And I will trust God to work it out.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you, Ken. I appreciate it.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep