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

Another Sign of the Times? 'Planned Companionhood' Advocates for Pet Abortions

June 02, 2017
Staff

WRITER

No matter what bombshell report or undercover video surfaces, Planned Parenthood never takes the hit and they just keep trucking along. Try this mental exercise out for a second --- would the left be just as praiseworthy of a group that facilitated pet abortions?

Doc Thompson filled in for Glenn on radio Friday and had an interesting interview with a caller named Rich Pronsky who is starting a business called Planned Companionhood.

"You know, you're still going to have cats and dogs who get pregnant," Rich said. "You know, they have one too many at the kitty bar or whatever, and they wind up with this litter of babies that they might not want. And I believe --- I assume everybody does, the pets have the right to choose. It's their furry bodies, it's their choice."

Just who is this monster you might ask? Rich happens to be none other than former Blaze personality and comedian, Brian Sack. Don't worry animal lovers, Planned Companionhood is not coming to a dog park near you --- you can bark easy.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

DOC: Hi, there it's Doc Thompson in for Glenn today. Thank you so much for joining me. Joined also by my fellow morning Blaze Brad Staggs and Kris Cruz along with Kal. We're regularly heard on the Blaze radio network. Weekday morning 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern time just go TheBlaze.com/Doc to find out more about us. We talk a lot about businesses and entrepreneurship, I think that's really the backbone of America. Capitalism and free market. And the more we can teach people that and support businesses, it's going to be better for all of us. So we often give people free airtime. We just say come and promote your business. The listeners get to hear about great stories of entrepreneurial and great products. So if you have a business that you want to discuss, just tweet ought at any time with the #BuildingAmerica. #BuildingAmerica, and we go through from time to time and we'll reach out to you saying, hey, we have an opening. We're usually backlogged a few weeks or so. Obviously a lot of people are interested.

BRAD: Free advertising? Backlog?

DOC: Yeah, imagine that. If you're interested, you can go back and search.

KRIS: And it's interesting you say we will go through me. That we is one person.

DOC: Yeah, by "we" I mean Kris. So we spotlight those. Sometimes their businesses have been around for a while, sometimes startup businesses. We have one of those startup business that is trying to get crowd sourcing trying to get started. It's an interesting startup. Rich is joining us from Planned Companionhood. Rich, How are you doing, buddy?

CALLER: Hi, how are you, Doc?

DOC: Doing well, sir. Give me the basic concept of what your business is.

CALLER: Sure. First, thank you for having me on. This is a great platform for me. I'm very excited. I had this idea that came to me the other night, and I did what pretty much all of my friends on Facebook have done. I started a GoFundMe to kind of raise money for this concept. It's Planned Companionhood and what I want to establish is a series of clinics across the United States that provide health services for pets.

DOC: Okay. That's --

KRIS: That's pretty smart.

DOC: How does that differ from any of the veterinarian services or health services out there?

CALLER: You're right. I don't have a degree in veterinarianism. I'm trying to get one from a prest I cannot online university. It's taking some time. I will have it. But in the meantime, we offer services very similar. We spay and neuter cats and dogs, mostly. And something I thought of I thought was very clever. We're going to offer mammal grams. So they're like a pet mammogram. And, again, I don't have the degree in veterinarianism, so you take the cat booby or whatever the medical term is. And you have the glass plates and see if there are any troubles. Also, we're going to offer pet pregnancy counseling to cats and dogs just to kind of guide -- what to expect when you're expecting kind of thing.

BRAD: To the owners of the pets; right? I mean, you're offering counseling to the owners of the pets.

CALLER: Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting. You know, that's not a bad idea. We include the owners. Bring the owners in.

DOC: Yeah, they could be a part of that. I can see that. So you're doing a lot of reproductive health as part of this clinic; is that right.

CALLER: Absolutely. We're going to offer contraceptives. We have kitty condoms, doggy diaphragms, and the IUD, which I understand is for intrauterine because that's -- I tried it out on him, and he seemed to, you know, not take to it. But we'll see. Maybe it works on other dogs. I don't know.

DOC: Interesting. Interesting. Yeah.

CALLER: And we're going to offer of course pregnancy termination.

DOC: So you can spade and neuter before, but you're also going to terminate pregnancies as well for pets?

CALLER: Well, you know, you kind of have to because even though you make these efforts and try to control pet overpopulation or whatever and get the message out there. But, you know, you're still going to have cats and dogs who get pregnant. You know, they have one too many at the kitty bar or whatever, and they wind up with this litter of babies that they might not want. And I believe -- I assume everybody does, the pets have the right to choose. It's their furry bodies, it's their choice.

DOC: So kitty and doggy abortions is what you're saying.

CALLER: Well, I don't like to use that word so I call it termination.

DOC: Okay. Uh-huh. So if they -- this is -- wow that's kind of new. I hadn't heard that. We always hear spade and neuter your pets. Control pet overpopulation. Spade and neuter.

CALLER: That's where I think Planned Companionhood is different.

DOC: Okay. Is pet overpopulation still that big of an issue where we would have to get to the point where you're aborting -- I'm sorry terminating the kitties and puppies? Is it that big of a --

CALLER: You have orphan pets all over the place and the adoption process for pets can take sometimes minutes to hours to get, you know? These pets and that might be a handful.

KRIS: Kris Cruz here. I just have a question for you. You say you posted this on Facebook. Have you gotten any backlash from, you know, the people who are against puppies abortion or any kind of abortion?

CALLER: Well, honestly, what is the red face mean?

DOC: Oh, the emoji? I don't think that's a good one for you.

CALLER: I haven't looked into it. We have a lot of those, but I can feel the energy shortly after we posted it. But I've really been devoting my morning especially to just kind of coming up with my ideas.

DOC: Kind of formulating them.

BRAD: What about counseling? With this counseling, is there going to be alternatives discussed? I mean --

CALLER: You know, we've -- it's more, you know, more like counseling like scheduling the pregnancy termination. Like, what day works better for you? Would a Friday be better? Do you want to come in on a weekend? Monday after work. Like, what -- we're going to work about -- it's about accommodating the people. The kitties or the doggies.

BRAD: I would think somebody would be willing to take the puppies the kids were born and somebody would be able to take them and adopt them.

CALLER: Yeah, I don't know. It just seems to me, you know, you want to give the pet the right to just say, you know, I want this or I don't want this. Get it out of here, you know? Because honestly, and, again, I don't have a degree in veterinarianism, and I will soon from a prest I cannot and accredited online university. But from what I know, it's just a clump of cells in there until they're born. And --

DOC: So you're saying because of these animals are pregnant, we've got to control overpopulation that it's better to go ahead and just abort them, the doggies and kitties, rather than just have people come by and adopt them?

CALLER: Yeah, because, you know, when a kitty cat or doggy gets knocked up for whatever reason, and they forgot to practice whatever and things happen, and then they get pregnant, you don't want to burden that kitty cat or doggy with puppies and kitties meowing and things.

DOC: Okay. I imagine there's going to be some people -- we're talking with Rich Pronsky from Planned Companionhood or what he hopes will become a series of clinics.

CALLER: Right now, we have raised $34.17.

KRIS: What's your goal?

CALLER: We need at least 250 million.

KRIS: Okay. And that covers.

CALLER: That covers the whole country plus give myself a decent salary.

KRIS: So that covers all the clinics or just one clinic with multiple doctors? I mean not doctors, veterinarians with veterinarianism certification, or is it just you performing all of these procedures?

CALLER: No. No. There will be all scattered all over the country and, you know, people are going to come in, they're going to come in on a leisure, they're going to come in however they want to come in, and we're going to help them.

DOC: So I have to think there's going to be some people who don't like the idea of dog abortions or cat abortions.

CALLER: I did run into a few of those on the sidewalk. Yeah.

DOC: What is your response to them where they're saying, hey, that's a life, and you're killing the little doggies and puppies? What do you say to those people?

CALLER: They made an argument, yes, this is an adorable puppy. How could you do that to an adorable puppy. Like, look at this little puppy right here how cute is she? And I was rubbing her. And I understand what they're saying. But then again, you know, if you have a cat or a dog that has a bunch of puppies or kitties inside, you know? Why not encourage them to kill them?

BRAD: Cost. Let's talk about cost. Is this going to -- you're going to obviously charge people -- the owners, I'm assuming are going to end up paying for these terminations.

CALLER: Preferably the taxpayer would. I'm going to see what I can do about that. But we have gotten some grants from the USDA, which I assume is the United States dog association. I don't really know.

KRIS: We know that Bob Hope; right? He was --

DOC: No, Bob Barker.

KRIS: Bob Barker.

BRAD: Bob Hope's dead.

KRIS: Have you tried to reach out to any celebrities? Because this is something they might want to get involved with.

DOC: Yeah, Drew Carey took over for barker.

CALLER: I haven't thought about that. But if you could recommend that, that would be great. You need that celebrity to help kind of sell your -- you know like when Sean Penn helps sell Venezuela and Hugo Ch·vez, you want someone like that and deliver that message who says take this. It's great.

DOC: So animals come in, and they're already pregnant, and you're saying we're going to go ahead and abort the kitties and puppies.

CALLER: If you don't, they're going to run out and have a back alley pet abortion.

KRIS: Or they're going to go to Mexico and have a abortion, which is dangerous.

BRAD: And then they have the slut term.

DOC: I didn't realize back alley pet abortions were a thing. But what would be the problem with that -- why is that a concern of yours --

CALLER: Because I haven't been in a back alley in a long time. Long story, and it ended poorly. But, you know, I assume that these things are going on in back alleys all the time if we don't establish these clinics.

DOC: So you establish a fee. But is that per kitty or doggy aborted? Or is that per service.

KRIS: Terminated.

DOC: Because, you know, sometimes it could be three or five, and you don't know. So the dog comes in, and you go it's going to be certain fee. But then it ends up being six puppies.

CALLER: Right. We call that jackpot.

DOC: Oh, for you?

CALLER: That's when you go, like, yes. And you do that gesture with your hand, and you go "yes" because that means you're going to make extra money. If you're expecting three, and you got six, that's bonus time.

BRAD: So there is some profit to be had on that backside? That makes sense from a profit standpoint.

DOC: We've heard this forever. Control pet population. How come you still have so many pets getting pregnant like this is for years -- have them spade and neutered, and we still have a pet overpopulation problem. How come we still have it then?

CALLER: A very, very good question. Basically pets in the U.S. are not getting quality sex education. And if you think about it, you know, most cats are locked up in a house like a Saudi wife. And dogs, they're literally kept on a very short leash and, you know, when you see people walking their dogs, you don't see them giving them education in sex, talking about the birds and bees. You just see them letting them pee all over the place.

DOC: And that would be a good opportunity right there, I would think --

CALLER: You get to -- yes, instead of getting down and picking up the pooh-pooh, you get down there, and you say, you know, if the dog's name is Rover, you go Rover, let's get a little awkward now and talk about things.

DOC: I mean, I'm not a fan of abortion. We're talking with rich from Planned Companionhood. I don't like abortion, but I can imagine you getting backlash online from this.

CALLER: Yeah, it does seem to be growing.

BRAD: You can take that awkward moment when your dog is humping your leg to --

DOC: This is a teachable moment.

KRIS: Are you going to lead with pet puppy termination? Or are you just going to be, like, hey, we provide all of this other stuff? Or are you just going to lead with the pet terminations?

CALLER: Well, I think like any business, you're going to go where the profit center is; right? Now, once again, I don't have a degree in business, but I am working on one from a prestigious online university, but I know when I run my business, and I'll just tell you right now we're up to $34.82. When I do run my business, I'm going to go where the profit is.

DOC: Rich, interesting concept. We wish you the best in your business.

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.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

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.