Subversion of a President Is Not Exposing Government Overreach

June 07, 2017

WRITER

Reality Winner is a name you're going to hear quite often over the next few months, if not years. This is the woman charged with taking top secret documents and giving them to the media. She's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, but the real comparison is to Hillary Clinton.

"She's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden did or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong, so he exposed it to the world," Mike Broomhead said Wednesday, filling in for Glenn.

The reality is that Reality subverted the president of the United States --- and politics should have nothing to do with this story going forward. Good luck with that.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

MIKE: All right. It is the Glenn Beck Program. We're talking about Reality Winner. That is her name. It's a name you're going to be hearing quite often, I'm sure, over the next month, probably year or so, as this is the woman that has been charged as the White House leaker. Someone that has been charged with taking top secret documents. Removing them from the White House and giving them to the media.

Now, she's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, when she should be compared to Hillary Clinton. And what I mean by that is, Hillary wasn't trying to subvert anyone. But what she did was so negligent, and it was the same act. It's just that Hillary did it digitally. I wish that point could be -- if that point could have been made to the American people during the election better, it would have been much worse for her. There is no difference -- and I guess it's a generational thing. You know, I'm 50 years old. So for me, a hard piece of paper being taken out of a room where it's not supposed to be removed from, you can see the crime in that. Sending an email over an unsecured server versus a secured server, for someone that's 50 years old, I don't know what that means. I know that makes me sound old. But it doesn't resonate with me. With young people who have never lived without tablets or smartphones or devices where they do business online, where there's paperless everything, you realize, A, there's not much privacy on those devices. You're giving away your privacy. You're being watched by everyone. I mean, just try to buy something online. Go to Amazon one day and look for a product. And the next day, when you open your Facebook page, the advertisement for that product shows up magically on your Facebook page.

I mean, obviously they're watching what you're doing. But when it comes to a crime like this, somebody explain to me the difference. I would love to have an expert try to explain that way.

That what Hillary Clinton did was no different than what this girl did, except she didn't give it to the press. She was emailing it to other people on unsecured servers. She took documents that were classified and put them in an unclassified place. That's illegal. That's where the comparison should lie with this Reality Winner. But more importantly, where she's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong thing. So he exposed it to the world.

What she is doing is subverting a specific person. She is working the White House, and she is subverting the president of the United States. If you go to her Twitter account, some of the things she's tweeted out have been horrible things about people. And so there were -- there were a few tweets. So on Glenn Beck's -- on his Twitter page -- if you go to Glenn Beck -- if you follow Glenn, @GlennBeck, or you go to GlennBeck.com, the poll asks, which of the tweets was her most troubling?

The one in the lead right now is being white is terrorism. Because she did tweet that out. She tweeted out @KanyeWest, that he should make a T-shirt that being white is terrorism.

The one that's in last place is calling the president foul names. Because she did. She called him all kinds of stuff. The tangerine-in-chief and stuff like that. The other two -- the other tied close to first place was the one I thought was the worst, was when the Iranians were tweeting out about the Americans and weapons, she tweeted back to the Iranians that if the president, with a derogatory term, starts a war or declares war -- which she must not know her Constitution because the president can't do that, but if the president declares war, there are people in America, like her, that will stand with the Iranians. How does that woman get and maintain a security clearance? That's the one I chose as the most egregious. And then there's also one in there about the attorney general being a confederate, which, again, is just name-calling nonsense. But if you want to vote on that. You can go to GlennBeck.com. You can find the story there. Or you can go to Glenn Beck. And it's pretty easy. Then you can see the vote total and how it's gone and up what the percentages are.

To be honest with you, this girl deserves to be punished. She is subverting the American government. And it's funny how people left and right are asking such silly questions. I have a close friend, I think I mentioned yesterday on the show, my friend who I grew up with, he's like a brother to me, but he's so far left of me that it's impossible to have conversations sometimes. And he gave the caveat that if she did something wrong, she should be punished. But -- then there was the big "but," was, but why are people more concerned about what she did than the information that she put out there? And I laughed out loud by myself at that.

Are you kidding?

What was the mantra when the evidence was out there by the Russians about Hillary Clinton and her time as Secretary of State? And this great firewall between her office as Secretary of State and the foundation in which she started, where she said there would be no interaction. And then we found out that there was not only interaction, there was collusion. There were people that couldn't get a meeting -- and that wasn't a Saudi prince. But it was a government official, I think, for the Middle East, who couldn't get a meeting through proper channels with the Secretary of State. So they reached to Huma Abedin, through the foundation, who said, this guy is a big donor to the foundation, trying to get a meeting with the Secretary. Can't do it through the other channels. Can you help? Huma Abedin replies, we've sent some dates, let us know which one works.

The most egregious was the Haiti relief. And there's the documents that show that if you were friends of Bill Clinton or you were a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, you were directed to people in the State Department that would get you expedited contracts or, you know, at least get your applications in to get the relief contracts to do the work that would be paid for by our State Department, by our government. And it was said in those emails, if they aren't either, A, a big donor or, B, a friend of Bill, they're to be directed to a website to submit an application.

All of that stuff was out there. Was anybody on the left saying, we need to worry about the information and not worry so much -- so let's worry about the information in both cases. What is it that Reality Winner put out there? Reality Winner released a document that said -- an NSA document saying that the Russians tried to hack into the elections in a few places. They sent out phishing emails, trying to get election officials to give them information, and they directly tried to hack into some of the voting poll places -- or, polling software. And there's no evidence that they were successful on any level.

So the uproar was, of course, oh, my gosh, look what's going on. And I said two thing. Number one, who was president when that happened? It wasn't Donald Trump. He was running for president then. Why would the Russians help Trump?

But more importantly, if you're going to blame the White House for this, why would President Obama help Donald Trump? Because that's what happened here. It was under his administration that these things were going on. So she's releasing documents that this happened. That they tried to get in.

So okay. Let's look at the reality of that. Let's say that the smoking gun is that the Russians tried to hack into the American election system. They were unsuccessful. What is the big -- what's the big story there to be told?

So you compare that with the okay, now let's pay attention to the evidence against Hillary Clinton, where she had a server. Don't we all? I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I think everybody keeps a private server for their email corporation and their business in their bathroom, right? We all do that. We all set up a private server at our house and put it in the bathroom. And then when we become -- when we get investigated, our people pick and choose which emails are going to be turned over, when the law says you turn them all over. And she said, the other ones were just recipes and yoga stuff. Okay.

First of all, no way you do yoga and no way you cook. So let's just dispense with that right away. And the fact of the matter is all of those emails should have been turned over. If you taint the water by mixing your personal emails with your business emails, they all get turned over. It didn't happen. Then she sanitizes -- she has someone sanitize and completely dismantle that server that took months and months and months and months to get information off of. And yet, nobody wants to scream about that.

Reality Winner stole documents and gave them to the press -- to the press to subvert the American president. Whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump, if you respect the system, how is this not a huge crime? It is. It is absolutely a huge crime.

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.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep