Signs of Hope: A Millennial Makes Glenn's Day

Ready for a spark of hope? Glenn spoke with Carolyn on radio today, an 18-year-old millennial who called from Pennsylvania to talk about her upbringing, interests and plans for the future. Aside from her impressive and exemplary manners, Carolyn calmly and confidently articulated her ideas with thoughtfulness and intelligence.

Speaking about her father, Carolyn had this to say:

"He really is my role model because he always lived a life, he always does live a life of integrity. You know, it's . . . sort of like in Ayn Rand's book Fountainhead, you know, he'll take whatever job necessary as long as he keeps his integrity," she said.

Carolyn also revealed that she began listening to Glenn in the fourth grade.

"She's killing me," Glenn replied.

Having just graduated from high school, Carolyn will attend Hillsdale College in the fall to study politics and history.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: America, I want to introduce you to Carolyn, as we meet for the very first time, calling from Pennsylvania.

Hello, Carolyn.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. Beck.

GLENN: How are you? You can call me Glenn. You're 19 years old?

CALLER: I'm actually 18, sir. I just graduated.

GLENN: Wow, 18. You are so polite. You were homeschooled?

CALLER: Actually no. No, sir. I went to Catholic school.

GLENN: Okay. You were -- you grew up in a military family?

CALLER: No, sir. I grew up --

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. You grew -- I'm just guessing -- you grew up in the South?

CALLER: No, sir. Western PA.

STU: You're doing a good job of cold reading here.

GLENN: I've gone through everything that usually is tied directly to, yes, sir, no, sir. Where did you pick that up? It's refreshing and wonderful.

CALLER: I mean, I grew up with a father who was a small business owner, who taught his sons and daughters from a small age to go in for a strong handshake, look someone in the eye, and say, yes, sir, no, sir.

GLENN: I love your dad.

(chuckling)

CALLER: He's been a very big fan of your show.

GLENN: What does he do? What's his business?

CALLER: Well, for most of my life, my father owned furniture store companies. Though he would sell furniture to people in the local area. But after the crash in '08, you know, things got rough. And he tried and tried again to start something up. But he bit his tongue and just took a kind of different path in life.

GLENN: And what happened? He's selling drugs now?

CALLER: No. He -- he works for the state. He works for -- well, we call it PennDOT. He works for the state as a foreman.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That must be killing him. That must be killing him.

CALLER: Yes, sir. He's part of a union. And I now kind of see it as a blessing because I now understand, you know, not just the side of the entrepreneur, but the side of the union man. And it's very humbling.

GLENN: Carolyn, I want you to close your eyes right now and put your hand on the radio, and we're going to heal your father from his deep scars. My gosh, I can't imagine what it would be like to join a union after a lifetime of working for yourself. To join a union and then -- and then PennDOT. I used to live in Pennsylvania, so I know.

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. He really is my role model because he -- he always lived a life -- he always does live a life of integrity. You know, it's not -- sort of like in Ayn Rand's book, Fountainhead, you know, he'll take whatever job necessary as long as he keeps his integrity.

GLENN: Wow, I could talk to you all day. You make me feel good.

So, Carolyn, how can we help you?

CALLER: You posed a question yesterday of how your life has changed since 2006. But I can kind of trace it back a little bit further. I first started talking about politics when I was in kindergarten. I came home -- I came home crying on the bus in kindergarten because in 2004, no one wanted to discuss the Bush versus Gore reelection with me, and I was very, very much so at politics even at that young age. And I actually started watching your show in about fourth grade.

In fourth grade, I had received --

GLENN: She's killing me.

CALLER: Yeah. I had received a B in I think it was my reading class, and so I wasn't allowed to watch TV for the rest of the school year. So every night, my dad would let me sneak in and watch Bill O'Reilly's show, which really got me started. And after that, I would come home after school every day and sit and watch your show at 5 o'clock exactly.

GLENN: Wow. Thank you so much. So that has -- that has damaged you and oppressed you.

CALLER: No. No, sir.

GLENN: Or?

CALLER: It's definitely taught me the importance of principles. You know, I know today in the political climate we live in, especially as a young student, it's hard to -- to be able to see right versus left because it seems as though politics infiltrates not just culture, but the classroom. And what I've learned over time is that, yes, people who are liberals can be friends with conservatives.

The key is that you stand on principles. And not rhetoric. I know after the very -- very scary shooting last week of -- at Capitol Hill, I texted a lot of my -- my more liberal friends, you know, who supported Bernie Sanders, voted for Clinton. And I just said, "Hey, I'm someone who stands on the principle of individuality. And I know that just because one Bernie Sanders supporter did such a terrible act, that does not make all Bernie Sanders supporters terrible people." And I just wanted to remind them that. And that I loved them.

GLENN: And what was their response?

CALLER: A lot of them were just so grateful that I gave -- that I showed love. And they said, Carolyn, you've taught me that not all Trump supporters are KKK members. Or not all Trump supporters are Nazis. Because if you don't show love and reach out during those moments, it would be easy to let the status quo persist. And I just wanted to be able to show, you know, just little acts of live. And it does change people's minds rather quickly when you do that.

GLENN: You know, it's funny, I was having dinner last night with some Silicon Valley and some Hollywood lefties. And as we were -- we were talking, a couple of them sounded very much like people that -- one person in particular that I spoke to yesterday to, on the radio, a woman called, and she was very animated. And felt that --

CALLER: Sir.

GLENN: I was, you know, betraying the cause by -- by saying that we have to be -- we have to change our language and we have to be very aware of how we're talking. Because we can make an impact for the good as opposed to just building up more walls.

And -- and most of the people that were at dinner with me last night, they felt the same way. And they were looking for a way to start talking to people. And not necessarily about politics. Just talking to people. And one of the guys said something along the lines of, you know, we need to fix things politically. We need the government to -- to fix all of these things. And, you know, the language is not going to break through.

And I have found -- I mean, I -- I am sitting with you guys. Because I changed my language. And I haven't changed a thing in my policy and my principles. But we're talking. So how can you not say that it doesn't work? It does.

CALLER: I -- I -- I whole-heartedly agree with you, sir. I think it's very interesting that you're discussing, you know, the idea of care versus harm, liberty and oppression. Because last summer I was actually sitting in a lecture where we were discussing, you know, political campaigning and the such. And the speaker put up on the screen this chart about how liberals use certain words and they react to certain words versus conservatives. And it was the same kind of idea of liberty, care, harm, justice.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: And I just sat there, and I thought, you know, that's it. That's the secret.

And so ever since then, I've been able to engage some of my liberal friends on things such as Planned Parenthood and being pro-life and really some hot button topics. But if you go in and speak the language and you go in with genuine love and intellectual curiosity, which most of my liberal friends are curious, they want to know what a conservative believes. Why we believe what we believe. They don't just want to label everyone. They do want to know. And if you go in from that approach, they are much more open and much more understanding. They may not change their minds, but they want to understand, the same way we should want to understand.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. And it's really amazing -- and I have example after example after example of this -- people don't know how to be able to have that dialogue. But they want that dialogue. And if you will model it, they will fall into it.

And it's -- you know, the -- one of the -- one of the guys that was there last night said, you know, I read a book. And he said, "It totally changed my mind. Totally changed my mind."

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: And he said, "It is the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt."

CALLER: Hmm.

GLENN: Which is the book that really takes the care and harm and liberty and oppression and is teaching me -- has totally changed the way I view things. And you can. I spoke at a table with 20 Silicon Valley liberals last night. One Libertarian.

And we spoke about abortion. And I talked about how they see oppression of women, and they all shook their heads. And I said, "We see sanctity." And I could feel their eyes roll up. And I said, and that's a word that you guys don't speak. So let's just talk about harm to women. And we had this conversation.

And it was -- I don't know if anybody changed their mind or anything, but at least it didn't devolve into where it usually devolves.

I mean, one of the guys who was with me, he sat back from the table, and he said -- I said, "What did you notice about things?" And he said, "I was watching people and listening." And he said, "As you were speaking, I heard so many people say, huh. Wow."

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's the beginning of it. Just opening people's minds to, that's not what I thought at all.

CALLER: Yeah. Exactly. And I think as soon as -- as soon as that spark kind of goes off in someone's mind and the wheels start to turn -- it's not that you should go in with the approach of you want to change their mind, but you just want to understand and they want to understand, that's when real change happens.

GLENN: Yeah. The problems that I have with talking people is when they say, "How do you win?" Or they're trying to win the argument.

There's no -- Martin Luther King said -- and he is absolutely right. Winning assumes that there's going to be a loser. And you want everyone walking from the table feeling that they've -- that they've won, that they've reconciled with somebody else.

CALLER: Exactly.

GLENN: Because we're going to have to -- if you play this out in your head -- if the Democrats get absolutely everything that they want, and let's say they rule for the next 20 years and they get this socialist utopia. Well, there are going to be people like me and maybe you that -- no. Never. I'm not going there. I won't buy into it. I'm not going to speak that language. I'm not -- I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity because it's easier. I will stand for what I believe is the truth.

So what do they do with that ten to 30 percent of that population that doesn't comply? Well, usually, it's round them up and kill them or put them in a training camp or whatever.

That's what happens. And the same would happen if you are a big government person on the right. What are you going to do with the people that disagree with you that will never change their mind? You have to reconcile with them and live in peace. And that has to be done before we talk about any policies. We have to start trusting each other.

Carolyn, quickly, what do you want to do for a living?

CALLER: I've not thought that far. I will be attending Hillsdale College in the fall, where I'll be studying politics and history.

GLENN: Good choice.

CALLER: And I know I -- I joke with my mother, I was adopted from South Korea -- so I can't run for president. But I love to joke with my parents that I would like to find a way to be First Lady.

GLENN: Oh, that's great.

CALLER: The same way Jackie Kennedy went in and sort of restored the White House with interior design. I would say I would like to restore it with making it the people's house again. Allowing -- allowing people from all over the country to come in and, you know, have lunch with the president or the First Lady and just spend hours talking and really knowing what they want to hear.

GLENN: Carolyn, I would love to spend more time with you. I would like to have our producers grab your phone number. I would like to have you on at least once a year to see that you have held the course all the way through school. And if you're ever looking for an internship, I would love to have you intern directly with me. So I want to put you on hold. We'll get the phone numbers. Thank you so much. And say hello to your father and your mother.

CALLER: Thank you, sir.

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.

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.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.