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

'The Country Would Be On Fire' If This Michigan Woman Was a Man

August 09, 2017
Staff

WRITER

A 38-year-old mother in Michigan has been sentenced to up to 15 years in prison after having sex with two boys aged 14 and 15, respectively.

Brooke Lajiness, a mother of two from Chelsea, Michigan, was convicted on multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct, Michigan Live reported. Assistant Washtenaw County Prosecutor John Vella made the case that Lajiness was “clearly a predator,” saying that she sent the boys naked pictures of herself on Snapchat to lure them into sexual acts.

Glenn, Pat and Stu discussed the horrifying story on radio Wednesday.

“She said at her sentencing, ‘This has been the biggest regret of my life.’ You think?” Glenn asked rhetorically.

“You made a conscious effort on several occasions to make arrangements to meet my son,” the mother of the then 14-year-old victim wrote in a statement, “sneak out of your house, start your car, leave your husband and children at home and drive to my son’s father’s house, back into the driveway between midnight and 4 a.m., wait for my son to run the driveway, commit a crime and leave.”

Lajiness pleaded guilty in June to several counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct as well as counts of providing obscenity to children and accosting a child for immoral purposes.

"If this was a guy, if this was a guy that was doing this to, you know, 15-year-old women --- the country would be on fire," Glenn said.

GLENN: On Monday, a married mother of two in Michigan, who had sex with two boys, one 14 and one 15, he -- they -- they were lured into sex with her. She sent naked pictures on Snapchat. She's 38 years old. She was sending the boys pictures of herself in a bathtub and performing sex acts. She would go to the boys' house and drive up into their parking lot after 1:00 a.m., between 1:00 and 4:00. And the boys would sneak out, and they would have sex with this 38-year-old woman in the car.

Michigan State Police said they started conversing and exchanging nude photographs while they were still in middle school.

Thirty-eight years old. She said at her sentencing, "This has been the biggest regret of my life." You think?

(chuckling)

"My family means everything to me, and I've caused them a great deal of pain for these regretful choices that I have made."

PAT: Oh, clearly her family means everything to her.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: That went without saying, didn't it?

(laughter)

GLENN: Pat's having a really hard time with this.

(laughter)

PAT: It's pretty clear, man, her husband, and her children were uppermost in her mind.

(chuckling)

STU: Well, I think it's true. She was trying to expand the family.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: She loved the family so much, she was doing the act that expands it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: The biggest mistake of her life was getting caught.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Hey, who doesn't -- who doesn't, as a son, like to have the most popular mom in school? You know, you like hearing that your mom is cool. She's the -- oh, your mom is great. I wish I had a mom like that. You define maybe having a mom like that in a different way than perhaps she is defining that.

PAT: Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

GLENN: So the mother of one of the victims said, "You made a conscious effort on several occasions to make arrangements to meet my son, sneak out of your house, start your car, leave your husband and children at your home, and drive to my son's father's house, back in the driveway between midnight and 4:00 a.m., and wait for my son to run into the driveway, commit a crime and leave. Did you know this was wrong? Did you ever worry that you were doing harm to my son?"

Mom said, "The guys now at school pick at him. They say it's cool that he had sex with a mom. My son shared with me that the guys at school have no idea what he's going through."

STU: They pick on him by saying it was cool?

GLENN: She said the guys at school now pick on him, and others say that it's cool. So he's trapped in this world of a 38 -- if we -- if this was a guy, if this was a guy that was doing this to, you know, 15-year-old women --

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: -- the country would be on fire.

PAT: Sure. Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: On fire.

STU: Definitely a double standard on this one.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: There's no doubt.

GLENN: I mean, and I don't know. Is that right? I don't know.

GLENN: Is that right? No.

STU: Yeah, I think maybe -- maybe it is. Maybe it is.

(chuckling)

PAT: Maybe it is.

JEFFY: Stu, I'm with you. You have no idea. You may want to rethink your thinking because I'm with you.

PAT: I think maybe it is.

STU: Oh, wow. I think maybe it is.

PAT: We know you're with him, Jeffy.

GLENN: Yeah, wait a minute.

PAT: That's another thing that goes without saying.

GLENN: You're leaning towards the Jeffy side. You must know that you're wrong here.

STU: Right. This is not a good step in my life. I'm obviously developing the wrong way.

PAT: It's really not. But we do have that bias, don't we? Because what you're thinking that, you know, the kids -- that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them, right? That's your thinking. Now, if those were girls, you would not be thinking that.

STU: Not think that way at all. It is sexism. But it is --

GLENN: Can I tell you something --

PAT: It is. And it's wrong.

GLENN: -- look at how hard we work to keep our children moral, to keep them on the right track, to try our best to help them through -- and then when they turn 18, you know, their life is their life. And they're going to make their mistakes and make their choices. And whatever. But to protect them as long as we possibly can.

You know, you send your kids to school and you know they're going to fall in with the wrong crowd. Or they could fall in with the wrong crowd. They could be doing things that -- your parents never knew what you were doing. Why do you think it was different with you? But you try.

To have a 38-year-old adult come and prey on your children is beyond understanding.

STU: Yeah. And this is an extreme case as to what age this went on. It was very early. Usually these things are typically like high school situations. And they're still wrong, obviously. I think there's an issue where, you know -- for example, saw this stat yesterday. The world record 100-meter from a female is slower than the best time for a high school boy in the last year. So the world -- all-time world record for a female is slower than the best time -- in high school this year for guys.

And so there's a physical level here of -- of victim versus predator, where a male, who is stronger -- and I know these things don't happen. We're not allowed to say these things anymore. But there's differences. Yeah, don't hire me at Google. There are differences between men and women. And I think when you see a man go after a younger woman in high school, you think predator to victim. Where the male in this particular case, likely was much stronger than the woman. It doesn't feel as physically -- it's manipulative mentally, and it's a physical act, but it's not a forceful act, so we categorize it differently. That's obviously not right because both acts are completely --

GLENN: It's not a forceful act. Look at the girls that are with R. Kelly right now.

STU: This is a -- yeah, bizarre story. Did we talk about that at all?

GLENN: Okay?

I don't know if we have. So with R. Kelly. And they're staying -- where is this? Atlanta? And they're -- I mean, have you seen the interviews? They're supposedly totally free to leave.

JEFFY: Getting help with their career.

GLENN: Uh-huh, yeah, right. So R. has all of these women that have really, truly been brainwashed. I mean, if you watch the interviews with these girls, they have absolutely -- I mean, are you free to leave here?

Well, I don't feel comfortable talking about that now.

Okay. Are you free to talk about R. and, you know, maybe the things that you guys are doing?

No, I'm not. You know, I just love him. I just love him.

I mean, it's creepy stuff.

STU: And R. is obviously not his first name.

GLENN: That's what I like to call him. His friends call him R. His friends call him R.

PAT: And you're friends with this dirtbag?

STU: Really? I don't think so.

(chuckling)

PAT: He's been in some really questionable situations for a long time.

(laughter)

STU: This is --

PAT: I mean, at least 20 years, right?

GLENN: This is the most bizarre surreal conversation I have had.

PAT: So weird. Well, he's a dirtbag from way back.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And continues to get away with it.

GLENN: Hang on. These girls are all of age. They're all of age.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: So who are you to say, who are you to judge?

PAT: That he started a sex cult? Uh, I'm Pat.

(laughter)

STU: But, I mean, that is a different story. It is interesting in that in 2002, he had the underaged girl sex tape, which is -- that's -- you're in criminal area here. If you have underage girls and you're living with a bunch of them, there's nothing criminal about that, unless you decide to marry them. Because that law -- that sort of love is not allowed. We all know all love is equal and all love is allowed, but not that sort of love.

PAT: Right.

STU: If you have married multiple people, then that is not allowed. However, R. Kelly living with them and having sex with all of them is completely allowed. I want to sure we understand, it's the level of commitment that is illegal. That's the problem here.

PAT: It's a strange, strange line. If you're more committed, you can't. That's not legal. Sorry.

STU: If you're super-duper into it and you actually sign legal documents, wow, that's terrible. But if you're just doing it on the side and you can -- you know, whenever you feel like, jump in and out of every relationship, totally fine. I want to make sure we all understand love is equal, except the loves that aren't equal.

(chuckling)

PAT: Bizarre.

STU: I always find that argument to be fascinating. I'm sorry.

GLENN: No, I remember being told, you know, that that idea of slippery slope would never happen. It's only a matter of time. And the only reason it hasn't happened is because --

PAT: They don't have as good a PR firm.

GLENN: They don't have a PR firm. That's it. If polygamists had a PR firm and they were -- and they were on the left, absolutely they would be arguing for it.

PAT: Yeah. If it wasn't tied to religion, they'd probably already be -- it would be legal now.

GLENN: Yeah. And may I say, crazy religion.

PAT: Yes. You may say that.

GLENN: Okay. Good. I just want to make sure -- I'm not sure what's crazy anymore. I'm not -- I'm not sure where anybody stands anymore.

STU: They don't stand anywhere. That's kind of the problem.

PAT: Yeah.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.