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

One of Glenn's Favorite Texans Exposes Blatant Hypocrisy of Judge's Voter ID Ruling

August 27, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Texas was blocked from enforcing the latest version of its voter ID law by a federal judge Wednesday.

In 2011, Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state’s voter ID law, which requires voters to have one of seven possible forms of ID, was discriminatory. The Texas state legislature modified the law to allow potential voters to bypass the photo ID by signing an affidavit and showing a bank statement, a utility bill or other forms of identification; however, Judge Ramos still ruled this week that the law “imposes burdens disproportionately” on black and Latino voters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined radio on Friday to talk about the simple goal behind the Texas voter ID law and the history of the state’s years-long court battle to be able to enforce it.

“The goal was to prevent fraud in elections,” Paxton said, explaining the types of ID that can be used and how Texas lawmakers have tried to work with voters who struggle with this issue. “This idea of discrimination is false,” he said. “There’s no evidence of it.”

Glenn had one important question: “So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?”

Essentially every federal courtroom does require photo ID for entry, Paxton confirmed. “Apparently, that’s not discriminatory,” he said.

GLENN: One of my -- one of my favorite Texans is our Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He has been the attorney general here in Texas since 2015. He won the election as the state's top law enforcement guy. And he is a champion of the Tea Party movement. Conservative principles.

I wanted him on today because Texas is under attack. The new voter ID bill has been overturned in the Texas Supreme Court. I think it was Supreme Court, was it not, Ken? Was it the Supreme Court?

KEN: No, this was a Corpus Christi district judge appointed by President Obama.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what happened. Tell me what people are fighting, what you're fighting for, for the state of Texas, and what happened?

KEN: So let me give you a little background: This was passed in 2011. I was in the legislature, actually in the Texas house when we passed it.

The goal was to prevent fraud in elections. I know that's a controversial topic, to prevent fraud. But that's what we were trying to do.

And so we started requiring photo ID. We were allowed seven different photo IDs that people could use. If you couldn't get one or you couldn't afford one, we will give you one free. You can use all kinds of IDs, including driver's license, military IDs, concealed handgun. And then we have Texas IDs, you can use.

And so we've been using that successfully. There have been no cases that we know of where there's been discrimination in the elections. But despite that, this judge found our law discriminatory. And so that happened actually when Abbott was attorney general. So we took that up to the Fifth Circuit. We drew a fairly liberal panel. We lost. And we actually asked the whole court to hear it.

We ended up losing, 9-6. But the court gave us a roadmap to fixing it. They said, if you'll put an affidavit in there, allow people to come in and basically swear that they -- they couldn't get a photo ID and that they are the person they say they are, then your photo ID laws are good. So we did that. The legislature passed it. The governor signed it. And, unfortunately, this judge still said it's discriminatory.

GLENN: So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?

KEN: It is true. It's also true that the fifth circuit does as well. So almost every federal courtroom you go into, you have to show federal ID. Apparently, that's not discriminatory.

GLENN: Yeah. Did -- have you asked any of them? I mean, I'd love to hear the answer to that one. How is it not discriminatory?

KEN: Yeah. I guess they know. I mean, this isn't about discrimination. This is about fraud. And everybody knows that is the issue. And if you don't have photo ID, it allows more people to vote that shouldn't be voting. And that's the battle. That's the true battle. This idea of discrimination is false. Because there's no evidence of it. There was no evidence in the trial record of any discrimination. The Justice Department under Obama came to Texas looking -- you know, advertising, please, give us stories. Well, they couldn't find them.

GLENN: So who has standing in this case? Why does anybody have standing? If there's nobody who has an actual episode, who has standing?

KEN: That's a very good question. And yet, here we are. With our photo ID laws struck down. So this is something we are going to appeal. We believe the Fifth Circuit will uphold it, given what they already told us, and given the fact that we had the legislature change the law to satisfy them. And, look, I didn't want to change the law. But it was a relatively minor change. And it was still leave us with a really solid photo ID law and allow us to prevent fraud. But, again, it will have to go back up to fifth circuit to hopefully get the right result.

GLENN: Ken, I don't think -- I mean, I think -- I wasn't really actually a -- that was an honest question. Who has standing? Who is funding this? Who is suing the state? How is this being brought to the front of the court every time?

KEN: It's just private plaintiffs who sue and claim discrimination. It's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- and, again, you ask a great question. Because if there is no actual harm, how can this be struck down? And the other thing you need to think about -- I mean, this is a duly enacted law. The Texas legislature. I mean, this had to go through all kinds of voting and people debating. And we -- we have a federal judge that just steps in and says, sorry, you can't do that. I'm taking over your legislature, basically.

GLENN: So, Ken, where are we headed?

KEN: Well, I still think we're going to be successful. Because I think the Fifth Circuit gave us clear guidelines on the part that they were concerned about. And we addressed that. And if -- if that didn't do it, then photo ID can't exist, for some reason.

GLENN: So Bill and I -- Bill O'Reilly and I were just having a conversation about what's happening with the statues around the country. And we need to have a -- an actual conversation. There -- you know, if you were in the hierarchy of the Confederacy, you knew exactly what was going on. But just like we didn't have a problem with the Germans. We had a problem with the Nazis. We didn't -- we didn't go and try to erase all Germans. We did try to take the Nazis out. And, you know, Germany went so far as to saying, you can't have any German symbols. No statues of any of these guys. No matter where they were, you're a Nazi. You're a Nazi. You're out.

The Confederacy, if you read the Confederate constitution was not about state rights. It was about slavery. Period.

Those statues like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was the -- you know, a great general. Yeah, he also started the Klan. Those things need to be talked about. And we need to find the right way to deal with our history.

But we are now seeing violence and people going like it's Saddam Hussein and putting nooses around necks and pulling them down. What is -- what is the state of Texas thinking about all of this?

KEN: So, you know, we haven't had a lot of controversy about it. I know that UT took some down in the middle of the night. Took some statues down.

I always think -- I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head. I think discussion and debate about this is a good thing, rather than necessarily doing it in the middle of the night. A decision made by a few people. Because, again, this is our -- it is our history. Bad or good. And hiding it doesn't really -- I don't think is very effective. I think knowing about it, understanding it, and looking to the future and deciding, you know, what -- what was good about our history and what was bad about our history, I think that's really the only way we can learn. If we hide it and bury it, I don't know that that really accomplishes anything.

GLENN: No. It festers. It festers. As a Texas attorney general, can you explain to those who might be listening, who think that, you know, free speech is great, up until a point. That we have to defend the people's right to have abhorrent points of view. It doesn't mean that they can act on all of those things. But they have a right to say things that are despicable in our -- in our thought.

In fact, those are the only kinds of -- that's the only kind of speech that ever needs protecting.

KEN: No, I totally -- you've got it. The foundation of our country was built on the First Amendment. Both religious freedom and free speech -- free political speech. And, you know, if we start censoring certain people, then the question is, where does it stop?

You know, you can't go into a movie theater and yell fire and create chaos and -- and harm to people. But beyond that, I mean, we -- we fought -- we had people die to protect people's right to say really bad, horrible things. And that's really what's made our country great. People can believe whatever they want to believe and they can still live here.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, you just said you can't go into a movie theater and cry fire. But here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday. I want to get your opinion on this.

NANCY: -- in denying that organization, their free speech rights. Because the Constitution does not say that a person can shout -- yell "wolf" in a crowded theater.

GLENN: So we know you can't cry fire, but can you cry wolf in a crowded movie theater?

KEN: Well, I might argue you could. Because I don't think people really believe there's a wolf.

PAT: Wolf!

GLENN: Yeah. I'm going to a movie tonight, and I'm going to have my wife tape it. And I invite everybody to go into their crowded movie theater tonight and just yell wolf and see what happens. Because I don't think anybody is going to beat it to the door.

KEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Maybe it's just me.

Last question, how is your wife? Because I like your wife much more than I like you.

KEN: Well, that is a comment -- I hear that commonly.

GLENN: I know.

KEN: She's doing great. She's actually considering a run for Texas Senate in Collin and Dallas County.

GLENN: Really? When is she coming to the studio? And she has to bring her musical instrument. I think she plays guitar, right?

KEN: Yes. She plays guitar and the piano. But, yeah, she'll be happy to come.

GLENN: No, I'd be happy to have her.

KEN: She probably -- she hasn't announced. But she may do that next week. So may be a good time to talk to her.

GLENN: Yeah. That would be great. That would be great. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Ken, thanks so much. Thanks for your hard work, and thanks for standing up for what is right. We know you have a tough job. God bless.

KEN: Hey. Thank you for having me on. Have a great day.

GLENN: You bet.

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.