This Liberal Comedian Is Trying to Unite the Country in Her New Show

November 13, 2017

WRITER

Comedian Sarah Silverman hasn’t held back when it comes to her dislike for President Donald Trump. But with her new show on Hulu, “I Love You, America,” Silverman hopes to reach out to Americans who voted for Trump as well as the rest of the country.

“When we’re divided, we’re easily controlled,” she said on the show. “So the challenge for us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other just as best we can.”

Comedian Sarah Silverman learns what happens when you lie about the ‘wage gap’

On today’s show, Glenn commended Silverman’s goal of trying to bring people together instead of further dividing them. But he added a caveat: You can only build bridges with the opposite team after you’ve held your own side accountable.

“I agree with her; however, it doesn’t work if you’re only going to single out the other side,” Glenn said. “You have to single out your side.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So comedian Sarah Silverman, who is an outspoken opponent of I think everything, at least everything that is conservative, says that she -- she considered stockpiling food and weapons last November because of Donald Trump.

Now, listen to this.

SARAH: When it was finally official and Trump had won, I felt something I had never felt before, which was this overwhelming survival-based fear. You know, I had the sudden urge to buy a gun and stockpile water and weapons and canned guns. And in an instant, I became like a liberal doomsday prepper. And for the first time, I felt an actual kinship to the far right militia person who, you know, thought Obama would end the world. But I realized, it's that. It's that feeling of fear that makes us the same. You know, we are, all of us, both paralyzed and motivated by fear. We fear the unknown.

And that's why Trump's campaign was so effective. He took our fears and our rage, and he gave us a place to put it all. And that place was each other.

And when we're divided, we're easily controlled, right? So the challenge for all of us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other, just as best we can.

GLENN: Okay. So I think this is a really good thing. It's a good first step. But will she go as far and say, "And so I've reflected on what perhaps we have done on our side?"

And, you know, placing the fear of that's just the way white people will do you. Did she reflect on that?

Because I agree with her. However, it doesn't work if you're only going to single out the other side. You have to single out your side.

STU: Yeah. Because, I mean, you've said things similar to what she's saying there.

GLENN: Yes. I've said -- right after the election, I said, look, we have an opportunity because they, for the first time, feel as though the entire country and our civilization could slide off the cliff, where they thought that was insane before. They now know how fragile things are, and they are afraid of the same thing you are afraid of, for the opposite reason.

STU: And my instinct hearing that, knowing Sarah Silverman and what she said over the past several years is to dismiss it. Because, well, are you even -- it's so inconsistent to where she has been and the things she has said publicly about politics recently.

But, I mean, A, I should resist that instinct, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If she's changed -- if she's decided she did things wrong in the past, great. But you're right, you have to take that additional step. People dismissed you when you said things like that.

GLENN: But I took the initial step.

STU: You took the initial step to say, look, I've done things that I don't like, in the middle of this. You take responsibility for whatever you can find that you feel that you may have done wrong.

GLENN: Yeah. And you have to do that. You have to do that before you do the other side.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You have to say, look, I'm going to take on my own side, I want to take on me, before I even take on my own side. I will take on me. What am I responsible for? How did I miss it? What did I do?

And, quite honestly, I think be generous on the give yourself an extra helping of, you know, I made mistakes.

STU: Yeah. Like think of the border thing for a minute. If the left came to you and they said -- they're always saying, we need to let these people who are illegals become legals. Become citizens. You have to give them passes on their illegal activity from before.

And if they came to you, not and just said it, but actually secured the border and actually went through and there were no new illegal immigrants coming in and they were arresting the ones that tried. And they were very -- like they actually took steps on their own --

GLENN: I would be for it. I would be for it.

STU: I don't know that I would be for it, but you would at least consider it, right?

GLENN: I would be willing to say, okay. We're not going to call more problems by doing this. Because we have -- and I would need something physical. Because I wouldn't believe that the next guy is coming in and he's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You build a wall -- the only reason why I want a wall is because I don't believe that the presidents will be consistent from one to the next. And so if you actually secured our nation and you actually took it seriously, then I would -- I would seriously consider that.

STU: Yeah. And if they said --

GLENN: But not until.

STU: -- look, this is our fault. We were the ones that were really light on border security. That's why these people are. We realize now it is a problem. But as everyone will admit, there are people here that seemingly have lasted multiple decades and haven't been committing additional crimes. Maybe they're okay. Let's talk about those people.

GLENN: Yep. I would be there.

STU: Especially if you take responsibility for the problem. It was our fault, because we didn't allow you to have border security because we kept saying you were racists.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If they came to you with that sort of pitch, at least you would consider it.

GLENN: Yes. Absolutely. And I think most Americans would.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's just, it requires both sides to own it. And none of them are going to own it.

So here's a story: Late June, President Trump hosted a group of Native American tribal leaders at the White House and urged them to, quote, just do it. And extract whatever they want from the land they control.

The exchange turned out to be an unusual vivid window into almost kingly power that Donald Trump sees himself as holding, which he has begun describing with increasing bluntness.

This scene was recounted by a source in the room and confirmed by another at the White House. The White House has not disputed this story. The chiefs explained to Trump that there was regulatory barriers preventing from getting at their own energy. Trump said, but it's me. The government is different now. Obama is done. And we're doing things differently here.

There was a pause in the room. And the tribal leaders looked at each other.

Chief, chief, Trump continued, addressing one of the tribal leaders. What are they going to do? Once you get it out of the ground, are they going to make you put it back in there? I mean, once it's out of the ground, it can't get back in there. You just got to do it. I'm telling you chief, you just got to do it.

The tribal leaders looked back at one of the White House officials in the room, perhaps somebody from the White House counsel's office could answer: Can we just do that?

The official equivocated, saying the administration is making progress and has a plan to roll back various regulations.

Trump interjected again: Guys, I feel like you're not hearing me right now. We've got to just do it. I feel like we have no other choice. Countries are doing it. China is not asking questions about all this stuff. They're just doing it. Guys, just do it.

Okay. So this is what the left fears. And this is what the right fears.

The right fears somebody who is going to say, just take these rights away. Just do it. I know we can't -- just do it. I'm here. It's different now.

No. There are laws. Now, the left is afraid of a president who will just tell the Indian chiefs or somebody else, just do it.

No. Where we're supposed to come together is not on the man or the party, but the principle. There is a law, the president is not a king, you don't just do it.

You don't pass it to find out what's inside it. You don't lie to the American people to sell stuff. And you don't just do it through executive order or just because you say so.

We're a nation of laws, not of men. And the idea that we have to arm ourselves against a -- an out-of-control government, because that's what she's saying.

Now all of a sudden I understand guns. Well, I could say back to Sarah, well, wait a minute, Sarah. Are you going to fight the tanks? Are you going to fight the missiles? Are you going to fight the drones? Because that's what they always say.

Yeah, if I have to. If it's a fascistic government, yes. If it's a totalitarian government, yes.

If it's a religiously -- a religious totalitarian government? Yes. If it's an atheist totalitarian government? Yes. If it's a constitutional government, based on this Constitution? No. No, I'm not.

Because I have nothing to fear from that government. But we are not that government. And we are not moving in the direction that strengthens that government. We are moving away from that government.

And this is where the left and the right should be able to come together. I don't want to regulate you. Don't you regulate me.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep