A President's Day conversation with Senator Mike Lee

February 17, 2020

Writer

With President Donald Trump dominating news cycle 24/7, many Americans are happy to forget politics and spend President's Day relaxing. It has become just another three-day weekend to go to the movies or take the family on a quick vacation. Not for Utah Senator Mike Lee. In a recent phone interview, Lee shared his feelings on this particular holiday --- President's Day.

Strong Roots

From his childhood, Lee developed a deep reverence for the Constitution, love for the Republic and respect for the office that continues to this day.

"As a Latter-day Saint (Mormon), I was taught by my parents that these were wise men raised up by God for that very purpose," Lee said. "Those involved in writing the Constitution --- not to say every word was inspired or infallible or their words were flawless, but on the whole --- the government they devised was absolutely brilliant. And it is a document that to the extent that we follow it, it has led to the greatest civilization the world has ever known."

Earliest President's Day Memory

While attending various Lincoln Day dinners in Utah and around the country, Lee's thoughts drifted back to his kindergarten days and the lessons he learned about the Constitution and two of our greatest presidents.

"My teacher made us a cake the Friday before President's Day, and it was decorated with this elaborate frosting depicting the faces of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington," Lee said.

His teacher taught Lee and the other children about the sacrifices these two presidents and their families made for a great cause and the Constitution.

"I always reflect back on that on President's Day," he said.

Respect for the Office

Throughout Donald Trump's presidential run, the Utah senator made no secret of his opposition to Trump's candidacy. But now, because of his deep respect for the office, Lee is looking for common ground with the President.

"There's nothing that will weigh a person down faster, more relentlessly than contempt for another human being," Lee said. "When you respect people who hold that office, even when you disagree, it actually makes life better. It causes you to look for ways to be constructive."

Favorite President

Because of his reputation as one of the most conservative members of the Senate, you might think Lee's favorite president would be someone like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, right? Possibly Ronald Reagan?

Nope.

While he agreed all three of those belong on Mount Rushmore, leave it to Sen. Lee to choose one of the more obscure and widely ignored presidents of the last century to add to the group.

"Calvin Coolidge is not treated fairly by historians --- not even remotely," Lee said. "He's not treated well, perhaps in part because of his political philosophy, but he is the type of president we should always aspire to have."

One of the things Lee said he admired most about Calvin Coolidge was his deep respect for the Constitution.

"He was going to recognize limited power for the federal government at a time when it was rapidly becoming more fashionable to advocate for more government," Lee said.

Coolidge fought back against powerful interests within his own party advocating for bigger government, for higher taxes. He even went to war with large entities like the Chamber of Commerce who wanted higher taxes, while Coolidge wanted to reduce the tax rate. They fought him on this aggressively, but he won and convinced Congress to lower the rate.

"As he did that, even though he was mocked and ridiculed at every turn for taking this position, he was ultimately proven right," Lee said. "As they reduced the tax rate, the economy flourished and they actually brought in more revenue."

Coolidge was not only fiscally conservative but also knew the power in leaving things well enough alone. Sen. Lee referred to Amity Shlaes biography of Coolidge and his belief that government could cause harm with poor legislation.

No-Good Government Solutions

"Once a bad law is put in place it takes on a life of its own, it has its own inertia. It's there and it will continue, absent some other action," Lee said. "So it can be very hard to get rid of a bad law."

Ronald Reagan was famously quoted as saying: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Reagan would be spinning in his grave to know how much faith has been put in those people who are "here to help." Lee discussed the type of president we need to fix that problem.

"In an era over the last hundred years or so, we've seen the rise of the progressive movement in America. We've seen the American people put an almost religious-like faith in the government," Lee said. "Coolidge stands out in open defiance against that both for constitutional reasons and policy reasons that had to do with the need to protect the common man."

Optimism About Trump's Presidency

Now that Trump has been elected, his apparent reverence for the office has Lee optimistic.

"I'm hopelessly optimistic," Lee said with a chuckle. "I always believe that someone who believes in that kind of approach is willing to stick with it even though it's difficult, is willing to remain consistent with it, needs to be president and will be president. Our current president has just taken office and he could decide to be that type of president and I would be thrilled if he did."

Conservatives are often heard pining for the next Ronald Reagan, but according to Sen. Lee, America might be even better off with another Calvin Coolidge. Whether Trump can be that type of president remains to be seen. But we can all take a page from what a young Mike Lee learned back in kindergarten: Respect the office, reinforce the fabric of our great nation and be optimistic.

Elected in 2010 as Utah's 16th Senator, Mike Lee has spent his career defending the basic liberties of Americans and Utahns as a tireless advocate for our founding constitutional principles.

GLENN

Civics isn’t optional—America's survival depends on it

GLENN

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

BLOG

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

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?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.