Don’t sell out, don’t sit down, and don’t shut up

December 13, 2011

WRITER

Tea Party: a little over a year ago, you had the establishment freaking out. You were taking hits from every mainstream media outlet on both sides of the aisle, but it didn’t slow you down. You took out GOP establishment incumbents one by one in primaries, and you didn’t stop there: you went on to take back the House by a landslide; in fact, if was one of the biggest wins in American history.

With all that under your belt, I’m trying to figure why the Tea Party has decided to throw in the towel. Is that really all you’ve got? What ever happened to perseverance? Do progressives really have that much more endurance than you? Don’t you remember how it felt not just to beat the left, not just to beat the establishment on the right, but to get real leaders of character in office? I thought you were the group of Americans with values and principles? I thought is was your conviction that man’s rights are given to him by God, not government. I guess I was wrong. The Constitution, limited government, and real freedom must have just seemed like a good idea, because you don’t just lower the bar on convictions. The Tea Party didn’t choose from the options passed down by the establishment in November 2010. You went out, found real leaders, and won. In fact you got the most epic gloat fest of all time, when it was all said and done.

This election should be one where the Tea Party takes everything the mainstream media says and tosses it out the window. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening. We’ve been thrown into this ridiculous argument of who is and isn’t “electable.” After everything that has happened in the last three years: the Healthcare law, finance reform, countless DOJ scandals, establishment GOP ganging up on the Tea Party, you’re going to buy into the mainstream media’s argument of whom the best candidates are? Are we ever going to find a perfect candidate? No. Can we find one that shares our core values? Yes.

For conservatives, this entire election has been positioned around the repeal of Obamacare. How is it that the two highest polling candidates are Newt Gingrich, who supports an individual mandate, or did for 20+ years until it became unpopular, and Mitt Romney, who implemented government run healthcare in his own state while he was the governor? How has one of these candidates lifted to the top of the polls for grassroots conservatives? Is the Tea Party really buying into the establishment's argument about who is the most “electable?” And are these candidates actually the most electable? How are their policies going to fly in a debate against Barack Obama?

Moderator: Mr. President, you implemented an individual mandate in your healthcare plan that is now being challenge by the Supreme Court. Is or isn’t an individual mandate for healthcare reform constitutional?
Barack Obama: I don’t know, I got the idea from Newt Gingrich, then we designed the rest of the bill around Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan.

I’m sure that will appeal to the voters that are on the fence… What could a moderator throw at a candidate like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum in a debate that would hurt them—traditional marriage, their faith, no instances of adultery, “MSNBC says your crazy”? Oh the horror of a clean record! If we are going to have a discussion about who is and isn’t electable in an election, can we at least look at the big picture?

If I remember correctly, Senator John McCain was a “moderate” conservative in the last election. We were sold this same argument about who could and could not win the election on a national scale. That worked out really well didn’t it? John McCain didn’t rise in the polls until an unknown conservative, Governor Sarah Palin, entered the race. And despite the disgusting attacks on her from the media, she is still the number one choice for many of you. How do you go from supporting Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich, a guy who has been saying FDR is the greatest president of the 19th century for years and says Andy Stern is a “forward looking leader”?

This week, a friend of mine told me that in order to get independents and moderates to vote against Obama, we have to choose one of the more moderate candidates. I completely reject this argument. If you want to change someone’s mind, if you want to provide a better option for Americans that are on the fence and feel disenfranchised by both parties, give them a candidate who actually believes in what they’re running for. Give them a candidate that they may not agree with on all of the issues, but still respects for walking their talk. We want a choice this election—hot or cold, up or down, left or right, conservative or liberal. In 2008 we had a Republican candidate that was pro-choice, for gun control, and wasn’t going to protect our border. We now have a Democrat president that is pro-choice, for gun control and still doesn’t protect our border. Why are we repeating these mistakes? Or, do you actually believe in the progressive policies of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney?

Tea Party, don’t sell out, don’t sit down, and don’t shut up. You fought hard for candidates like Michele Bachmann last November. She was Nancy Pelosi’s number one target in the last election, and she won. Why are you giving up on her and other candidates who want to restore the founding values and principals of America? Because the media tells you it’s the only way to win? Since when do members of the mainstream media know what winning looks like? They have to lie, cheat, and cover up the truth to get the candidates they want elected into office. Newsflash: the media is losing. Please remember how shocked they all were last November when Tea Party candidates were knocking off Republicans and Democrats one by one.

A true conservative with moral authority over their own life will be the final blow to the agenda of the mainstream media and a huge loss of power to the establishment in Washington D.C. Kill two birds with one stone, and stand up for what you believe in this election. If you don’t stand by your convictions regardless of the outcome, then it is a waste of time to have them in the first place. Don’t throw the last three years of organizing, fund raising, meetings, and withstanding attacks from all sides away. You can beat the establishment, but first you have to support a candidate that represents your values. You aren’t stuck with a progressive Republican yet, so stop acting like you are. This is why we have primary elections. Now stand up, square your shoulders, and support a candidate that will stand firm on the principals of the Constitution.

'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 dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

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 America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

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