Michele Bachmann responds to attacks after she calls for investigation into Muslim Brotherhood

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joined The Glenn Beck Radio Program on GBTV (soon to be known as TheBlaze) this morning to discuss the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, DC and the attacks on her in the wake of her calls for an investigation. The full interview is available in the clip above.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN:  There are a few people in Washington D.C. that I trust and tell the truth.  There are a few people that call me every time they turn on a water faucet from Washington D.C. and they say, "I just want you to know I'm holding a press conference today because I turned on a water faucet."  You're like, oh.  And after a while, I don't take those people's phone calls and after a while I stop reading their e‑mails.  And there are a few people that are in it for the wrong reasons.  And then there are a few people ‑‑ Jim DeMint is one of them, Michele Bachmann is one of them, Mike Lee is one of them ‑‑ that do it for the right reasons and are clean.  I mean, we were talking about this with Jim DeMint the other day.  Look what Jim DeMint has done.  Jim DeMint just stopped the Law of the Sea Treaty.  I mean, that's ‑‑ that's a pretty amazing thing to do.  You can't take Jim DeMint out because he's clean.  Does he make mistakes from time to time?  Sure.  Everybody does.  But look at what this guy has done.  Michele Bachmann is the same way.  She's a good, decent person.  May not agree with her all the time, but she's a good, decent woman.  And she is standing and she's on the intelligence committee.  Rarely do I get calls from Michele Bachmann.  But when I do, they're always important.  And she has called me a few times and lately it's been about the Muslim Brotherhood because I've been ‑‑ I've been talking to people in Washington D.C. and saying, "Hey, what's the deal with the Muslim Brotherhood thing?  Are we looking into this?"  Michele called me this morning and she said, "Glenn, there are decent people up on the Hill that are trying to expose the Muslim Brotherhood and it is spreading.  This disease is spreading so rapidly, it is breathtaking."  This goes to a documentary that we did about, what, four months ago, three months ago where we exposed what this president is doing with the Muslim Brotherhood and how it is infiltrating all levels.  And we're at a place now that if we don't stop it, we're approaching a point of no return.  And they are purging everything from our military, from our FBI.  So we're not even teaching what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for.  We're not teaching what radical Islam even is.  So how are you ever going to find it?  How are you ever going to recognize it?  It's out of control.

The inspectors general were asked a few questions by a few members of congress.  Michele Bachmann is here to talk about it and this is important.  I beg you to listen because the elephant media and Drudge, Fox, have come out on the wrong side on this issue.  They are following John McCain's lead.  It's the wrong lead.  And if you're not there to back these people up, they're going to be eaten by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Michele Bachmann, welcome to the program.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Glenn, thank you so much.  What an important topic, and I have to say that you and the people at The Blaze have been leading the pack on this.  And thank you for the wonderful documentary that you've done because the influence today of the Muslim Brotherhood at the highest levels, from the White House, to the Pentagon, to the FBI, even to our United States military truly is breathless and people have to know about it.

GLENN:  Okay.  So tell me what happened.  You and who else wrote a letter to the inspectors general's office and said, "There are some questions here that need to be addressed."

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.  It was three members of the intelligence committee:  Myself, Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia, Tom Rooney from Florida and two members of the judiciary committee, Trent Franks of Arizona and Louie Gohmert of Texas all signed onto a letter.  We asked numerous questions of the federal government because a letter was sent ‑‑ well, let me just back up.  After the Fort Hood tragedy, a report was issued that said the real problem in our government is that we are not teaching FBI agents or our military to recognize radical Islam.  So that's what we need to do.  We need to teach about it.

Well, in response to that, 50 ‑‑ over 50 Muslim organizations wrote a letter requesting that the White House start a task force to stop that from happening.  Five days after the White House got this letter, this October 19th letter ‑‑ and people can see it on my website, or maybe you have it on The Blaze ‑‑ five days after the White House got this letter from the 50 Muslim groups, they started the purge of the federal government.  Let me tell you, the federal government doesn't do anything in five days.  But they started the purge of the FBI.  So now the FBI, who are supposed to be trained in radical Islam, elements have been purged off their training materials so they are no longer being taught about what radical Islam is in order to be able to truly identify it ahead of time.  This is serious.  This is also happening throughout our United States military, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security.  And the word "purge" isn't my word.  That's the word used by the 50 Muslim organizations.  They demanded that the president purge the training materials and the trainers.  And so already people have been fired who formerly were teaching what radical Islam is.  They've been fired or they've been reassigned.  And they ask that the library be purged.  Americans don't purge libraries, but they demanded that the FBI's library be purged.  All of this was happening and so we wrote a letter to the inspectors general asking the question:  Don't you think you should look into the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and what it is they're seeking to do.

GLENN:  Okay.  So you write this, which is your job.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's our duty.

GLENN:  Your duty to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.

GLENN:  There is no question in any sane person's mind that the Muslim Brotherhood ‑‑ I mean, look at this ‑‑ look at this guy who ran and won the presidency in Egypt.  He says, "Oh, I'm a moderate.  I'm a moderate."  As soon as he wins, it's Sharia law, we're going down, you know, death for Allah is our highest goal.  It's the all the same crap.  So ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  And they call for Jerusalem to become Egypt's capital, not Israel's capital.  They call for the demise of Israel and the demise of the United States.  They believe in civilization, jihad, which is to come into the United States and subvert the United States from within.  I know it sounds like radical stuff, but all you have to do is look ‑‑ right, just look at the Muslim Brotherhood and who they say they are.

GLENN:  Okay.  So when you wrote this letter, then Keith Ellison comes out.  And Keith Ellison is ‑‑ he has a record of being the Mafia hitman.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Well, he has a long record of being associated with CAIR and with the Muslim Brotherhood.  CAIR is an unindicted co‑conspirator, as stated in the large terrorist financing case that we've had in the United States of America and so he came out and essentially wanted to shut down the inspectors general from even looking into any of the questions that we were asking.  So he wanted to shut it down.  In response I wrote another letter back to Keith Ellison, a 16‑page letter which I would encourage all of your listeners to go and read this letter.  It's what I call a bulletproof letter.  I have 59 footnotes with one example after another of the penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the federal government.  One of the most recent is so outrageous, it's hard to believe.  Two weeks ago the State Department broke its own law, like I said, and let a foreign terrorist come into the United States, into the White House, meet with the National Security Council ‑‑

GLENN:  Listen to this.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ‑‑ and demand the release of the blind Sheik.  This is absolutely outrageous.

GLENN:  There's more to this story that I think is even more outrageous.  Not only did they break their own laws, give this guy a special waiver, bring him into the White House.  This is a guy who is a known ‑‑ part of a known terrorist organization.  He then campaigns to have the blind sheikh released, but who pays for his airline ticket?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  We do.  The taxpayers.  What I want to know is did we upgrade him to first class.  I mean, this is ‑‑ this is outrageous what has happened.  And so then now what's happened is the attack machine has been turned on myself and the other members of congress who have been asking the questions, that somehow we're the Muslim haters, we're the witch‑hunters, we're the new Joe McCarthyites because we're asking these questions.  All the while two weeks ago the Obama administration breaks federal law to bring someone that we list on the State Department as a terrorist organization, a member of that terrorist organization, we bring him into the White House?  You don't get any higher when it comes to intelligence secrets, you don't get any higher than the National Security Council.  He sits down with the National Security Council in our White House and has the guts to demand that we release one of the worst, most violent terrorists that we have behind bars.  He wants us to let him out of prison, to let him go free, the guy who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the blind sheikh.

GLENN:  So let's ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  And you don't hear a peep about this.

GLENN:  No, of course not.  Let me ‑‑ let me take you here because one of the more controversial things is you say Anthony Weiner's wife will is ‑‑ has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now, this is important because she works for Hillary Clinton.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  She is the chief aid for the ‑‑ to the Secretary of State, and we quoted from a document, and this has been well reported all across Arab media, that her father ‑‑ her late father who's now deceased was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Her brother was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother was a part of what's called the Muslim Sisterhood.  It would be, we have requirements to get a high level security clearance.  One thing that the government looks at are your associations, and in particular your family associations.  And this applies to everyone.  It would be the same that is true with me.  If my family members were associated with Hamas, a terrorist organization, that alone could be sufficient to disqualify me from getting a security clearance.  So all we did is ask, did the federal government look into her family associations before she got a high level security clearance.

GLENN:  And it's not an unreasonable thing to ask seeing that this president and this administration has ‑‑ didn't know ‑‑ apparently didn't know that Van Jones was the founding ‑‑ one of the founding members of a radical revolutionary, anti‑American, Communist organization, and he's in the White House.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.  That's right, and it's not ‑‑

GLENN:  So something is ‑‑ somebody's dropping the ball some place, or somebody knows.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.  And somebody has been dropping the ball since the beginning of the Obama administration.  And this isn't intent to be partisan or out to get the president.  I mean, quite honestly on the intelligence committee I'm happy to report we are the most bipartisan committee I've ever been a part of, and with all of these unprecedented leaks that have been coming out from our federal government, all of which, by the way, undermine Israel, and Israel's ability to defend herself against a nuclear Iran, we are with one voice, Democrat and Republican, outraged by these leaks that are coming out of the administration.  Never before in the history of the country have we seen this level of leaks coming out, but at the same time there's also a parallel track of influence from the Muslim Brotherhood in the highest levels of the federal government, and we think that we need to get answers to these questions.  And that's the purpose of our letters.  We're asking that the inspectors general answer these questions, and Keith Ellison is trying to shut this, these questions down from getting addressed.

GLENN:  I'm really tight on time and I want to hit a couple of other things.  Stu's got ‑‑ Stu's been going over all of this information, and he's got one question for you.

STU:  Well, I see here that you did like, too, the actual military document that talks about what is a potentially disqualifying condition for security clearance.  It says, quote:  Contact with a foreign family member, if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion.  Then goes on to say the subject's closest and most frequent contacts are the ones most likely to present a security risk.  And you're talking about both her father, who's now deceased, her mother and her brother.  So I think the media seems to be holding you to this standard that you have to have this case completely proven when it seems like what you're saying is, is there a legitimate process question:  Are they actually asking these questions before handing out these clearances.

GLENN:  Right.  This has been ‑‑ I mean, your links and your footnotes ‑‑ and they're down, by the way.  I don't know if you know that, Michele.  But the Al‑Jazeera links that you put in and you said, here, go link ‑‑ go find the story on Al‑Jazeera.  We can't get to them this morning.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Oh, really?

GLENN:  Oh, yeah.  We're going to need ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Gosh.  Maybe we can go ‑‑ maybe we can go in the past and dig them up so that we can resurrect them.

GLENN:  Yeah, we're going to have to get them because they've either been scrubbed or they're being hammered, you know, by so much traffic which I highly doubt.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Heavens.

GLENN:  So that's ‑‑ I mean, you have links showing that in Al‑Jazeera's own coverage.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Well, these links were up as of last Friday.

GLENN:  Yeah, well, they're not ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  I wrote the letter and we got it out by midnight last Friday night and the links were up last Friday.  So they've taken them down.  Gee.

GLENN:  I will tell you that that's not unusual.  As we've followed these stories like this, that's really not unusual anymore.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's even more reason why we should be looking into this.

GLENN:  Yeah.  Let me just say this to you and then one more quick question.  I just wrote a letter to the president of my company for The Blaze and he's in charge of all content.  He's kind of our news, you know, our uber news director, if you will, he's the president of content.  And I just said we know the truth on this story.  We've had this for a while.  I do not want this company to sit down on this.  So we are going to cover this and continue to cover this to make sure that people hear this story because, Michele, you guys are absolutely right and it is a matter of national survival.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.

GLENN:  Let me ask you ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  National security.

GLENN:  Let me ask you one quick question.  John McCain and all of the elephant media are falling right in line with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Bullcrap.  What did John McCain do yesterday?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  He went on the Senate floor and he gave a spirited defense of Huma Abedin, who is a friend of his.  And so that's what he did and I think ‑‑

GLENN:  But you're not saying that she is compromised?  You're saying have we looked into this, right?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  That's right.  That's all we're saying because we did not infer that she is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or that she's working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

GLENN:  Right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Our point was regarding the security clearance.

GLENN:  Right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  And did she have to go through the same sort of process that anyone else has to go to.  Did they check the boxes.  Because if the State Department breaks American law to bring a terrorist into the White House, a member of a terrorist organization, it certainly is conceivable that maybe they looked the other way on issuing the security clearance.  That's all we're doing is asking a question.

GLENN:  I have to tell you, we're at war.  We're at war with people in the Middle East, and her ‑‑ she's compromised ‑‑ forget about the Muslim thing.  She's compromised or could have been compromised.  Her husband was sending dirty photos of himself.  I mean, you know, in a wartime, you would never put that person in a delicate situation because the family has already been compromised.  But I digress.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  Well, and ‑‑

GLENN:  Thank you very much.  Go ahead.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN:  I was just going to say the Muslim Brotherhood elements have declared war against the United States.

GLENN:  All right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: ‑‑ and Israel.  And we need to recognize that they are at war, even if we don't fully, are onto this.  And we've got to, but I thank you and everyone at The Blaze for taking this on because the media has a completely different view of it.  So thank you.

GLENN:  Well, they're always ‑‑ they're almost always wrong, especially when it comes to these things.  Michele, thank you very much and keep up the fight.  Never sit down.  We've got your back.

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.