Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Hillary Clinton just topped Obama's "fundamental transformation" speech

April 29, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Hillary Clinton made one of the most important political statements of all time - and no one is covering it! During a campaign speech, she attacked the very bedrock upon which the nation was founded. No longer will dissenting opinions be tolerated. Religious beliefs have to change. There’s a progressive agenda forming that goes much further than anything we’ve seen from the Obama administration. What is it? What does it mean?

Listen to the segment below, and scroll down for the full monologue:

GLENN: The question for this century and for the future of America is this, I think. Can we find enough people that just will leave everybody alone? That just want to live their life, just do the right thing. Live their own life. Be good to each other. Don't hurt each other. And just leave everybody else alone.

Can we find enough people, Americans, that want to live their life that way? Dude, I don't care. I really don't care. You want to get married. You don't want to get married. You want to marry a dude. You don't want to -- you want to marry a girl. Fine. Whatever.

Whatever.

Now, if I say that to you, can you say to my church, hey, you want to marry, you know, just dudes. Just females. Females and dudes.

Whatever.

Leave me alone! And let's work together. Let's help each other. Let's be good to each other. Let's be good neighbors. How boring will it be if we all think exactly alike. There will be no growth. You'll have no growth at all if everyone is in lockstep with everything. Think about how much -- I've said this before. But I actually believe this. And I get in trouble every time I say it. Because people are like -- think about it. Thank God for Barack Obama. Barack Obama has made me a better American. He has. I am more involved. I know the Constitution. I know the Founding Fathers. I've -- I've discovered for myself Libertarian principles. I really don't want to get involved. I've recognized that, gee, these wars across the ocean are just dumb as a box of rocks to do. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I've learned all these things because of Barack Obama.

Conflict helps us grow. Difference of opinion helps us grow. But difference of opinion is no longer valid. Can we find enough Americans that just want to be cool with each other? Because if we can find those Americans, we'll make it. If we can't, America as we know it is done.

I believe an extremely high-profile American politician has finally jumped the shark. I say this. Once you hear this politician. You'll say, no, Glenn, this politician will never jump the shark. There's nothing this politician can do. And I'm not talking about Barack Obama. This politician has gone farther than any politician I've ever heard in my lifetime.

And as usual, there's so little coverage of it except here. I'm actually not sure how many people know of it. And if the American people know about it, I don't even know if they care anymore.

But I can say, without any reservation whatsoever, this is a phenomenal statement that needs to be paid attention to by all Americans. Because the principle that was blatantly attacked is, in fact, the bedrock principle on which this country was founded. And it is this: Religious liberty -- you cannot violate my conscience. If I happen to believe something deeply, religiously, that's my business. I'm not in your business. Don't be in my business.

Now, if you've been living in a cave, you know, in one of the countries that hate our guts, you know, one of the countries that the Clinton Foundation sends tens of millions of dollars to or if you pay attention to the mainstream media, you may not have heard this.

HILLARY: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.

GLENN: This is amazing. What Hillary is saying here is, it's no longer acceptable to believe something that the government doesn't believe.

For instance, Christians. I would assume this applies here. If the government says abortion is fine, you can no longer believe that it's akin to murder. If that marriage is between a man and a woman, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You don't have the right -- you have to change. Quote: You've got to change our religious beliefs.

Those two issues are paramount to all progressives. In fact, it's safe to say, that to the American left, those are the two most important principles of all. It seems. Homosexuality and abortion. I don't think so. But they seem to run on that all the time.

So your religious belief has to change. Deep-seated cultural codes. I'm quoting. Deep-seated cultural codes. Religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed, end quote. That's not who we are.

That is just not who we are. It's -- it's an un-American kind of idea. It's -- it's anti-Christian. But Hillary is running in a country, don't worry, Hillary, you're only running in a country that is 75 to 80 percent Christian. So what could possibly go wrong? Nothing. Because nobody is paying attention to it.

So maybe I'm the oddball here. Maybe I'm the only one that cares. Maybe I'm the only one that sees a problem with that. Because I think it's the most outrageous line ever spoken by an American politician. That includes, we're five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America. That was one amazing statement that came from Barack Obama in 2008. And he did it.

So I take these guys at their word. When she says, your religious belief has to change, I take her at her word.

Five years ago, that statement would have been enough to topple any presidential hopes for any candidate. The campaign would be in ruins.

They would be dropping out of the race by now. Especially if that candidate had said just a few short years earlier in 2007, she said this.

HILLARY: I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history.

GLENN: Into the mists of history. Holy cow. This is phenomenal. I want you to take this monologue and send this to your friends.

We'll post it up at GlennBeck.com today. You have to send this to your friends because nobody is reporting on this.

So as I understand it, Hillary, since her fundamental, I'm quoting, her fundamental bedrock principles that she took umbrage to anyone who said she would reverse those principles, now that she has reversed them, well, you've got to give up yours too. Now that her bedrock principles have been flipped upside down, it's time for her to tell you that you have to flip your bedrock principles upside down as well. And the firstamendment, forget the first amendment. Hillary Rodham believes that religious liberty. The right to worship as you see fit doesn't exist in America anymore. If it goes against the collective knowledge.

Now, here's the scariest part. I want you to listen to the response of the audience after she said that.

HILLARY: And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed. As I --

[applauding]

GLENN: They are cheering. It reminded me of another chilling phrase I've heard before.

PADME: So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.

GLENN: You know what's funny? A pretty prophetic line there, especially coming as it did from George Lucas, the progressive that he is. And I know that when they did that, they meant that about George W. Bush. And that he has no problem whatsoever with that statement from Hillary Clinton. But when Natalie Portman said that line, I don't really think they thought liberty could die to thunderous applause. Maybe they did because of September 11th. Maybe they did.But here we are a decade later, and it has happened. The elite who want to finish the fundamental transformation of America that the progressives started over 100 years ago and this president slammed into warp speed are become less and less inclined to even bother hiding their efforts anymore. We told you this would happen. They would become so emboldened that they would start saying things that at one time seemed impossible to believe that anyone would even believe they would say they believed them and they would say it out loud. And here it is.

Hillary Clinton told us last week at the Women's Summit that our deep-seated religious beliefs would have to change. We are no longer free to choose. They are pro-choice as long as you always accept their choice.What she didn't outline in that speech was, what do you do to change it? If my deep-seated religious belief doesn't change, what do you do as a government? Will we be vilified? Well, that's already being done. Will we be fired from our jobs? That's already happening. How about fined? No, they just made the baker pay for the fine of, what --

PAT: $135,000.

GLENN: So what's left? Reeducation? They're kind of doing that with Common Core. How about we ban certain religions? We ban the Bible. How about we imprison people? We're pretty much running out of options here, gang. We're down to the last few. Banning religions. Reeducation. Outlawing the Bible. Reeducation camps. That's all we're down to. And I contend, we're already pretty much doing reeducation. Just not in a camp. It's called a public school.

I for one do not want to find out. I don't want to see. I don't listen to her and say, she doesn't mean it. When somebody says they're going to do something, we as people need to start believing them. When they're chanting over in Iran, death to America. What the hell do you think they mean by that? Well, they're just saying -- they mean it. Death to America. When ISIS says, we will behead every Christian, believe them. They're doing it.

When a progressive says, you're going to have to change your fundamental core religious beliefs, take them at their word. The left has shown you exactly who they are. Now, the last time this happened was with the Woodrow Wilson administration. And the Woodrow Wilson administration scared this country out of their mind so much with prohibition and everything else, that they ran from the progressives.

I don't think that's happening. After the progressives in the 1930s, when FDR died, the country was scared so much that Congress passed a law saying the president could not stay in office that long. And the Republicans won by running a campaign that just said, had enough yet? That was it. America ran from this!

After Jimmy Carter, Americans ran. I don't know if Americans are going to run. They're awfully damn comfortable. And they don't see what's over the horizon. It doesn't have to be this way. Life is not this hard. Just a few things you have to get right. Love one another. Be cool with one another. Don't try to change one another. Basically, everything that you do in your marriage, well, except for the one part that Washington is doing to us now, but other than that, just pretty much everything you do in a marriage.

Do me a favor, we're posting this on GlennBeck.com and our Facebook page. I want you to put this on your Facebook page. I want you to take these audio clips, and I want you to share these audio clips. There cannot be any excuse.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is getting into the race this week. Because Bernie Sanders is going to say, I'm a socialist. Good. I welcome you. Let's have a real debate. Hey, I really believe what they're doing in Sweden is the right thing. Good. Then let's talk about that. Let's not have this bullcrap back and forth where you're lying and the other guy is lying. Where you got Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both lying about what they're going to do. Can we be honest?

Can we be adults? Can we be Americans and actually disagree with each other's opinions anymore?

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.