Should TheBlaze host their own GOP debate?

November 02, 2015

Editor

On radio Monday morning, Glenn and his co-hosts expressed their disappointment with the way the GOP presidential debates have been handled thus far.

Stu shared an innovative idea from presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who Tweeted, "I'll debate any one, any time, any place. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well?"

I’ll debate any one, any time, any place. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well? Cc: @oann @theblaze
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) November 2, 2015

Instead of playing "gotcha" with candidates, Glenn called for fair treatment to allow the American people to hear what the candidates have to say and choose for themselves.

"If they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice," Glenn said.

In an open letter to Reince Priebus, Chairman of the National Republican Committee, Glenn proposed a new kind of debate, "in both substance and distribution." See the letter, complete with Glenn's handwritten notes below.

Listen to the full exchange from radio or read the transcript below.

Watch tonight's episode of the Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV to hear more of what Glenn has to say about this. Tune in for FREE here.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

STU: What you need, Glenn, is innovative thinking from candidates. Like, for example, this latest tweet from Carly Fiorina who tweets, "I'll debate anyone, any time, anyplace. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well, including TheBlaze."

PAT: Yes.

STU: She points out. That's an interesting question.

GLENN: That wouldn't suck.

STU: That's an -- I would like to see it. I mean, we are capable of doing a fair debate as much as I have my own personal biases. I think that would be an interesting debate. Look at the way you've treated these candidates. I think some of the best interviews that have happened --

GLENN: I hear from each of the candidates, each the candidates -- I would say almost all of them have said, fairest interview that they've had -- at least what they say to me when they're leaving.

Fairest interview that they've had. And it's because I'm not trying to play gotcha. I really, truly believe that when the American people see them for who they really are and they're allowed to actually speak their mind on what they really believe --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- if they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice. Why -- I just -- because I despise gotcha politics myself, where I've gone in interviews and said, we can really make a difference here, if somebody will just treat me fairly. I'm not asking you to treat me with kid gloves. Just treat me fairly and let me make my points in a fair manner because then we can really make -- then people can decide.

And so because I hate it so much, that's the way I've been trying to conduct these interviews. I'm not going to do a gotcha. I'm going to ask you tough questions, but I'm not going to do a gotcha.

STU: Yeah. It goes back to the Ben Carson clip you played, which I pretty much agree with, although with a slight modification. Because he said something like, "What we need are people that are interested in getting the candidates to be able to disseminate information -- or disseminate information about the candidates." And I don't know if that's exactly the focus I want. I don't want them just being people who can disseminate information about the candidates. I like tough questions. But it's someone who is interested in the answers. Not interested in promoting themselves. Not interested in getting some big moment that can go viral. We're talking about people who are actually interested in the differences between these people.

GLENN: The first thing that has to happen, you have to actually believe the country is in trouble. On our side. On the left, they don't necessarily think the country is in trouble. On our side, the majority think that our country is in real, deep trouble. So you have to -- more than self, your country love, the first thing.

And then actually ask the questions that are honest that reveal the candidate for who they really are. That's what has to happen.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Nobody has to have a shouting match with Donald Trump. Why have a shouting match with Donald Trump? Mr. Trump, can you tell me the difference between a constitutional and a progressive president? Yes or no? And what is that difference? Would you consider yourself a constitutional or a progressive Republican?

There's no gotcha in that at all. He'll have to define them. And by how he defines them and then how he describes himself, you'll know because you'll be able to compare. Is that true, or is that not true? There's no gotcha there. Because I don't think that there's -- you know, the Republicans are running away from progressivism, just as the Democrats ran away from socialism.

Well, people are wanting the truth. They just want the truth. They know the truth. They know that the Democrats and that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. They know that Hillary Clinton is a socialist. They know that.

So they're capable of handling the truth on who you really are. They want somebody to say who they really are. Even if they don't agree with it. They want them to say who they really are and what they really, truly believe.

And so, I mean, I think just putting the candidates in a place to where they're comfortable enough to where it's not hostile fire the whole time because --

PAT: And you're asking the right questions that conservatives care about. You got to ask the right questions. You're not asking them, "Well, how are you going to stop the evil richest 1 percent from earning another dollar?" That's not a Republican principle.

GLENN: And this is for us to decide. This isn't the general debate. This is for us to decide.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: When it comes to the general election debate, you kind of expect those questions, but there's no point in doing that now. You're trying to find out who is -- I think there is a point in looking at a candidate's weakness. You know, if you want to look at Ted Cruz and ask Ted Cruz about, "Well, you're too divisive in Washington." Or ask Donald Trump about his issues with, you know, things he's said in the past. Those are fair. But when you're talking about these income inequality questions about --

GLENN: Why do you hate women?

STU: Why do you hate women?

GLENN: I mean, that's just ridiculous. That's just ridiculous. That's a general election question. And, by the way, the -- the mainstream media should have a balance to it that it should have something like Carly suggested, TheBlaze to where when it comes to the mainstream media, to the general election, that the -- the Democrats' feet are put to the fire. If you're going to ask those questions about, why do you hate women? Well, I think I should be able to say, you know, look at the stats of Philadelphia. Look at the stats of Detroit. Look at the stats of St. Louis. Those are all democratically controlled since the 1960s. Your progressivism doesn't seem to be working. With the level of increase of homelessness and joblessness for African-Americans and Hispanics, how can you say this works to help the underprivileged and the poor?

'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 Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep