Glenn likes a candidate who studied under Cass Sunstein?

April 19, 2012

Writer

There are only a handful of candidates that can help turn the country around - and Glenn believes that Dan Liljenquist is one of them. One of three survivors of a tragic plane crash that claimed the lives of several friends - Liljenquist came through the tragedy and realized “we don't have time in this life to wait.” But would you believe that he also studied under Cass Sunstein when he was in law school? It's an unbelievable life story that you have to hear to believe. Watch it in the clip above!

Rush Transcript Below:

GLENN: Dan Liljenquist, he is running against Orrin Hatch for Senate in the State of Utah and, Dan, is your name on the ballot?

LILJENQUIST: Well, the convention is this Saturday, Glenn. We have 4,000 Republican state delegates who will narrow down the field to one or two candidates and ‑‑

GLENN: But is it ‑‑ what I'm asking you, is it going to be a write‑in? Because I'd never be able to spell your last name. It's got a J in it and it's silent.

LILJENQUIST: Yeah, well, my name will be on the ballot if I get reported for the Senate between 40 or over 60, then I will definitely be on a ballot. You will not have to write in Liljenquist.

PAT: And what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of you getting over the 40% threshold?

LILJENQUIST: We feel very good about our chances. We just completed our 101st delegate meeting since March 15th and we're finding that we have a lot of momentum going into this thing. Look, with a last name like Liljenquist, you have to do a lot of legwork to get people to be able to be even to pronounce your name right. So we feel good about our chances.

GLENN: Right. And you're going up against Orrin Hatch who is a machine. I mean, this guy is an absolute machine when it comes to, you know, winning elections and has all of the power structure behind him and, you know, has served America loyally and faithfully for a long time. I like Orrin. He's a nice guy, but I think that he is ‑‑ it's time for a change in there and somebody that really, truly recognizes what is ‑‑ what we're facing right now. Tell me about what we're facing. Tell me why, why you would be different than Orrin Hatch.

LILJENQUIST: Well, look, Senator Hatch is going to go down in history as one of our greats here in Utah. But we have a fundamentally different philosophy on what the role of the United States Senate is. The United States Senate is meant to be a check on the president's power and on the executive branch and is also meant to be the work for state sovereignty. Now Senator Hatch over the years, I think there are some things I disagree with him significantly on. The role of advise and consent in the Senate is not to be a rubber stamp for the president's appointees. It was to advise and consent or not consent. And with respect to some of the recent appointments of President Obama like Cass Sunstein, I would have not consented. Look, I know Cass Sunstein. I received my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. I took a class from the man. He is a nice guy, but he's very, very liberal. And since most of our laws in this country are now being written by the executive branch to regulation, that was an irresponsible move to approve of Cass Sunstein and ‑‑

GLENN: I will tell you, Dan, sorry to interrupt you, but I will tell you this, that I called Orrin Hatch while he was, you know, approving Cass Sunstein and said, what are you doing, man? What are you ‑‑ this is crazy. Do you not realize who this guy is? And he said, Glenn, he's assured me that was just all academic stuff, he's not going to move down that role. And I said you're ‑‑ with all due respect, Senator, you're wrong on this. It's not an academic exercise. This man believes these things. So I'm glad to hear that you would go against Cass Sunstein. How would you stop all this regulation?

LILJENQUIST: Look, the regulatory environment, what has happened over the years is congress has outsourced its job to the executive branch. The executive branch is now judge, jury and executioner. They write the laws, they adjudicate the laws, and they administer the laws. That is what's happening. When you have a guy like Cass Sunstein say we don't need any more laws passed by congress, we can do everything we want to do with regulation, you know congress has outsourced a job. There's very simply a couple of things the Senate has to do in particular: One, you do not vote for a presidential appointee that has the influence to change the course of this country as an unelected bureaucrat. You do not vote those people through. You could stop that in the Senate, and the Senate needs to stand up and do its job. But I also think ‑‑ and you're going to need a Republican president to do this ‑‑ that congress has to re‑exert its control over the regulatory environment in this country by doing something, one simple thing, Glenn, and that's this: That no new regulation goes into effect until congress votes on that regulation. They granted the authority to executive branch to write regulations; they can pull it back and have a veto power. That's going to require legislation through congress. But if we have a prayer of ever getting a hold on the regulatory environment in this country, congress has to re‑exert itself over regulations by not allowing any new regulations to go into effect until congress approves of it.

GLENN: Plot to yourself on the ideological spectrum. Are you Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitt Romney?

LILJENQUIST: I am probably more along the lines of Jim DeMint for a whole bunch of different reasons. He has been out there saying the spending is reckless, that too much control is in the executive branch, that constitutional government was always meant to be a balance of powers between the states and the federal government. He understands the role of the United States Senate in particular in that balance, and I align much more with, along the lines of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and, you know, Marco Rubio and others who are taking control over the Senate.

STU: Dan, can you help me explain? Because we were looking at this from outside of Utah. Explain the comments from Orrin Hatch when he's talking about people who are opposing him and thinking that maybe he's not the right guy to go. He says these people are not conservatives, they're not Republicans, they're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it. I despise these people." I mean, this is a guy who told us, this elder statesman, what's going on with him on these, with these comments?

LILJENQUIST: That's a pretty ‑‑ it's pretty remarkable environment. You know, as I go around the state, universally people in Utah, everybody I talk to is concerned about debt and spending. And the groups that are involved in this race, my preference is that everybody would stay out so that we could run our own race, but we can't force them to do that. But the groups are involved in this race who are opposed to Senator Hatch are deeply concerned about debt and spending. I am running personally because Senator Hatch could be chair of the Senate finance committee, not in spite of it. He's had 18 years on that Senate finance committee and in that time we have expanded and he has used the power of that committee to expand government programs. Not retract them. And so the people involved who are involved in this race really want government spending under control and want congress to stand up and do its job to think about the future of this country and not just the next election. So there's a whole bunch of people who are disappointed with the record of congress and not just Senator Hatch's record but Republicans and Democrats over the last 40 years who got us into this mess.

GLENN: All right. Dan ‑‑

LILJENQUIST: So, you know, those are the words I would not have chosen but I understand that's how he speaks.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I don't understand that the libertarians are offensive and ‑‑

STU: Despise them?

GLENN: And despise.

PAT: I believe he feels that way.

GLENN: Oh, I know he does. I know he does.

PAT: He believed that when Bennett was booted out two years ago that he was next and it scared the crap out of him.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think he ‑‑

PAT: And so he ‑‑

GLENN: Unless Dan ‑‑ unless Dan wins on Saturday, he's not next.

PAT: Thought at the time.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch goes back. That's really ‑‑

PAT: At the time with the Tea Party the way it was and the political environment the way it was, he was afraid he was next.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And so he lashed out and still continues to lash out at people who are more conservative than he is.

GLENN: I will tell you that ‑‑ I will tell you, Tea Party, if you don't organize and come together behind a candidate and Orrin Hatch gets in, he is not a guy who forgets, and he's not going to forget. He's not going to forget. And if he's ‑‑ if he thinks that you're despicable or he despises you now, he will despise you then and just recognize the power we're giving people in Washington.

All right. One last question, Dan, because the first time I talked to you, I talked about your soul and your condition of it and why anybody who was decent would want to go there, and you told me about the experience that really led you here was a plane crash. Can you explain?

LILJENQUIST: Yeah. Glenn, it was in 2008. I had been ‑‑ I was running for the state Senate. I had won my primary and I was heading to the general election in the fall. In my company, we do a lot of humanitarian work. We were on a humanitarian trip to Guatemala. Got on a plane with 14 people, took off on a beautiful, beautiful Sunday morning to fly to this little town in Northeast Guatemala, and about 45 minutes into our flight, our engine burned up over the middle of nowhere. I mean, I had four minutes sitting in the back of that plane to really think. And I'll tell you where your mind goes to. Your mind goes to the state of your own, your own soul but also you think about your family. And I ‑‑ I realized at that moment that it was my life came down to that moment. I know everybody on that plane felt like they were going to die, and 80% of us were right. But I came through that. But for when we crashed and ‑‑ crashed into this field, it was when I was sitting on the plane that really saved my life, but also two farmers who saw us falling, ran around the corner and pulled me out of the plane. I was on fire, my leg was burning, my legs were shattered, but they came to me first, risked their lives to pull me from that plane. All four of my dear friends and employees died on that plane. I spent five weeks in a hospital bed, in a wheelchair, in a walker and met with each one of these families individually and, you know, I realize that we don't have time in this life to wait. And it's important, if you feel motivated to do something, to do it now. I'm running for the United States Senate because this time and history of this country, we are on the edge of a knife. We can either fall one way and complete the job of moving to a federalized executive branch‑driven view of the world, or we can have the United States Senate stand up and do its job to rebalance our constitutional government and to take control of what they granted too much power to federal governments to take the lead. And I'm running for the Senate to do that. I don't feel like we have time to wait and I feel like this is the election. With elections like mine and Ted Cruz in Texas and John Mandel in Ohio and Richard Mourdock in Indiana and these good people who are standing up all over the country to take control of the Senate, whether or not we survive as a people may just depend on this election cycle. And so I'm standing up and running. I'm very motivated to do it. People said you're crazy to take on Senator Hatch. We have been outspent 30:1, but we are a couple of days away from forcing him to a primary for the first time in 36 years and we think we're going to do it. So make every day count is the message.

GLENN: The web address is DanforUtah.com. DanforUtah.com. This is a very important battle in Utah and in America. Do we send Senator Hatch back or not send Senator Hatch back? It's up to the people of Utah. You've ‑‑ you had a chance to weigh things out. It is critical, critical that you get involved and don't just pass this election by on Saturday as, oh, just something that, you know, whatever. DanforUtah.com. Thank you very much, Dan. Appreciate it.

LILJENQUIST: Glenn, thank you. We'll see you.

GLENN: You bet. Good luck. I have to tell you I talked to him a few weeks ago. I hadn't really talked to him before. I talked to him a few weeks ago and I think the guy is genuine and what really got me was the, you know, eight out of ten people die right next to him and he's pulled out and he asks himself, why am I here. Why am I here. What am I supposed to do? We're all born for a reason. We all have time on Earth, and anybody who sees this may be my last day and I'm going to do something important and right and righteous and stand up for the truth and I'm not going to back down, because I've already faced death. I've already been in the death plane. Nothing frightens me anymore. I am going to use every day that God has given me to do something right. That got me.

Sponsor ‑‑

STU: We need to start having our politicians get involved in fake plane crashes like scare them, like they get into a plane, they think they're on a plane and, oh, my gosh, oh, wow, looks like it might crash, everybody. And then, you know, of course everything's fine and then it will just scare them and then they will be great politicians.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.