Glenn: The world has real problems, but we can solve them if we are honest about what really matters

We have a lot of problems in the world, and as I'm watching them spiral out of control this weekend, I thought if we want to solve them, as an alcoholic, first step is you’ve got to admit you have a problem.

And if we’re going to work together, we have to admit that one of our problems is this partisan bickering, and we have to be willing to then say the tough thing, we have to stop this bickering and be honest with one another and acknowledge a few simple truths, that we are not that different, that our neighbors aren’t. There are those fringes, especially in Washington. There’s maybe 10% on each side that is crazy and out-of-control, but our neighbors generally are not.

And we have to be able to discern which issues are really, truly critical and which ones are not, which ones are just political games. And that’s what I want to try to do today because the globe is in a critical condition, and the country is in critical condition. We have Hamas waging war against Israel, and it’s tearing our cities apart. From London to LA, there is rising anti-Semitism in our streets.

The global economy is dismal. Civil unrest is becoming increasingly prevalent all around the country, and here in America it’s almost as though some of these problems don’t even exist. The 44 million Americans who now follow the president on Twitter must feel like things are amazing. Is there anybody that is following the president on Twitter saying, “Gosh, he seems a little out of touch”?

First of all, it was all about his birthday. This weekend’s tweets were all promoting his birthday, nine tweets. And then on the other side, in Hollywood, which prides itself on being relevant and speaking to the critical issues of the day, they’re not concerned with the anti-Semitic protests that were happening right in their backyard. Instead, they seem to be most concerned about who is the next black star? I don’t understand this.

I see some of the headlines from both sides of the aisle, from everybody, and I think really, this is what we’re working on? If we want real progress, if we want real solutions, we have to begin to identify and agree on which issues are critical and which ones are political. I would say most people feel that the border is a very important issue, all Americans across the board, and the economy, jobs. Those are the two things that everybody cares about, but that’s not what we’re hearing about.

Let’s look at the issues now that are being pushed as critical and put them to the test, what’s really important? Right now, the president is campaigning around the country fighting what he calls the defining challenge of our time, and that is battling income inequality.

Okay, I believe these things. I believe that we have to be able to not just feel like, we actually have to be able to work hard and get ahead. If you have a problem with the rich being too rich, well, that’s not a problem that we can ever solve because the government is going to do that. Is it perhaps that one of the basic problems that we have here in America on income inequality is that we don’t understand greed anymore?

If you think that greed is the answer, that the rich just keep getting richer, not because they’ve invented…nobody has a problem with Bill Gates being rich. Look what he’s done. Nobody has a problem with Steve Jobs being rich. Who are you having a problem with? The banks, right? The people on Wall Street, right? Why? Because it’s all about greed, it’s all about the money. It’s not about actually making something, it’s about the money.

And then when they fail, we have to bail them out, so the problem is greed. And is that a problem that the government can solve? Another pressing issue for this administration is workplace fairness. I love this quote, “You shouldn’t be fired because of who you love.” Is there anyone who disagrees with this? Is there anyone that thinks that you should be fired because you’re gay or straight? I don’t know anybody who thinks that way.

I don’t know a single soul that thinks that’s right, and if it’s happening, are people being fired because of who they love at such a clip that the president needs to make this one of our defining issues of the age? That’s not the pressing issue, and if it is, I want to see the stories on it because we can all unite on this one and stop that one this fast. And then there of course is the war on women, “I want my daughters paid the same as your sons for doing the same jobs.” That’s the president.

Well, Mister President, if my daughter was working in the White House, she would not be paid the same as my son for doing the same jobs at the White House. There is income inequality in the White House when it comes to gender. The White House doesn’t even uphold those standards, and there’s a reason for it. And we’re not going to get into all of it, but there’s a reason for it, and he knows. This is a political stunt, political stunt, because nobody disagrees with that.

We somehow or another, we have our daughters, and we don’t think that our daughters should be paid? Of course, every father thinks that. The political parties, both left and right, are using people to forward their political interests, not our national values. When you have people claiming that it’s a war on women because Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20 kinds of birth control, and the four that they don’t are related to abortion, that’s not political interest. I mean, that is political interest. That’s not our national values, and it’s certainly not a war on women by Hobby Lobby. It’s a political stunt.

And all that happens is, I mean, the reason why the president is going from place to place, and he’s not going to meet on these big issues, because he’s always busy. Where is he? He’s busy at fundraisers. This is all about money. That’s all this is about money and power. And you get more money and you get more power by driving the wedge further and deeper down.

I love the people that had come out this week because I was on CNN this weekend, and they were talking about how Glenn Beck is now, he’s only doing this for money; he’s only trying to unite people because it’s in his best interests for ratings and money. Oh my gosh, if that were true, the president would be uniting people on every stop. It is division that makes people race under the banner. It’s somebody saying, “I’m being attacked” that makes somebody, you’re being attacked, we’re all going to lose all of this.

I’m telling you we don’t have to lose all of this. I am telling you we all justice. We all want mercy. We have these problems, but we can solve them. We all want reconciliation. We want people to be respected. We want people to love who they want to love without fear of harassment or execution. We want people to have freedom of speech and to be heard so they can differ with one another but do so with respect.

We all want to know that we’re all in it together, and we’re working toward something much greater, and that we’ve been heard along the way, even though people will disagree with us, doesn’t mean we get our way, but we’ve been heard, and that we have control over our own lives. That is something that we all want, we all want. And if we can agree on that, then we can start looking at the real war on women.

Let’s compare the war on women in America where you can’t have an abortion to the war on women in China where you must have an abortion, even though you want to keep the baby, you must have an abortion, or the war on women living in the Middle East and in Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation. The locals call it Sunat. It means duty. You want to talk about reproductive rights, I’d say having, you know, you being forced to have yours cut up and partially or totally removed would be pretty high on the list of offenses on a war on women, and it happens to 130 million women worldwide. That is a problem.

In Egypt, harassment is practically a given. The UN reports that 99.3% of women experience sexual harassment. In Syria, thousands of women have been targeted by both the government forces and the rebel groups, and they’re being raped, they’re being used as human shields, they’re being arrested without cause, they’re tortured, they’re kidnapped, they’re murdered. In the past two years, honor killings have claimed the lives of 25 women that live under the Palestinian Authority.

How about all the women that were kidnapped? Remember, return our girls, return our daughters? That’s a war on women, and that’s one we can unite on, both left and right. Which one, Hobby Lobby or the rape and murder of women, 130 million mutilations? Which one is critical? Which one is political? Which one would actually move us forward as a people, as a species?

Gay marriage is defined as a civil rights, that’s an issue now here in America, and there are those who oppose changing the definition of America. And if you oppose, you’re immediately equated to a hatemonger, and you are immediately compared to the racists of the 1960s. Yet, coming out today here in America practically comes with a tickertape parade and a friendly round of media interviews. It’s not exactly courageous.

Look at the guy at the NFL, look what happened to him. That didn’t take a lot of courage. He had a special on Oprah. Courage is coming out in places like Iran where gays are routinely tortured. To be homosexual is against the law. You’re sent to prison or you’re executed in public for being gay.

In Nigeria, being married if you’re gay lands you in prison for 14 years. Homophobia in Russia is on the rise as well with one celebrity going as far as calling for gays to be sent to the gas chambers, and that’s not a nobody celebrity like me, that’s a somebody celebrity. This is a big guy.

Now, let me ask you, you’re talking about gays being sent to gas chambers, you’re talking about the stoning to death in Iran or in Egypt, isn’t this something that the staunchest DOMA supporter and the staunchest GLAAD supporter can link arms on? And wouldn’t it change the world if we actually did that as Americans?

This weekend, I’ve heard nothing but how Israelis are committing genocide, they’re committing genocide of the Palestinian people. They are now worse than Hitler. I love this, they’ve surpassed Hitler in barbarism. That’s saying something. If that’s true, we all can unite and say that’s got to stop. But if they’re engaging in genocide, they’re really, really bad at it.

Gaza is a tiny area of Israel, and Israel has all the firepower. This conflict has been going on forever, and yet the population of Gaza is increasing. Can you tell me how many concentration camps under Hitler had the population increase that weren’t imported in? Meanwhile, in Darfur, 480,000 people have been slaughtered in the last decade, and it continues today, Darfur, an actual ethnic cleansing that the world has turned away from.

As I said, I talked to CNN on Israel this week, and they didn’t air this part, and I wish they would have. I think it would have been a shock for people on the left to hear me talk about it, because what I said in that interview is we don’t hate the Palestinian people, we can’t hate the Palestinian people, just like we didn’t hate the Germans in World War II. Thirty percent of the Germans elected Hitler. Thirty percent of the Palestinians elected Hamas.

Both the Nazis and Hamas were calling for genocide of the same people. But what happened? We fought the Germans until we defeated the Nazi machine, and then we helped the Germans. We weren’t against the Germans. We love the German people.

We have to stand united on just a really simple principle, no genocide for any people, no genocide. But let’s stop throwing around the word genocide if it doesn’t apply because it’s not happening there. This is a war, and it’s awful, it’s awful, but by crying genocide in war stops people from actually listening to the cry of genocide when it’s real.

Why can’t we work together to end the genocide in places like Darfur? I mean, hasn’t that gone on long enough? Left and right, why can’t we stand together? Why won’t somebody like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or George Clooney stand with somebody like me and say enough is enough on Darfur, can’t we stop this, enough is enough?

And at the same time, are we not big enough to give aid and comfort, not to the terrorists, but once the terrorists stop using the poor Palestinians, and the bombing stops, aren’t we big enough to extend aid to all people that want peace and to live in harmony?

We all want to move forward. We all want to fix the country. We all want the same things, pretty much the same things, not the fringe crazy people on the edges. Can’t we start looking at our strategy? Are we really attacking the things that matter? Are we attacking critical issues or political ones?

What’s usually on the news in the routine news cycle? First Lady continues to crackdown on America’s school lunch menu. A Nebraska school just banned a bake sale. Really, is that really what’s important? Time for Congress to help the middle class – okay, how? How? Diversity day, drag queens are performing at our military bases. Is that our priority with our military?

The EPA is arresting people for illegally transporting milk, milk, across state lines. That’s your priority? Have you seen what’s happening in Chicago? And meanwhile, we have a $17 trillion debt, and the world is blaming us for it. Chicago, one of the most deadly places in the country to live. Ranchers along the border are continually finding the dead bodies on their property. Did you see that story?

And then we have Ebola on the loose. God help this poor doctor that came in, and God help us all if the CDC is putting our national interests above our national values. When we put our values before our interests, when we put our values before our political interests, we’ll be okay, and we’ll be able to come together. And I suggest that we are the people to begin that march towards real justice, real mercy, and real reconciliation.

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.