Why did Glenn call the GOP the amazing tower of Jell-O?

The GOP promised action on 12 issues in the first 12 weeks in Congress. They have acted, unfortunately they’ve acted extremely cowardly so far. From folding on immigration and Obamacare they have completely caved to progressive pressures. The latest failure was backing down on a slam-dunk bill outlawing abortions past the point where the baby can feel pain.

Below is a transcript of this story from radio

GLENN: It looks like the Republicans are abandoning the immigration campaign promises as they have abandoned the abortion promises too. So...

PAT: No. Because we were promised that they were going to hit hard. The 12 items in 12 weeks thing.

GLENN: But they are. They're hitting it hard. And the Keystone oil pipeline hasn't gone through either.

PAT: Except for those three things.

GLENN: But other than that...

PAT: So the first three weeks of the 12 weeks are a total wash. But after that, we'll buckle right down and get these taken care of. So nine items in nine weeks.

GLENN: But don't worry, it's only immigration. So they're folding on the small ones. Abortion, immigration --

PAT: It doesn't get any bigger than those.

GLENN: No.

PAT: It really doesn't.

GLENN: And you could even say, okay, abortion --

PAT: Let's keep killing babies. Let's just keep killing babies at the rate we have been. It's only 45 million now since 1972. Why not do another 45 million?

GLENN: Yeah. So let's just wait the next time.

PAT: Don't even worry about it. Why bother. Then the flood of illegals across the border, I wouldn't worry about that at all.

GLENN: You could say, why? But here's the deal, this is what scared them off of this, the president's approval rating is back to 50 percent.

PAT: Well, in Gallup, but it was 40 percent in some other poll last week.

GLENN: You don't understand, it's 50 percent in Gallup now. So they should panic. They should abandon their principles.

PAT: Because his approval rating is back up.

GLENN: His approval rating is back up. So the people must be with of him. It's insanity.

PAT: He has free health care going. Free Obama phones. Free food to the masses. Doing the free community college. Free child care. He's offering freebies to everybody not paying anything into the system. Of course, 50 percent are with him because 50 percent aren't paying any of the freight. Of course, they're always going to be with him. How is it they can't figure this out? How is it?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know.

PAT: I don't understand it. It's really not rocket science.

GLENN: I was thinking this morning. I was listening to something Rand Paul said. And he was on stage with -- Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were on stage together. They were both talking and they both made a lot of sense. I thought to myself, how is it that Romney and Jeb Bush can get together, and they can -- they can work together to take people out, but we can't get Rand Paul and Ted Cruz together and say, look, you guys -- and maybe Scott Walker. You guys, work together. Bobby Jindal, work together. And take out the -- the progressive Republicans and take out the Jeb Bush and the Mitt Romneys, and then we'll decide between you guys. Why can't you guys all stand together? That's what they're doing. What the hell is wrong with you guys.

[break]

So I get up this morning, and I think to myself, why can't we get -- if we can get Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney to get together and meet and say, hey, I don't know -- you know, why don't we all meet and take out all those nasty Tea Party guys, why can't the Ted Cruz -- and what's his name? Rand Paul. Why can't they get together and maybe even -- I don't know. We need to talk -- let's get Walker on. Let's see if we can get him on.

PAT: I'd like to talk to Scott Walker. He seems great.

GLENN: Yeah, I think I'd like him. I think he's a candidate worth considering. And even Marco Rubio. Even Marco Rubio, why can't these guys get together and say, we're all for small government. So let's go against the progressives. When we get into the debates, all of us, we just focus on the progressive policies of these two.

If they all got together and said, look, we're just going to work together. We're nonprogressives. They're progressives. If you want progressive, then go vote for the Democrat. We don't believe in the progressive principles. So we'll all stand together. And when the debate questions are asked, we won't attack each other. We'll turn our guys to these guys and say, look, a few of us on stage, here's the big choice, America. The first choice you have to make is, are we going to believe in big government has the solution or that government is the problem?

If government is the problem and the people are the solution, then you should consider one of us four. If you believe that the government solves all the problem and needs to babysit everyone, then it should be Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee. You take those guys. We believe in small limited government, and that's the first choice Republicans have to make. Which direction?

I don't know why they can't get together and do that. Because that's exactly what the progressive Republicans are doing. They're getting together and saying, let's take out Rand Paul and let's take out Ted Cruz. What are they thinking?

PAT: Mitt and Jeb already met in Utah. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, it's already happened. And Jeb Bush called the Clintons to say, hey, just want you to know, we're going to be running. They're all on it together.

PAT: The Clintons and the Bushes are incredibly close.

GLENN: What is wrong with our guys?

STU: I guess the argument is they would align themselves and have a situation where all four of them are splitting that vote. And then whoever from the establishment side pokes their head out, and they will work together, then, you know, you will have four Ted Cruz-type guys splitting votes and none of them win. I mean, the only way to work together --

GLENN: Here's what will happen. All the Jeb Bushes and the Mitt Romneys will work together, and they will take them out. They'll target them one after another. So what you do is you target all four of those guys. Target Jeb Bush. Number one target, Jeb Bush. And in the debates, you just target the policies of Jeb Bush. Look, I think it's important -- no matter what they ask you. I think it's important to understand, that Common Core is wrong. And I'm against Common Core and all the guys here are against Common Core. We don't believe that they should at that we should repeal and augment or replace -- we believe we should repeal Obamacare and then let the free market system work it out.

He likes big government health care. And so does Mitt Romney. And when you have people pointing that out, then they'll be forced to make a choice. I don't understand. That's exactly what they'll do. They can say the same thing. Well, one of us is going to lose.

STU: But they did. And they met together.

GLENN: Right. Because they're willing. Because they actually believe in something. They're willing to lose. Mitt Romney has even said this. Jeb, if it's not me, it should be you. Can I get Ted Cruz to say that about Rand Paul and Rand Paul say that about Ted Cruz? Hey, if it's not me, it shouldn't be Ted Cruz. If it's not me, it should be Rand Paul. No. I don't think they will.

GLENN: I don't think they will. And you already have Mitt Romney saying that about Jeb Bush.

STU: He's not outwardly saying that.

GLENN: Yes, he did. He said, if Jeb Bush runs, I don't think I will run because there will at least be someone there that will carry on what I believe needs to be done.

STU: And that was before he decided to run.

GLENN: Right. So now he won't say that. But he was saying that -- but in their meeting, they're bringing this up. Instead, we have all these progressive Republicans playing the game of, oh, we're going to be tough. Boy, are we going to be tough. Give me the 12 in 12. The idea -- and we need to have Chris Stewart on again.

STU: Yeah, he's not available today.

GLENN: Maybe tomorrow?

STU: Either later this week or next week. Do you have an update on that, Jeffy?

JEFFY: I do not.

GLENN: So he'll come on.

PAT: He will.

GLENN: He said, you know, I'll come on once a week and tell you about the 12 in 12. And the idea was, I voted for Boehner and a lot of us did because we have an agreement that Boehner will get really tough on these things. And we'll pass these 12 things in Congress. You'll see, Glenn.

Okay. Good, I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

And I like Chris. And I know Chris. And I disagree with his point of view here, but I know he's trying to do the right thing.

PAT: And if these 12 things worked out, it would be great.

GLENN: It would be great.

PAT: But so far, I haven't seen any of the 12 actually come to fruition.

GLENN: Okay. Well, here's what happened. I got up this morning, and I'm reading the news and I'm looking at how the Republicans seem to be folding on immigration. They just folded on abortion.

PAT: Right. That's two of the things.

GLENN: They're now talking about how Barack Obama's poll numbers are up. And so, well, if his poll numbers are up, we're worried about that, because maybe we should be more like Jeb Bush.

Oh, my gosh. Towers of Jell-O.

PAT: So the Keystone Pipeline was one of the issues.

GLENN: Let's go through the 12. Let's see where everything stands. Who has the list of 12?

PAT: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JEFFY: I do.

PAT: So does Jeffy. Keystone Pipeline. Border security.

STU: Keystone Pipeline is --

GLENN: Was passed in the House. And it is now being dragged down by the Democrats in the Senate. So it's being blocked by the Democrats in the Senate.

PAT: Okay. Border security, which they've apparently folded on already. Right?

GLENN: Yes. What they're doing is, they're saying they're going to do the immigration reform, but not the border security.

PAT: This, to me, if it's not the most important, it's certainly top two.

GLENN: Can I tell you something, you know what pisses me off? Have you guys seen the fence that Saudi Arabia is building?

STU: Yeah, 600 miles.

GLENN: Yeah, of fence.

When Israel builds a fence --

STU: It is hateful.

GLENN: It is hateful, and it's the Holocaust. When Saudi Arabia builds a 600-mile fence, it's not apartheid, no, it's common sense.

STU: It's to keep ISIS out, by the way. Because they're implementing that policy because we couldn't handle ISIS in the country that we were supposed to be handling them in. We've let that happen.

So instead, now, Saudi Arabia has to build a fence, which is the supposed response we were going to have to another problem in America that we couldn't handle and never built the fence. It's just a cacophony of failure.

PAT: So you have Keystone.

GLENN: Keystone is bogged down in the Senate.

PAT: Border.

GLENN: Border looks like they're done -- no, they'll do the immigration reform. They'll make people citizens, but they won't secure the border.

PAT: Yes. That's what will happen.

The REINS Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies who have become the most powerful in Washington --

GLENN: Don't know anything about that.

STU: Very good. It's Mike Lee. Mike Lee priority. It actually would make a huge difference to the country.

PAT: It would be great.

STU: It's not sexy at all. Basically all the regulation that goes in there, Congress would have an opportunity to say, no, not on that part. No.

GLENN: You want to know one of the most non-sexy issues of FDR's reign, was the commerce laws. Nobody paid attention to that. I'm trying to remember. What was the name of that court case that went to the Supreme Court?

STU: Yeah, I know what you're talking about.

GLENN: So, anyway, it was a non-sexy thing. That changed everything in America.

STU: It's the justification of every single government action today.

GLENN: Because they said it's state lines. Crossing state lines. So anything crossing state lines now can be regulated by the federal government. So that one court case changed -- if you just reversed that one thing, it will roll back progressivism 100 years. One hundred years. Make huge difference in everyone's life. Make an impact you would actually feel. When Mike Lee says it's not sexy, the REINS Act, nobody is paying attention to it. Nobody even understands that court case. I can't even remember the name of that court case. Do you have it?

STU: There's been multiple ones. There's the one with the wheat. I'm trying to think of the one that is well-known. I can't find the stupid name of it.

Wickard versus Filburn.

GLENN: And the one with the wheat is really important too. That was the guy he was going to make bread with wheat on his own property, and he wasn't allowed to.

STU: That's Gibbons versus Ogden. Yeah, that was the one where he wanted to make it on his own property. In theory, that would affect the entire wheat market.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So they can regulate what he does on his own property because someone in Idaho might have the price of wheat affected by what he's doing in his backyard.

GLENN: So everything changed. When he says the REINS Act is not sexy. Fine. Little changes like that, that nobody is paying attention to, make all the difference in the world.

STU: This is essentially an anti-Cass Sunstein law. Which would make it so that people like Cass Sunstein, who aren't elected, who go in there and write thousands of pages of regulations after we pass a law --

GLENN: It's the health care bill.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The health care bill, it just said page after page after page, the regulations shall be determined by the Secretary. And so there were no -- there were no -- the law was just empowering people to come up with all the laws.

STU: Yeah, exactly.

GLENN: And that's not the way it's supposed to be. Congress is supposed to pass the laws of the regulations.

STU: Congress can say, wait a minute. We don't agree with that regulation. It's not in the spirit of the law. They can vote on that. There has to be approval on this. It's not sexy at all, but it would be very important.

GLENN: Huge. Any idea where a that stands?

STU: I have not heard a word about it yet.

PAT: I don't think they're doing anything on it.

JEFFY: Not yet.

STU: They have 12 weeks. They could get to some of the stuff before the 12. The progress so far, not so great.

PAT: Tax reform, the only one talking about it, that I've heard, so far is the president.

GLENN: Well, and Ted Cruz. He's talking about repeal the IRS. Shut down the IRS.

PAT: Yeah, but the one who is really driving this bus right now is the president, on raising taxes.

GLENN: Did you guys see the show last night? Did you get a chance to watch the TV show?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Tonight I have him on again. It is -- here's the biggest thing. David Buckner is an adjunct professor at Columbia. He's also a consultant for some of the biggest corporations around the world. He spends time all around the world. Mainly in Europe and in Russia and in China.

And we talked about tax policy and hyperinflation last night. And because he said, two years ago, that the United States government is going to start raising interest rates. And when they start raising interest rates, unless they put us in the poppy field and make us feel like everything is okay, that's when everything starts to fall apart. He explained this last night in a way that I have not understood. He's on again tonight. He'll go into it a little bit more.

The reason why we can't now lower our tax rates, think of this. What's happened to all of the money? The president prints all this money. And who gets all this money? We printed all the money. Who gets the money? Who is he giving the money to?

STU: You mean, like the fed?

GLENN: Yeah, the fed prints all the money, and where does it go?

STU: The banks. So they can have more capital.

GLENN: Correct. So we've all heard. The banks aren't giving out any loans.

STU: They're sitting on it.

GLENN: They're sitting on that money. They're not sitting on that money here. They're investing over in places like Europe because the interest rates are higher over there. Here it's 0 percent. So they're borrowing money. They're lending money overseas because they can make money overseas. If we start to raise our -- our -- or lower our income tax, that means that money is going to start coming back here. If we raise our interest rates, it means, okay, we can invest here, because you'll put the money back on shore, and that money will make money.

If you lower the rates, all that money that's off shore making money someplace else again will come back here. And when you do that, what happens? All of that inflated money comes rushing back into the United States, and now you have hyperinflation. He's like, we're just -- we're just screwed.

STU: Thanks, David.

[laughter]

JEFFY: Not if we make it through the list of 12.

[laughter]

GLENN: Watch last night's episode and watch tonight's episode with David Buckner. Really fascinating conversation. Understood things about the economy I just didn't understand. Really fascinating.

All right. What else is on the 12?

PAT: Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS.

GLENN: Not going to happen.

PAT: Continue to work to repeal Obamacare and have a replacement for it.

GLENN: A replacement!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're already folding on that.

PAT: The Unborn Child Act, which prohibits abortion for those unborn children who actually can feel pain. Twenty weeks and above.

GLENN: And they just folded on that.

STU: They say they'll revisit that one.

PAT: Audit the fed. They haven't done that.

GLENN: No. That's not going to happen.

PAT: Reform the EPA.

And the Antiquities Act, which deals with federal land in the west, and the president's ability to use a law that has nothing to do with that in order to claim that federal land, which I believe is exactly what he's doing with Alaska right now.

STU: So far so good is what you're saying?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: G.O.P. tower of Jell-O!

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.