Senator Marco Rubio joins Glenn to discuss 2016 presidential race

Glenn introduced Senator Marco Rubio on radio this morning to discuss several key issues concerning his presidential race. While making it clear he has some real disagreements with Rubio, he told his listeners Rubio is "somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at."

With the next GOP debate slated to focus on the economy, much of their conversation revolved around economic subjects, such as free enterprise, tax reform and the "sharing economy." Other topics included gun control, abortion, fellow candidates and Rubio's prediction about Russia's involvement in the Middle East.

Listen to the dialogue below.

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

GLENN: I want to introduce you to somebody I think you should get to know. And that is Senator Marco Rubio. He is a guy who I actually have real disagreements on a couple of things. And we'll get into that maybe a little bit here today. But I'd like to sit down with him and have a real conversation. Marco and I met, I don't even remember where it was or where it was. Sometime in the summer. Someplace. Marco, do you remember where that was?

MARCO: Las Vegas, I think.

GLENN: And so we met --

MARCO: Yep. Freedom Fest.

GLENN: Yeah, Freedom Fest, that's right. We spent about an hour together. And I didn't know what to think of Marco Rubio when I walked in. I really liked him and respected him and respected his intellect and his honesty when I left. And he's somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at. You may end up disagreeing. But he's somebody that you should take a serious look at.

Marco, welcome to the program. How are you, senator?

MARCO: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. So you were talking about the sharing economy, which I think some people, especially, you know, as you get a little older, sharing -- communist! The sharing economy is something that is actually real and is the difference between my age and the millennials. You want to explain this a bit?

MARCO: Yeah, so I'll give you a perfect example, right? There's a new system out there, a company called Handy. And what Handy does is, let's say that your air conditioning unit breaks down at 11 o'clock at night and you need somebody to come in and fix it because it's just too hot. Handy has somewhere halfway across town there's an air-conditioning repair person who is available to work at 11 o'clock at night. It is an app that you go on your phone and connects you to a needy customer, somebody who needs help. It connects you with a person who is ready to do that service for you. So it's basically a platform where you're sharing, you know, a handyman, or in this case, an air-conditioning repairman to come work for you. You pay them on the app, so it's cashless. And then you rate their work so that future customers can look at it and see who is good and who is not. It's basically free enterprise --

GLENN: Extreme.

MARCO: -- broadened in the 20th century. And why it really works is now suddenly, as an air-conditioning repair person, you can go into business for yourself. You don't need to do advertising. You don't need to have a huge physical plant. You can be in business for yourself because this connects you to customers at a very low cost.

GLENN: And nobody is taking a cut of that. This is the thing that I don't think people understand. I just gave a speech here in Dallas with Allen West. And the question came up from the audience about the economy. And I said, "Most people don't understand. We're on the verge of not the Industrial Revolution, but the Renaissance." People are going to be freed up to do things and to be their own person in ways I don't think the average person can really understand. Is this where you get your hope for the economy and us not being swept away in the dustbin of history?

MARCO: I do. And what gives me concern is that, you know, outdated leaders and particularly believers of big government are the ones that will stand in the way of it. Because their argument is going to be, "Well, that air-conditioning repairman has to be treated as an employee of the company that connected you guys." That means you have to offer them benefits, and you have to pay them a certain wage. And you have to do this, that, or the other. And the thing that really happens, actually, is an established industry. Some big company that does air-conditioning repair. This is a bad example, but I'm just using it. It exists in other realms.

An established industry will hire a bunch of lobbyists to go to City Hall, the State Capitol, or Washington and say, "We need to pass a law to keep people from providing competition to us."

GLENN: Yes.

MARCO: And they'll have politicians that go along with them because they hired the right lobbyists and they raised a lot of money.

GLENN: When you and I were in Vegas, that weekend or whenever that was, I remember walking down the street with my wife, and they were -- they were reaching across her to hand me hooker cards where I could call for a hooker in case, you know, I got tired of my wife. And my wife just snapped. And she's like, "We're getting off this strip. Just, stop it. I can't take this anymore." And I said, "Hang on. I got to call for Uber." And somebody said to me, next to me, "You can't get Uber here." Las Vegas is not cool with Uber, but they are cool with hookers.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, that's because the established taxicab industry has gone to the commission or the local government and said, "Don't allow these people to operate here." And that happens in industry after industry. It's why -- people don't understand. To be for free enterprise does not mean to be for big business. Big business and established industries are actually often an impediment to free enterprise because they want to keep their hold and they don't want to allow any competitor to enter the space.

GLENN: So you are the -- the next debate is really about the economy. What is your focus on the economy? What sets you apart?

MARCO: Well, again, I think most of us are talking about some of the same issues. I think the argument that I've used that others haven't is, there's no reason why America can't be better in the 21st century economically than it was in the 20th. We should be leading in all these things. But we have to be competitive in order to make that happen. That's why we need tax reform. That's why we need regulatory reform. That's why we need to balance our budget. And repeal and replace Obamacare and fully utilize our energy resources. If we can do those things, the private sector, the American innovator, the small business person out there starting their business, they'll take care of the rest. They'll create the great companies, the great ideas, and the great-paying jobs. We just need a government that gives them a chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

GLENN: So you're a Catholic. The pope was just in the country. Do you think he missed the opportunity to shut down Planned Parenthood when he spoke in front of Congress by really not standing on that issue?

MARCO: Look, obviously if I had written the speech, it would have focused more on protecting life and a little bit less on some of the other issues. But, ultimately, he did mention the value of life at every stage, and I thought that was important. Maybe he chose not to get involved into our internal political debates in this country. And in fairness, he didn't do that the other way either. He talked about, you know, supporting and protecting the environment. He didn't say, "And, therefore, pass Cap and Trade." Or "Thank you, President Obama, for signing all these executive orders on coal and so forth." So I understand. He's a spiritual leader. He didn't want to get into the details of a political debate. But he did mention life.

But, yes, I mean, that's got to be -- for me, the issue of life is not a political issue. It is a human rights issue, and it's one that I think deserves the priority.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton said just the other day, "How many more innocent -- how many more of our innocent children have to be slaughtered before we say enough is enough?" And she was talking, of course, about the slaughter of the children in Oregon, not in Planned Parenthood.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, terrible tragedy of what happened in Oregon. But you're right. Every single year, unborn children in this country are killed legally through laws that allow that to happen. And, look, I recognize this is a tough issue. And I actually do believe that a woman has a right to choose with her body. The problem is that when there's a pregnancy, there's another life involved, and that life has a right to live. And so as policymakers, we have to choose between two competing rights. And I've chosen, as a matter of principle, to err and to choose the side of life in that debate. And she, on the other hand, she supports abortion on demand at any stage. For example, she voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome way of aborting a child. She voted against the ban. One of the few people did and actually justified it. Said it was a fundamental right. She has extreme positions on the issue of life. And I hope we'll have an opportunity to talk about those in this campaign.

GLENN: Let me talk about Oregon a bit because they are, again, doing everything they can to -- the president at least is getting close to being honest. He said last week that it's time to look at countries that have done something like Australia and England. And what Australia and England did was confiscation of all guns.

How do we stop this insanity? We're headed for a really bad place if this is really what the left is pushing for.

MARCO: Yeah. By pointing out that the things they're advocating would have done nothing to prevent these things. For example, they advocate for an assault weapons ban. Well, the last two instances that have been high-profile didn't use assault weapons. They talk about background checks. The last two instances we saw are people that would have passed background checks or did pass background checks. So the point -- the problem with gun laws is they're not very effective. Because criminals are the ones that commit crimes with guns. And criminals don't care what the law is. They don't follow the law because they are criminals. By definition, they ignore the law. So if you pass strict gun laws, law-abiding people adheres to those laws. And then they will be unable to protect their families.

GLENN: The father of the killer said, "Well, how could he have -- how could he have had these guns, you know, if they just weren't on the streets, if those guns were just not available, my son wouldn't have killed all those people."

MARCO: Yeah, look, again, I know the arguments that people are making. And the bottom line is, if someone intends to acquire a weapon, they're going to acquire a weapon. Whether it's legally or illegally, they're going to do it. And the only people that will be impacted by these gun laws are people that follow the law. And so what you'll have is a country where law-abiding people are unprotected, are unable to protect themselves, the property of their family. And people who are intent on committing a criminal act, accessing explosives, a gun, or whatever else they want to use to kill people.

GLENN: Marco, I want to ask you, I saw a clip at the Value Voters Summit of Donald Trump where he called you a clown. And he was -- he was booed for that. What do you think -- what do you think it says about America that we're -- that we're embracing this kind of nonsense?

MARCO: You know, I think there's a tremendous amount of frustration, rightfully so with the political class. It's a disconnect between Washington and the struggles of daily life that people are facing. And I think he's hit upon that to some extent. And we can't ignore it.

But, ultimately, this campaign has to be about the big issues confronting our country. Look, we're now at a point where we are either -- over the next four years, we'll have to decide, we're either going to leave our children as the most prosperous and freest Americans ever, or we'll be the first generation of Americans that leave our children worse off than ourselves. That's the only two ways forward. And if we don't make the right choice in this election, if we have another four years like the last eight, we are going to be the first Americans in our history to leave our children worse off than ourselves. This has to be a serious election about serious issues and real solutions. And I think increasingly, the campaign is becoming about that. I really do. And I'm glad that it is. Because our nation and our people deserve that. At least from my campaign's perspective, that's what we'll be about.

GLENN: We'd like to sit down with you and talk about some things we disagree with, the immigration and also disagree with the NSA. And you and I both had I think a very logical and heartfelt talk about those issues privately. And I'd like to have those publicly at some point down the road.

MARCO: Sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: But I would -- I guess I would just end with this.

You brought up -- you know, you're talking about Donald Trump. You said, "You know, people are very frustrated." And they are.

MARCO: They are.

GLENN: They're attracted to Donald Trump and they're attracted to Ben Carson because they're completely out of the system. And I say this, you know, with -- you know, I support Rand Paul, I support you, I support Ted Cruz. But you guys are all in the system. And I think that's playing against you. Why should anyone trust any of you guys who are already in the system?

MARCO: Well, first of all, the names you've just mentioned, we've been there about four years. In the case of Ted, a couple years less than that.

I ran for office against incredible odds five years ago against the sitting governor of Florida with the entire political establishment supporting him. And the reason why I ran is to change this stuff. And I realized -- one of my great frustrations about the US Senate is the lack of urgency about any of these issues. No one talks about the debt anymore, for example.

We still have a debt that's almost $19 trillion. And no one -- this wasn't even a topic at the three-hour CNN debate. And there's no sense of urgency about these things. And I just concluded -- you know, we really want to change the direction of the country, we don't just need a House and Senate, we need a president, and that's why I chose to run for president.

So the truth is that one of the reasons I'm running is because I share that frustration. It's the reason why I ran for the Senate four and a half years ago. And I've had a front row seat unfortunately to see some of this lack of action on some of these issues. And it's that frustration that leads me to seek the highest office in the land now because I know it's going to take a president to undo the damage done by this president.

GLENN: I will say, you should just take a quick victory lap here before I let you know on the prediction you made on the last debate where you said exactly what Putin would do. This president and our State Department has no idea what they're dealing with. And you called it. And it was an astounding prediction.

MARCO: And I think you'll continue to see more of those things. You know, his goal is to continue to drive us out of the Middle East and reposition himself as a geopolitical force, on par with the United States. And so you're already seeing more and more of that. And I think unfortunately we were right about that. And we'll be right about it in the future. Because this president is weak and he's seen that way by our adversaries.

GLENN: Yeah. Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.com, if you want to support. MarcoRubio.com. Marco, we'll see you again. And thank you so much for being on the program.

MARCO: Yes. Thanks, Glenn. Thanks.

GLENN: Running for president, Senator Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.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.

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.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.