Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Liberal Professor Robert Reich Inadvertently Endorses Ted Cruz

February 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

A new two-minute video from liberal professor and political commentator Robert Reich backfired in delivering its intended message: Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Instead, Reich inadvertently made the case that Cruz is a better presidential choice for conservatives due to his "strict, originalist view" of the Constitution. Reich, who believes Bernie Sanders' economic proposals would spur growth, may have delivered the best endorsement yet for electing Cruz.

"There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump, and I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, 'You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?' It is phenomenal," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, 'You need to run this at all of your rallies.' Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win."

Here are Reich's four reasons why Ted Cruz is more dangerous that Donald Trump:

Number One

• Cruz is more fanatical, a fierce ideologue who takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform and demands the repeal of Obamacare.

• Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line.

Number Two

• Cruz is a true believer, embracing right wing economic and political views.

• Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention and gaining power.

Number Three

• Cruz is more disciplined and strategic, using a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

• Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind.

Number Four

• Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. His opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

• Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots.

There's never been a more glowing endorsement for a conservative candidate. Thank you, Robert Reich.

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

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. It was the weekend of South Carolina and Nevada. Trump and Hillary both claimed victory. In a matchup between Hillary and Trump, which one does America want? Actually let me revise that. In a matchup between Hillary and a Hillary donor, which one does America want? And what do the exit polls actually say from South Carolina? Plus, an amazing video from Robert Reich, you know, the guy from the left, the big Clinton supporter. It is the most powerful campaign ad I have ever seen. The problem is: He was trying to make an anti-campaign ad for somebody. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. So glad that you've turned in. Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Yesterday, I saw an -- a saw a video on YouTube from Robert Reich. Robert Reich is -- I don't know. He's a bizarre economist with the Clinton campaign -- or, has been with the Clinton campaign for many, many years. Been with Bill Clinton and is a guy who is absolutely upside down and does not agree with the right at all. Conservatives are, you know, the Antichrist to him.

There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump. And I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, "You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?" It is phenomenal.

PAT: I thought the same.

GLENN: Right. I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, "You need to run this at all of your rallies." Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win. Listen to this.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

PAT: Is that a bad thing for anyone?

GLENN: Yeah. I know. He wants to abolish the IRS. No.

PAT: Oh, no. No. No. I didn't realize that about him.

ROBERT: Believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns.

PAT: Yes, it's the Second Amendment.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And the Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state.

PAT: Yeah, and neither does the Constitution, by the way.

ROBERT: Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

(gasping)

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: No!

GLENN: So far, I'm like, "He's my guy."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I've never heard anything -- but it gets better. Wait. There's more.

ROBERT: Cruz is a true believer.

Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. Cruz has much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three --

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Stop. Okay. So Cruz -- look, Donald Trump, he doesn't actually believe in anything, except himself and making money and everything else. But Cruz has actually spent his life really embracing these things. And they're all crazy.

PAT: Uh-huh. It's incredible. I mean, this seriously should be a campaign ad for Ted Cruz. For sure.

ROBERT: Discipline and strategic --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop.

PAT: More disciplined. Strategic --

GLENN: Here's point number three: Cruz is disciplined and strategic, where Trump is just all over the place.

PAT: Yes. Uh-huh.

ROBERT: -- winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he has shown in Iowa. And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big HEP shots.

PAT: Can you -- he spent his career using the government.

GLENN: Okay. Here's an example of this. And this is the kind of stuff, guys, that you're going to see --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: This is what you're going to see in the mainstream media come July if Donald Trump is the candidate.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Try this one on for size. Donald Trump said, you know, you remember when Donald Trump did this big deal. And this is exactly how it will be presented on NBC.

Remember when he said that -- oh, you know, how dare you say -- I had friends that died in the World Trade Center. So far -- and this is the way, again, the media will portray this. So far, NBC has reached out to the Trump campaign several times and cannot get one name of anybody that Donald Trump was friends with. We also looked at the records, and there is no record of Donald Trump attending any funerals for any individual after 9/11.

Okay. The press has already done that. But they haven't stood on it. But here comes the hammer. Donald Trump owns 40 Wall Street, a building worth $400 million. And on paper, is making $26.5 million every year. Donald Trump, after the government put together a package for small businesses to help those mom-and-pop stores in lower Manhattan that had been damaged or hurt by September 11th, Donald Trump and 40 Wall Street filed a claim to try to get money out of the small business fund.

He actually -- a business that makes $26.5 million a year. $20 million over the limit, somehow or another was able to receive a grant of $150,000, taking that $150,000 from the mom-and-pop small businesses that truly needed it. Brian, back to you.

That's exactly how it's going to happen. That's exactly what's going to happen.

Here's Donald Trump. And this is what Robert Reich was saying. He has spent his career taking money from the government. We know this because of the documentaries we have seen. And some of them are now posted. Documentaries that Donald Trump got shut down back in the '90s that are now starting to pop up on the news because he can't muscle NBC. He can't muscle ABC. The internet is there.

And now you're seeing in some of these documentaries how he built his business. He would go to the government and get subsidies for all his business. So what Robert Reich is saying here, "This isn't a guy who will shut down all the subsidies. This is a guy who uses the subsidies to get wealthy." This is exactly what America -- and I'm going to make a point today, and you're not going to like it. But I am going to make a point that there is a revolution coming in the next eight years. There is a revolution actually happening right now. But it is a velvet revolution. And if we choose wrong, it will not be a velvet revolution. If we stay the course and we continue down the road with corrupt crony capitalism and corrupt -- quite honestly, the kind of politics that the left is dealing in right now, where Hillary Clinton has all the superdelegates, so it doesn't really matter what the people say. The people are voting for -- for Bernie Sanders, and it is a virtual dead HEP heat between those two. But somehow or another, she wins six coin tosses, and here in Nevada, she wins the delegates by flipping over cards: He got a six. She got an ace. She gets the delegates. Your vote really doesn't matter with the left. It doesn't matter at all.

And those kinds of things where we're undermining democracy and we're undermining the confidence in true, decent, honest, and honorable capitalism is not going to last. And that's what's happening. And this is what Robert Reich is holding up and saying is a good thing. Why? Because de Tocqueville was right.

De Tocqueville, the guy who wrote Democracy in America back in the 1800s, a Frenchman who came over to America and said, "What is it that makes them special? Why is it that they are being able to cross all of these lines and hurdles and jump all these hurdles? Why is it this little teeny country is starting to explode?" And he said, "Because America is great because America is good." They had certain fundamental principles that they never violated. And the people were good and honorable and decent.

And we've lost that. And that's what -- that's where this anger is coming from. People are tired from saying, "Wait a minute. Hillary Clinton should be in jail. She shouldn't be on the campaign trail. She should be in jail." And I would like to say that those on the right would say the same thing if it was their candidate. But we wouldn't. Polls are now showing that we play the same game the left does. All of this bullcrap, quite frankly, that we all said to each other over the last eight years, "It's not about -- it's about principles. It's about the Constitution. It's about these principles they're taking and destroying." Now what are people saying? "My guy can play that game even better than they can. And I'm tired of playing by the rules."

You read my Facebook. I have never seen anything like what I'm reading on my Facebook page now: Story after story after story of people saying, "You know what, I'm tired of playing by the rules. I'm tired of being stepped on. I'm tired of having everybody win except for us. The ends justify the means. If they're not going to play by the rules, I'm not going to play by the rules."

And the problem with that is, America, you might win the game, but you're going to lose your soul. You're going to lose what made America great in the first place. You cannot play by that, unless you want to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

So let's finish this Robert Reich video.

PAT: Yeah.

ROBERT: Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

PAT: No, it didn't.

ROBERT: Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

(chuckling)

STU: Brought to you by the Ted Cruz campaign.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Can we play one more time without interrupting it. Because it's so powerful in a minute a half.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump: Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state. Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

Second, Cruz is a true believer. Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three, Cruz is more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs.

In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government. Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

PAT: That is --

GLENN: I'm Ted Cruz. And I approve this message.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's what super PACs should be playing right now.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Wow.

GLENN: I mean, that is the most powerful endorsement of Ted Cruz I've ever heard from Robert Reich.

Featured Image: Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich (L) testifies before the Joint Economic Committee January 16, 2014 in Washington, DC. Reich joined a panel testifying on the topic of 'Income Inequality in the United States.Ó (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

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.