GLENN: President Trump may just be the master media manipulator he is after all. I have to tell you, I'm watching this in awe and sometimes aghast from both sides. I'm just watching this as a casual observer of history, and I can't believe what I'm seeing.
And I haven't figured it out yet. It could be that Donald Trump is the -- is the best watch the other hand guy I've ever seen. Remember, we used to say that about Barack Obama. Right, right, right. Stop arguing about that. What is the other hand doing?
We'll see. But also, he is overwhelming the system. Exactly what happened last time with Barack Obama, to the -- to the right, Donald Trump is doing to the left. There's no way you can keep up with all of this.
Tonight, at 8 o'clock, he's announcing his SCOTUS pick. In typical Trump fashion, don't miss must-see TV, Wednesday night. Is it Wednesday today? Or is it Tuesday?
STU: Tuesday. It is Tuesday. At least for the whole day.
GLENN: It's Tuesday? Wow. Wow. It's only been -- really? Yesterday was only 24 hours. It seemed like 48.
So tonight, don't miss. Ensuring as many eyeballs are possible on him tomorrow night, according to the sources close to our program, out of the 21 candidates that Trump has released prior to the election, it's down to three, and more likely, it's between two of the three men.
But here are the three finalists and what their nominations could mean to the future of the Supreme Court. Coming three at number three is William Pryor, the partisan, if you will. He is right of Alito and left of Clarence Thomas. And Pryor is the judge from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. He's the oldest of the possible choices, but he's still only 54. He still has a long career ahead of him on the bench.
However, he is by far the most outspoken of the three and the -- and definitely the least liked by the Democrats. Choosing Pryor would fit the mold of Trump about not caring about what anybody says, but the president would be in for a fight, if he was going to get him confirmed.
Chances are, he'll get him three, but he would spend an awful lot of political capital, which remains to be seen, if that even matters for this administration.
One sticking point for the evangelicals was when he, as attorney general of Alabama, had judge Roy Moore ousted for refusing to obey a federal court order and removed the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building.
Pryor said at the time, I'm just following the court's order. But this was a knock on him for the far right, and they have held on to that. As well as his recent support for transgendered rights.
He is not afraid to say what he believes, which is why the left calls him a bomb-thrower and considers him a cultural warrior. Many on the right see him as a rising conservative star, and he is a fierce critic of Roe vs. Wade. He has upheld the Georgia voter ID law and has called for sectarian prayers for opening a local commission meeting constitutional. He's probably not Scalia in waiting, but who is?
He is more in the mold of Alito, but all of this may be moot if the reports are correct, because he is, out of the three, the one who is really on the outside looking in.
Second one, the centrist, Thomas Hardiman. He is left of Roberts. Wow. Let's think about that one for a second, Stu. Left of Roberts.
STU: Yeah, I've been thinking about it.
GLENN: And right of Kennedy.
STU: And you might say to yourself, why the heck would Donald Trump appoint a centrist? Well, you know, there's a lot of reasons for it. But the one they're talking about now, as far as the way these games work is the rest of the court, they believe, will take a signal by -- as to who Trump nominates here as to how Trump is going to treat this situation. So if he goes for someone who is really right-wing and crazy, then people like Kennedy might say, "Well, I don't want to retire and let him name another crazy person to the bench."
So they're thinking -- the thought is -- and, again, this is all crazy inside-the-Beltway speculation, but the thought is, if he were to name a centrist, then Kennedy would feel more comfortable in his departure. And then if he departed, they could name a conservative to replace him.
I know that's a lot of --
GLENN: You know what that sound like? Honestly, you know what that sounds like to me? If I were sitting in the seat of the Oval Office, I would say, "Progressive BSer, get behind me."
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: That sounds like something that a progressive would say to an incoming president who is really trying to get the president to pick a centrist.
STU: Right.
GLENN: Look, I'm telling you, if you do this, this time, what will happen next time -- I mean, that just sounds like bullcrap.
STU: Right. But the question is, which progressive are you talking about? If that progressive happens to be Anthony Kennedy, then it might be a viable thing. I would not risk it.
GLENN: I wouldn't either.
STU: If you lose a Scalia and replace him with someone who as this article talks about, left of Roberts, you're in -- you're in for some trouble there. That's not a good sign. And if Kennedy doesn't step down, you have no conservative rulings potentially --
GLENN: Yeah, you have nothing. You have nothing.
STU: That's a huge problem. You think with Trump too, all his progressive sort of things with executive orders and all these big changes he wants to make, the last thing he wants to do is put the Supreme Court up to risk. There was obviously a reason that a lot of people who were very skeptical of him voted for him anyway. So, I mean, going for a centrist here is risky.
The one thing about this, which is -- we mentioned it I think yesterday is that he works with Trump's sister. Trump's sister knows him very well, and --
GLENN: I bet you this is the guy. I bet you this is the guy.
JEFFY: That's a big in. That's a big in.
GLENN: Yeah, that's a huge in.
STU: Because that was his initial reaction, right? I would name my sister. She would be a great judge.
And then obviously, over time, he kind of realized that that was just reactionary.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But here's a kind of way you can do it. He's got to have inside information on this person from his sister.
GLENN: Yep.
STU: He's going to know -- now, assuming his sister likes him. Maybe his sister hates him. But he's lasted this long on this list. You think he's got to be fairly well liked. They sided together on a lot of major decisions. So, you know, this one is -- it's interesting. He was not really one of the ones talked about, up until the last couple of weeks.
GLENN: I bet you it's him.
STU: It could be.
JEFFY: That's a good bet.
GLENN: This is exactly the kind of guy that every Republican president always nominates.
STU: I know, but that's not supposed to be what Trump does. Right? So maybe he won't.
GLENN: I know. I know. All right.
So the name again is Thomas Hardiman. I hope this isn't the guy. More moderate than the other choices. He's left of Roberts. Right of Kennedy.
Many conservatives are wary, after Kennedy and Roberts haven't turned out the way they hoped. He is only one of the candidates or sitting members of the bench without an Ivy League pedigree. He grew up in public schools, blue-collar family. Went to Notre Dame -- or, Notre Dame. And put himself through law school at Georgetown by driving a cab.
Is he the Catholic of the group? Can you find out if he's Catholic?
STU: Sure.
GLENN: He fits the bill with pro-life stance. He's strong on the Second Amendment. But he is seen as government-friendly. He has sided with Big Brother on censorship issues. He's 51 and would have influence for decades to come. He might be the most confirmable of the three, having been confirmed 95 to zero on the appellate court, receiving votes from Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein. Stein. Stein.
Former -- he's a former trial judge who has been serving on the Third Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Happens to be the same court as President Trump's sister. He receives a glowing recommendation from her, and he is thought to have -- and she is thought to have significant influence on her brother.
This may be the nominee.
The number one pick, according to GlennBeck.com, is Neil Gorsuch. He's a Libertarian. He is -- listen to this -- right of Scalia and left of Clarence Thomas.
STU: I'm comfortable with that. If that description is accurate, I am comfortable with that.
GLENN: I am so comfortable with this. This would be the guy. Out of these three, this would be the guy.
Gorsuch is not a name that many people know outside of political junky circles. He has quickly risen to the top of the list over the past couple of weeks. He's 49 years old. So he has the best chance theoretically of having the longest lasting influence. He is pro-life. He has sided against assisted suicide, but he has yet to rule on an abortion case. But they believe because he has stated pro-life and he has gone against assisted suicide -- which I don't understand how a Libertarian does that. A Libertarian should be for -- should be pro-life, if they think it's murder. Which I do. So it should be protecting -- the rights of the unborn child. But then to protect the rights of the living, should be able to say, "What you do with your own life is your business."
STU: And I don't know that he's -- I think they're describing him as a Libertarian. I don't know that he's stated that I am a Libertarian. You know --
GLENN: Well, I doubt he's stated he's a Libertarian. You're not going to get elected.
STU: Right.
GLENN: This might help win some votes from the Democrats, while conservatives can still feel relatively comfortable on where he stands. His lack of record makes him less likely to be borked than the Pryor nomination could.
I will tell you that where we get in trouble is people saying, "Hey, he doesn't have a record on these things," and so we guess on what their record is going to be.
STU: Yeah, that is an issue. And, by the way, also, a big issue with Hardiman -- I mean, I think his record is even thinner than Gorsuch. You know, they're both on the younger side, as far as justices go. They don't necessarily have the really long record of an older judge. But, I mean, you look at the -- there's a sentence in the longer profile of Hardiman, which says he's never had any abortion rulings either. So the only one -- you can be pretty darn sure that Pryor is going to be on the right side of that one, of these three.
And I think Gorsuch, reading in context, I mean, he has ruled in cases that would -- you know, one of the big things about Gorsuch, which I liked was, this was the guy we talked about who is -- he doesn't seem to be friendly to things that aren't in the Constitution.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: The Dormant Clauses, like the Dormant Privacy Clause, which leads to abortion or the Dormant Commerce Clause. And that's why there's a large indication that he would be pro-life. But it's true. The record is not extensive on the topic.
GLENN: If you look at his record that we know -- and there are some disturbing things in there, but if you look at the record of the things that we know, he has the best chance I think of being game-changing for the Supreme Court.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: Let me finish.
Let's see: He has sided with Hobby Lobby. He also sided with Little Sisters of the Poor, in upholding their right to follow their religious belief when it came to mandatory birth control for the nuns. And he's believed to have the Libertarian streak of Scalia and the style of Roberts. He has stated that he's an originalist, meaning he believes in the interpretation of the Constitution as written, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.
STU: It's amazing that there's another side to that argument: Have a written or how you might think it might be because of your political views -- which one do you think? How should we rule on this? Ugh.
GLENN: I know. Right.
So we don't know. You know, there's speculation that Justice Roberts was blackmailed at the last hour. That is something that I would really like to hear some -- if there are any good facts on that one. Because that ruling from Justice Roberts was just bizarre.
STU: Bizarre.
GLENN: Bizarre. And the fact that he showed up with puffy red eyes -- it was obvious that he rewrote it in the middle of the night because of the way it was written. It shows that he was actually on the other side and then just changed things. But it was rushed so quickly, he didn't change all of it. It was just bizarre.
But, anyway, he is a champion of small government conservatism like Antonin Scalia. Chances are the nominee will stand in the vast shadow of his legacy and never eclipse the works that he was able to accomplish. That being said, there will be a nominee, and it appears to be one of these three.
According to conservative circles, Hardiman is the least liked. Pryor is beloved by some, questioned by others.
And when the dust settles, Donald Trump lands on Neil Gorsuch. Conservatives could do much worse. But let's see what happens.
STU: Yeah, that's all up on GlennBeck.com, by the way. You can read that whole analysis.
GLENN: Right.
STU: And this is assuming, by the way, the purports are right. Who knows? Maybe Trump goes a totally different direction.
GLENN: Yeah. And it will be interesting because this is the one the religious community said, "This is the most important." And they put all of their eggs in this basket and had been telling him, "We want our pick." And it is not Hardiman. Let's see if it's paid off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
