Why Glenn Will Be the Happiest Man in the World if He Has to Apologize Every Day

February 01, 2017

WRITER

The country needs Donald Trump to be successful. And as long as he's leading and governing in a way that honors constitutional principles, Glenn will be the first in line to make apologies when he's wrong --- but there's one contingent.

"I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens. I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging, and I will trust God to work it out," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Let me go to Ken in New York. Hello, Ken. You're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Hi. Hi, Glenn. It's great to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I called you before Donald Trump's selection, and I argued with you that he needed to be elected because of the Supreme Court. And I was mad at you because you weren't promoting him. And I appreciate your apology.

It makes you a better man.

GLENN: Well, I told you --

CALLER: But now you're doing it again.

GLENN: Hang on just a second, Ken, I told you that I would. And the one thing that I -- and the only thing that matters to me is my integrity. I told you that I would, and I have. So I'm sorry that people are disappointed -- or, I mean, surprised that I would actually do that. It shows me that I --

CALLER: Oh, I'm not surprised.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Okay. So now I'm doing it again. How?

CALLER: I think you should buy one of those -- you should buy one of those Staples Buttons and change the wording to where it says "I'm sorry" because you're going to have to do it again.

GLENN: I'll be -- as I said during the election, I will be the happiest man in the world if I have to apologize every day because I was wrong about Donald Trump. I want him -- the country needs him to be successful.

CALLER: I agree.

The -- we have a famous president who was loved by all and endeared by all. And he made a quote one day, and that was, "Elections have consequences." And so our next Supreme Court pick, if it's Ginsburg who leaves us by hook or by crook, Donald Trump has every right to appoint a conservative constitutionalist again.

GLENN: Well, wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. If you think that I'm saying that Donald Trump shouldn't replace Ginsburg with a conservative, then I misspoke. What I said was --

CALLER: I totally misunderstood you then.

GLENN: Yeah. What if Ginsburg were the last radical, progressive on the court and it was a Democratic president, a progressive president, they would have every right and they should replace -- and I would look at that as fair. If we're looking at -- we're looking at a court now that really has no constitutional conservative on it, except Clarence Thomas.

The rest of them can go either way. And they'll all -- you know, John Roberts is absolutely useless.

STU: Alito is good. Alito is good.

GLENN: Alito is good. But if you have the lion -- if you have the lion of the side and your guy is in there, they should replace. If Ginsburg was the only voice that was really leading the charge, she should be replaced. We can't have a court that is -- that shuts out 50 percent of the country. We can't do that.

CALLER: Well, it would be nice if the entire court just believed the Constitution to be the rule of law and made their decisions based on the rule of law and the Constitution, and we wouldn't care what party and what affiliations they had.

GLENN: If you got strict constitutionalists that actually interpreted the Constitution as it was written, it would be the solution to all of our problems.

Unfortunately, we don't have those justices. If --

CALLER: No.

GLENN: But one of the reasons why we don't is because we have done a very bad job, not as conservatives, not as Republicans, but as Americans, of understanding and being able to teach and spread the word of the Constitution.

It's a lot like -- it's a lot like faith. Faith, many times, has become a tool to either get rich or to build a big church or to bring people into the fold that agree with you and then put a bunch of rules on them.

Faith, to me, religion, is used too many times to control people.

CALLER: Yes, sir.

GLENN: When you really understand faith, God has rules. But they're between you and him, not the organization or anything else. You and him.

And it is the most freeing thing. Those simple rules will free you and make you more free than you've ever been in your entire life. It's an amazing thing. The same thing with the Constitution. There are very few rules. Those amendments, if you just go with the Bill of Rights and we all really did that, no matter whose side it hurt or won for -- you know, well, now, wait a minute, that will hurt my religion or that will hurt my agenda or this or that.

No. You stick by those simple rules, and we'll all be free. And we'll all live happily ever after and together.

STU: That was one of the great things that he said. Gorsuch was, if you're not making decisions that make you feel uncomfortable, based on whatever your particular beliefs are, is because you're following the law, then you're not a very good justice. You have to be following the law. Sometimes that will disagree with what you want to happen.

GLENN: Absolutely.

STU: But you follow the law and the Constitution anyway. And sometimes that will make you uncomfortable.

GLENN: Right. And the Constitution is paramount. Not the law.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: The Constitution is paramount. You know, for instance, it makes me very, very uncomfortable to not be able to just tap people's phones who we just think, "You know, I don't know, that guy is shady. We should listen -- and especially if everybody in the room is standing around you, going, "Look, every other country is doing this. We got -- we got to be able to do those."

No, I'm sorry. And I will take the blame for this if it turns out bad, but I'm going to make the case that that is what makes us unlike all other countries.

No president or anybody else has the power to say, "You know what, put him on an enemy's list. Let's follow him. Let's destroy him. Let's tap him."

If we can gather enough evidence, guys, and go to a court and do it through the Constitution, as an individual, good, let's do it.

If you can't gather that evidence, sorry. That's really uncomfortable, if you're sitting there as the president of the United States and saying, "Gee, I don't know, man. Something happens, and if that guy gets away, then I'm going to be blamed for it." Yeah, you will be. Tough, isn't it? Because the one to really blame is the Constitution. And the Constitution is freeing in the end.

Otherwise, what happens? You say, "Oh, you know what, I don't have a problem."

By hook or by crook -- that's a quote -- we're going to pole vault into it if we have to. We'll do anything it takes to get this done, even though it's unconstitutional.

What does that lead you to? Somebody else that gets power in the Oval Office that says, "By hook or by crook, I'm going to do whatever I want by executive order." And all of a sudden, you don't like it.

The Constitution would take away everybody's need to protest in the streets.

CALLER: Are you still there?

STU: We are.

GLENN: Go ahead, Ken.

CALLER: I just want to say that during the campaign, you were very adamant about principle, that you didn't want to be drug into voting for something against your principle by voting for Trump.

And I'd just like to say again that I hope you'll rethink that philosophy because of the outcome of this election and how, you know, even I was wrong in some of the ideas that I thought was going to happen. But we really need to vote for the best president.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I will never rethink -- hang on a second.

I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens.

I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging. And I will trust God to work it out.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you, Ken. I appreciate it.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.