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

Bill O’Reilly Wants to Clear up the NY Times’ ‘Smear Piece’

October 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Bill O’Reilly was back in the hot seat on Monday’s show, answering Glenn and Stu’s questions about the latest New York Times piece on his record at Fox News. He clarified what the Times left out of the piece and exactly why he paid settlements after lawsuits he says made false allegations.

“No. 1: I want the story to go away because it’s brutalizing my family, and No. 2: I’m not going to run and hide because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

Listen to O’Reilly in context and in his own words for his answers to these questions:

  • What were O’Reilly’s reasons for settling?

  • Exactly how many lawsuits did he need to resolve during his time at Fox News?

  • Why was the settlement $32 million if the allegations were false?

  • What is O’Reilly’s response to Megyn Kelly’s latest comments?

  • Would he make the same decisions if he could do it over?

So what do you think? Does Bill make a compelling argument?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Friend of the program and friend of mine, Bill O'Reilly. Welcome, sir. How are you?

BILL: Taking a beating. But still standing.

GLENN: So, Bill, you and I spoke over the weekend.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And I said to you that I wanted to ask you some honest questions. And just personal for me, because I -- you know, I don't know. And anybody can lie to anybody. But you would be -- I mean, you would be one of the greatest liars ever because of the consistency of your lies, if you were lying to me, and the consistency of your behavior around me and my staff, which we have toured together.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have seen you on Friday nights. I have seen you in hotels. My staff has. And I have women that work for me. And we've never had any problem whatsoever, or an inkling that you might be one of those guys.

BILL: Yeah. Well, I was in the -- I've been in the broadcast business for 43 years. Twelve different companies. Never one time was there any complaint filed against me with human resources or anybody's legal team. Nothing. Zero.

GLENN: Megyn Kelly --

BILL: So I think the track record speaks for itself. And I think that people, when they look at the statement that we have posted on BillO'Reilly.com, when they look at the affidavit, and now the three letters that I sent you -- did you get the letters from Gretchen Carlson?

GLENN: I did. I wanted to know if I were -- was allowed to publish them.

BILL: Oh, yeah. Sure.

So what I'm trying to get across by coming on with you today, are two things: Number one, I want the story to go away. Because it's brutalizing my family. And number two, I'm not going to run and hide, because I didn't do anything wrong.

And I think that the evidence that we put forth is very strong. Very compelling. That the New York Times wants to take me out of the marketplace. This is the second time they've attacked me. And the article on Sunday regurgitated the first article. That was like 75 percent of it. They had to run it twice in case you didn't get it last April. And they know that I'm at a disadvantage, because I can't comment specifically on any case that has been resolved. That's one of the -- one of the --

GLENN: Stipulations.

BILL: -- legal -- legal compelling things, that when you resolve something, it is always done in a nobody says anything. And you know who knows that best? The New York Times. Because they settled a number of harassment complaints, in a confidential way. Yet in their article on page one today, screaming about, well, we shouldn't have this kind of provision, they don't mention that. And they don't mention a lot of things.

So I think -- go ahead.

GLENN: So, Bill, I want to ask you a couple of questions. The biggest question that is on everybody's mind is, okay. You can settle. But $32 million, coming out of your own pocket, nobody does that.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: What do you want to say --

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: The only comment I could make on that issue, without getting the thing back into a legal arena, would be the first article that the New York Times wrote quoted figures and added them up. And it was wildly wrong.

But I can't confirm or deny anything, because once I do that, then it goes back into the legal arena, which you don't want. And they know that.

So they could say whatever they want to say. They know that. They know we're hamstrung, my attorneys and investigative team. We can't.

GLENN: Was this settlement by you alone, or was Fox involved?

BILL: I can't -- Beck, as I told you off the camera -- I know you have to ask some questions for your audience -- I can't comment on any specific case at all. If I could, I would. But I cannot.

GLENN: Can you tell me about the relationship that you had with Lis Wiehl?

BILL: No, I cannot -- what we had -- what we have posted is an affidavit from Ms. Wiehl. It's one affidavit. That's posted on BillO'Reilly.com. That's it. We could post. We did. There it is. And I can't speak to anything other than that.

I know it's frustrating.

GLENN: No, it's really frustrating.

BILL: It's very frustrating for me. You can imagine me, sitting here, all right? Being accused of everything under the sun. And the endgame, let's leave O'Reilly with Harvey Weinstein. Let's make him that. That's what we want to do. All right? So we take him out of the marketplace forever. He never gets to give his opinion on issues again. We take him out because we hate him.

And the New York Times obviously hates me. It's dishonest in the extreme. And it's frustrating for me. But unless I want another seven or eight years of constant litigation that puts my children in the kill zone, I have to maintain my discipline.

GLENN: Okay. So --

BILL: The only reason -- I can tell you this, Beck. In 20 years plus at the Fox News Channel -- how long did you work there, by the way?

GLENN: Four years, three years -- two years. Ten minutes. I don't remember.

BILL: All right. I was there twenty years and six months. I resolved three things. That's all I resolved in 20 years and six months. I resolved three things. And the only reason I did resolve them was to keep my children safe. So I can tell you that.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me go one more place.

STU: We should point out, that's smaller than the reported number, Bill. Are you saying that the reported money is inaccurate.

BILL: All I'm telling you is the truth. Twenty years, six months, Fox News Channel, I resolved three things. That is the truth.

GLENN: Bill, on the -- on the Wiehl affidavit, the New York Times fails to recognize here that this is a legal document. And she is a member of the bar. And that if she signs something that was not true, she should be disbarred. She's not --

BILL: It's worse than that. And I'm not impugning or saying anything, I'm talking in a general sense now.

GLENN: She's not saying this. But the New York Times is just speaking for her. Go ahead.

BILL: Wait. Wait. If any American citizen signs an affidavit that's notarized, all right? It's under the perjury law. So you can be prosecuted, if what you're saying is not true. Which is why the affidavit becomes so vitally important.

And here's the kicker. We gave that to the New York Times. They had that. They did not print it.

Then their weasel reporter, the most dishonest man on the face of the earth, tweets out, "Oh, O'Reilly says we didn't mention the affidavit. And we did."

I didn't say you didn't mention it. I said you didn't print it. And you should have printed it up top, because that's the story. But they didn't want that to be out, because that wrecks their story. Which they had already written, no matter what I said or gave them. And we gave them an unbelievable amount of stuff, from day one of my tenure with Fox News. They know.

But they don't care. Because this was a hit job, to get me out of the marketplace. And then you'll have the left. Paranoid. Okay? You can back that up 50 different ways. Media Matters is involved. CNN is involved. I mean, it -- and it's beyond any doubt -- so, again, I will tell you everybody, we've got our statement posted on BillO'Reilly.com. Would he give you the affidavit posted. We've got letters from Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly to me, posted. Everything is there.

You still want to think I'm a bad guy. Go ahead. The truth is the truth.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. I have to take a break. And then I want to come back and talk about what Megyn talked about today. Because this is a separate issue. But I think you should address that as well. Coming up in a second.

GLENN: This is Megyn Kelly on today's broadcast.

MEGYN: Malicious smear, claiming that no woman in 20 years ever complained to human resources or legal about him. Maybe that is true. Fox News was not exactly a friendly environment for harassment victims who happened to report, in my experience.

However, O'Reilly's suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know, because I complained.

It was November of 2016, the day my memoir was released. In it, I included a chapter on Ailes and the sexual harassment scandal at Fox News, something the Murdochs knew I was doing, and to their credit, approved.

O'Reilly happened to be on CBS News that morning. They asked him about my book and about Ailes, who by this time had been forced out in disgrace. O'Reilly's response?

BILL: I'm not that interested in this.

MEGYN: No? In sexual harassment? You're not interested in sexual harassment?

BILL: I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished, that makes my network look bad. Okay? I'm not interested in making my network look bad, at all. That doesn't interest me one bit.

GLENN: So her complaint, Bill, that she filed was that you made it tough for people to come out against the network, because of statements like that.

BILL: Number one, she didn't file a complaint. Not that I know of. Never brought to our attention that Megyn Kelly did anything. All right? So I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that's true at all.

Number two, what she did not say is that there's an anonymous hotline, and there had been for years at Fox News where anyone could have called up and say, "So-and-so is doing something to me, and you better stop it." All right? That's anonymous. Doesn't mention it.

Number three, I'd like you to read the notes that I gave you, Beck, to your audience from Megyn Kelly to me, the personal notes.

GLENN: Do you happen to have them in front of you? Because my i Pad just went down.

STU: Convenient.

GLENN: Hang on.

So Megyn Kelly wrote to you, "Dear Bill, what a class act you are. Something to my baby -- please come to my baby shower -- no, no, what a class act you are. Thank you for coming to my baby shower."

BILL: Coming to my baby shower. Right.

GLENN: "I was truly touched. I know how busy you are, especially that time of the day. It meant a lot to me and Dory. Thank you for the darling body suits and snugglies. It's kind -- no, it's hard to believe we'll soon have a human being in our lives to fit into those. You've become a dear friend, no matter what they say. And I am grateful to have you in my life, Megyn Kelly."

BILL: Yeah, that's letter number one. Letter number two.

GLENN: Letter number two: Thank you for the -- something on Dory's book --

BILL: Mention. Thank you for the mention on Doug's book. Doug is her husband.

GLENN: Oh, Doug's book. Okay.

I realize you didn't have to do that, especially after mentioning it already. I appreciate how supportive you have been to me over the years here at Fox News. You're a true friend and mentor.

And I want to give one more letter. This is the one -- and these are going to be published up at TheBlaze and GlennBeck.com. This one is from Gretchen Carlson.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: "Bill, thank you for being the calm in the sea. Thank you so much for supporting me. Thank you for being my friend. It means the world to me, G.C."

BILL: Yeah. So, look, I think that anybody -- any fair-minded person -- and I really appreciate you reading those to your listeners -- I think that they can now start to formulate a picture here.

Because the behavior that you pointed out at the beginning of the 11 o'clock hour, Eastern time is on the record. Forty-three years, no complaints. Twelve different companies. And then you, Glenn Beck known me for now, what? Ten years? Twelve years?

GLENN: Yeah, something like that.

BILL: You've been with me on the road. You know who I am. You know what I do. And now with the statement that we provided on BillO'Reilly.com, with the affidavit, this one affidavit, and with these three letters, two by Megyn Kelly and one by Gretchen Carlson -- a picture should start to emerge for any fair-minded person. And that's all I can hope for, that the American people will see that this is an attack on an American citizen, me, for political purposes. And you know what? It's done enormous damage to me and to my family. And it is a horror, and it should never happen in our country.

GLENN: Bill, what happens if companies settle lawsuits and then the affidavits and the nondisclosures don't mean anything?

BILL: Well, it's over now. Anybody who would be settling anything now is insane. Because --

GLENN: So is that --

BILL: In my case, all the confidentiality stuff was violated.

GLENN: You told -- you told me about a year ago, the biggest mistake you made was settling. So is this a good thing or not?

BILL: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

No, if I had to do it all over again, I never would have done it. But you got to understand how much pain this brings children. And I thought I could spare my children that. I would do anything for my children, anything to protect them. I would give up my life for my children. And that's why I did it.

But we actually thought that people would uphold their oath. And what they agreed to. And they haven't.

But let me get back to Megyn Kelly for a moment. I never had any problem with Megyn Kelly. In fact, when she was getting hammered earlier this year, I wrote a column speaking up for her. You know, I don't know why Megyn Kelly is doing what she's doing. I don't know why. I've helped her dramatically in her career. I gave her the name of her show, The Kelly File. She actually did a charity even for me. I mean, it is just incomprehensible.

GLENN: Okay. Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. We'll talk to you again, Bill. Try to have a better day. God bless.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restoration, not a renovation

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

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

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

The selective guardians of history

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

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

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

The real desecration

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

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

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Venezuela

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

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

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

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

A history of violence

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

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

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

Dismember the dragon

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

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

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

One‑sided freedom

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

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

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

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

Censored belief

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

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

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

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

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

Faith on trial

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

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

The real test

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.