This Liberal Comedian Is Trying to Unite the Country in Her New Show

November 13, 2017

WRITER

Comedian Sarah Silverman hasn’t held back when it comes to her dislike for President Donald Trump. But with her new show on Hulu, “I Love You, America,” Silverman hopes to reach out to Americans who voted for Trump as well as the rest of the country.

“When we’re divided, we’re easily controlled,” she said on the show. “So the challenge for us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other just as best we can.”

Comedian Sarah Silverman learns what happens when you lie about the ‘wage gap’

On today’s show, Glenn commended Silverman’s goal of trying to bring people together instead of further dividing them. But he added a caveat: You can only build bridges with the opposite team after you’ve held your own side accountable.

“I agree with her; however, it doesn’t work if you’re only going to single out the other side,” Glenn said. “You have to single out your side.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So comedian Sarah Silverman, who is an outspoken opponent of I think everything, at least everything that is conservative, says that she -- she considered stockpiling food and weapons last November because of Donald Trump.

Now, listen to this.

SARAH: When it was finally official and Trump had won, I felt something I had never felt before, which was this overwhelming survival-based fear. You know, I had the sudden urge to buy a gun and stockpile water and weapons and canned guns. And in an instant, I became like a liberal doomsday prepper. And for the first time, I felt an actual kinship to the far right militia person who, you know, thought Obama would end the world. But I realized, it's that. It's that feeling of fear that makes us the same. You know, we are, all of us, both paralyzed and motivated by fear. We fear the unknown.

And that's why Trump's campaign was so effective. He took our fears and our rage, and he gave us a place to put it all. And that place was each other.

And when we're divided, we're easily controlled, right? So the challenge for all of us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other, just as best we can.

GLENN: Okay. So I think this is a really good thing. It's a good first step. But will she go as far and say, "And so I've reflected on what perhaps we have done on our side?"

And, you know, placing the fear of that's just the way white people will do you. Did she reflect on that?

Because I agree with her. However, it doesn't work if you're only going to single out the other side. You have to single out your side.

STU: Yeah. Because, I mean, you've said things similar to what she's saying there.

GLENN: Yes. I've said -- right after the election, I said, look, we have an opportunity because they, for the first time, feel as though the entire country and our civilization could slide off the cliff, where they thought that was insane before. They now know how fragile things are, and they are afraid of the same thing you are afraid of, for the opposite reason.

STU: And my instinct hearing that, knowing Sarah Silverman and what she said over the past several years is to dismiss it. Because, well, are you even -- it's so inconsistent to where she has been and the things she has said publicly about politics recently.

But, I mean, A, I should resist that instinct, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If she's changed -- if she's decided she did things wrong in the past, great. But you're right, you have to take that additional step. People dismissed you when you said things like that.

GLENN: But I took the initial step.

STU: You took the initial step to say, look, I've done things that I don't like, in the middle of this. You take responsibility for whatever you can find that you feel that you may have done wrong.

GLENN: Yeah. And you have to do that. You have to do that before you do the other side.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You have to say, look, I'm going to take on my own side, I want to take on me, before I even take on my own side. I will take on me. What am I responsible for? How did I miss it? What did I do?

And, quite honestly, I think be generous on the give yourself an extra helping of, you know, I made mistakes.

STU: Yeah. Like think of the border thing for a minute. If the left came to you and they said -- they're always saying, we need to let these people who are illegals become legals. Become citizens. You have to give them passes on their illegal activity from before.

And if they came to you, not and just said it, but actually secured the border and actually went through and there were no new illegal immigrants coming in and they were arresting the ones that tried. And they were very -- like they actually took steps on their own --

GLENN: I would be for it. I would be for it.

STU: I don't know that I would be for it, but you would at least consider it, right?

GLENN: I would be willing to say, okay. We're not going to call more problems by doing this. Because we have -- and I would need something physical. Because I wouldn't believe that the next guy is coming in and he's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You build a wall -- the only reason why I want a wall is because I don't believe that the presidents will be consistent from one to the next. And so if you actually secured our nation and you actually took it seriously, then I would -- I would seriously consider that.

STU: Yeah. And if they said --

GLENN: But not until.

STU: -- look, this is our fault. We were the ones that were really light on border security. That's why these people are. We realize now it is a problem. But as everyone will admit, there are people here that seemingly have lasted multiple decades and haven't been committing additional crimes. Maybe they're okay. Let's talk about those people.

GLENN: Yep. I would be there.

STU: Especially if you take responsibility for the problem. It was our fault, because we didn't allow you to have border security because we kept saying you were racists.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If they came to you with that sort of pitch, at least you would consider it.

GLENN: Yes. Absolutely. And I think most Americans would.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's just, it requires both sides to own it. And none of them are going to own it.

So here's a story: Late June, President Trump hosted a group of Native American tribal leaders at the White House and urged them to, quote, just do it. And extract whatever they want from the land they control.

The exchange turned out to be an unusual vivid window into almost kingly power that Donald Trump sees himself as holding, which he has begun describing with increasing bluntness.

This scene was recounted by a source in the room and confirmed by another at the White House. The White House has not disputed this story. The chiefs explained to Trump that there was regulatory barriers preventing from getting at their own energy. Trump said, but it's me. The government is different now. Obama is done. And we're doing things differently here.

There was a pause in the room. And the tribal leaders looked at each other.

Chief, chief, Trump continued, addressing one of the tribal leaders. What are they going to do? Once you get it out of the ground, are they going to make you put it back in there? I mean, once it's out of the ground, it can't get back in there. You just got to do it. I'm telling you chief, you just got to do it.

The tribal leaders looked back at one of the White House officials in the room, perhaps somebody from the White House counsel's office could answer: Can we just do that?

The official equivocated, saying the administration is making progress and has a plan to roll back various regulations.

Trump interjected again: Guys, I feel like you're not hearing me right now. We've got to just do it. I feel like we have no other choice. Countries are doing it. China is not asking questions about all this stuff. They're just doing it. Guys, just do it.

Okay. So this is what the left fears. And this is what the right fears.

The right fears somebody who is going to say, just take these rights away. Just do it. I know we can't -- just do it. I'm here. It's different now.

No. There are laws. Now, the left is afraid of a president who will just tell the Indian chiefs or somebody else, just do it.

No. Where we're supposed to come together is not on the man or the party, but the principle. There is a law, the president is not a king, you don't just do it.

You don't pass it to find out what's inside it. You don't lie to the American people to sell stuff. And you don't just do it through executive order or just because you say so.

We're a nation of laws, not of men. And the idea that we have to arm ourselves against a -- an out-of-control government, because that's what she's saying.

Now all of a sudden I understand guns. Well, I could say back to Sarah, well, wait a minute, Sarah. Are you going to fight the tanks? Are you going to fight the missiles? Are you going to fight the drones? Because that's what they always say.

Yeah, if I have to. If it's a fascistic government, yes. If it's a totalitarian government, yes.

If it's a religiously -- a religious totalitarian government? Yes. If it's an atheist totalitarian government? Yes. If it's a constitutional government, based on this Constitution? No. No, I'm not.

Because I have nothing to fear from that government. But we are not that government. And we are not moving in the direction that strengthens that government. We are moving away from that government.

And this is where the left and the right should be able to come together. I don't want to regulate you. Don't you regulate me.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep