BLOGApril 19, 2017

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

Like him or not, Roger Ailes built a ship at Fox News that could not to be sunk. Rupert Murdoch was part of that, but his children and wives hate Fox News.

"They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

He also referred to Roger Ailes as a giant bear in the doorway that didn't let anything disrupt it.

"Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of 9/11," Glenn said.

Now that Roger Ailes is out and Rupert Murdoch has become weakened, what impact would Bill O'Reilly's departure have?

"You better make a decision, America. Because you're about to lose a big conservative ally and voice. And it's not just Bill O'Reilly. I'm telling you, Sean Hannity will be next. Then Tucker Carlson will be next. Until everyone complies with what they say is not misinformation, they will continue to go. And once you have the big bear of Fox News out of the way, then they come for TheBlaze. Then they come for The Daily Wire. Then they come for all of us," Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about something. I'm going to go into greater detail than I think I've ever gone into on a story on our leaving Fox News. And I'm going to do it for a reason today.

And let me just tell you what the media will say or what Media Matters will pump out to all of their friends, is that Glenn's empire is crumbling. He's just trying to get attention. He's jockeying for a position at Fox. Whatever. Okay.

I'm going to tell you the truth because I believe you have about 24 hours here before the conservative media dramatically changes. And you are going to lose a very important ally in the fight, even though you might not agree with the Fox News Channel.

As you know, no love lost between me and Fox News. And some of the players on Fox News. However, you better stand up now and figure out what's really happening with this O'Reilly thing, or you're going to lose Fox News. And I'll explain exactly how it's going to happen.

In the old days, when I was there, the -- the lineup was a really important piece. And I mean the lineup, not on the air. Off the air. The second floor. It was a well-crafted machine. And what that machine did was honestly not necessarily protect the Constitution and constitutional values. That machine was built to protect the -- the ship. It was an empty cargo ship that Roger Ailes created. Whatever he wanted to put into that ship, he put in that ship.

But that ship was well protected. And you needed to have a well-protected ship because every other ship on the sea was against it because it was a G.O.P. machine. And I contend that it's not a conservative news channel; it is a G.O.P. machine. But it is the closest thing we have in mainstream media. It makes a ton of money, and it makes a huge impact.

Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of -- of 9/11. After that, when it started all going crazy and everybody was talking about how, you know -- how bad George Bush was in, and Michael Moore was alleging that George Bush was part of the conspiracy. Without a balance to that, I don't know if we would have been -- be here today. And certainly, we wouldn't be here on talk radio because talk radio would have been the only target. It would have been the last -- the last beachhead. And we would have been gone. They would have put us out, but they were busy trying to put out Fox News.

So Roger Ailes, like him, hate him, let's know him for who we think he is -- no matter what, he built a ship that was not going to be sunk.

Rupert Murdoch was part of that. But Rupert Murdoch has children and wives -- lots of them -- that hate the Fox News Channel. They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense.

So it went Rupert Murdoch, his kids were not in the picture, Roger Ailes, who was a giant bear in the doorway and didn't let anything disrupt it. Then there was Bill Shine, who was, you know, the programming guy at Fox News who worked to execute Roger's vision. And then there was a guy called Brian Lewis and Irena Briganti.

This is the PR department. And I want to be really careful what I say here. But these were not good people, to say the least, in my opinion.

I will tell you that the only meeting that I ever had with Irena Briganti, I will keep to myself for right now. But I left that meeting, and it was on my first day. And I said to my then business partner, I said, "I feel like I've just had a meeting with the mob." And he said, "I think we have."

It was a -- it was a department that let everyone in the building know, "You screw with us, we destroy you." It was made very clear to me on the first day.

I was the only person at Fox News to have my own PR person. The only other person that ever tried to do that and did it successfully was Megyn Kelly, after I left.

And that -- Fox News did not like that. They didn't like that I owned my own company. They didn't like that I was independent. They didn't, quite honestly, like that I -- they couldn't find anything on me. And that too is another story that will remain for another time because it's not important here.

What I want you to know is two things: This was a bulletproof shield for whatever cargo Roger Ailes wanted to carry 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And most of that, we appreciate.

Roger is now gone. Rupert's children are now playing a big role in the future of Fox. That's not going to bode well. Those two things mean the end of the conservative Fox, as we know it, or have known it, is numbered. The end is coming. The days are numbered.

Bill Shine is the next target from Media Matters. And I'm going to get into that in a second. Brian Lewis is already gone. Don't know what happened with Brian Lewis, but there's a book out about Rupert Murdoch. And at the last chapter on this book says: The only two men that Rupert Murdoch are afraid of is Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis. And Brian Lewis because he knows where all the bodies are buried. Brian is a guy who settled for $7 million, a 7 million-dollar settlement. At least that's what I've heard, that he settled for a lot of money after Roger Ailes fired him. $7 million because he knows where all the bodies are buried.

Who brokered that deal between Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis? The head of the PR, which the PR is the one who did all of the fighting in the press, did all of the underhand stuff. Made all these things disappear. Brian Lewis and Roger Ailes. When there was a fight between them and they had to part ways, the media started to salivate because Brian knows all of Roger's secrets.

So who brokered that deal? Who sat in the conference room between those two and said, "What do you have on him? What do you have on him? Okay. I think it's worth this. Both go away happy."

That guy who brokered that deal was Donald Trump. Is it beginning to become clear at all why Donald Trump was treated the way he was by the Fox News Channel, at least when Roger was there?

Now, Brian is gone. Roger is gone. Rupert is weakened. And they're going after Bill O'Reilly.

Tomorrow, the newspaper is telling us, front page of the New York Times today says that Bill O'Reilly is in his last 24 hours.

Now, I want to make this really clear: I've heard -- I mean, I was not surprised by the -- by the findings or the rumors of Roger Ailes. But until Megyn Kelly came out, I didn't believe it. I thought Gretchen Carlson was pretty credible. But I still didn't know. It was one person. But I thought she was really pretty credible. And I had heard rumors like that while I was there. I had no evidence. I never saw anything. But it -- it didn't surprise me when Gretchen said that. But I don't want to -- you know, that's one person. The other people that started to come out against Roger looked really bad. But I didn't know any of them.

When Megyn came out and said, "Yeah, it happened to me," now I had two people that I went, "Okay. It's Gretchen and Megyn, I believe them." And only because I'm judging it -- I'm not judging it -- because I don't have access to anything else. So as an outside person, I didn't want to believe it until I had two credible people that I knew -- I believe it.

With Bill O'Reilly, I've never heard that. We worked closely with Bill on the road. We would go on the road. And he had access to very beautiful women on our staff. And he worked closely with very beautiful women on our staff. We never saw him utter a word that was even blue humor. He was so buttoned up when he was around us, that I find these charges hard to believe.

And to me, it makes sense that he may have had this one sexual harassment thing that was settled from a producer. He may have -- they may have had, you know, some here and there. Somebody could have set him up very easily. Played into, yeah, kind of flirting back with him. It's just one person. And then she wanted to make a name for herself, make money, whatever. That's what the suit alleged. And he pays out to silence -- Fox pays out to silence.

That's pretty bad, right? They paid money -- they settled.

Let me tell you something: I've just settled a case in Boston that I will go to my grave, I'm right. I'm right.

My insurance company pressured me for over a year. Premier pressured me for over a year. Glenn, settle it. Settle it.

"I'm right."

"Settle it."

When it got to a million and a half money of uninsured money that I had to pay out and it was looking at yet another probably $3 million -- I was willing to take it to the Supreme Court. My partners weren't. "Settle it." So I settled that. But I settled it with the stipulation, nothing is sealed. I want everybody to be able to see all the testimony, everything. Nothing is sealed.

Well, this guy, he was going to Saudi Arabia. He didn't care. Now, has anybody taken the time to read all of that? It's all public record? No. No. They're still smearing me --

PAT: Some day we'll help them with that. We'll tell you the story.

GLENN: We're going to help them. We're going to help them.

But it's still being used to smear me. And how am I being smeared? He settled; he must have been guilty. So settlement in today's world -- and you know this because we've all worked for a corporation where they settle things, and you sit around in the hallway and you say, "Why would we settle this? Don't. It just encourages more." You're right. It does. It does.

But what are you going to do, when you have insurance companies and everybody else saying, "Just pay the freight." Okay.

So far, I haven't seen anything with Bill O'Reilly that -- that I believe. That doesn't mean that there's not something there. But I will tell you, even if there is something there, there is something more important going on at the same time. You want to fire Bill O'Reilly for sexual harassment, then good. Make that case. Make it very public. But there's something else. And you need to know about it. And you need to make the decision. Because in 24 hours, I think they're going to fire Bill O'Reilly. And after they fire Bill O'Reilly, who is the next big dog on the ticket? It's going to be Sean Hannity. Sean hasn't done anything wrong. He'll be the next target.

Okay. Well, we'll lose Sean Hannity too. Well, where does that stop?

This is about right and wrong. And there's two rights and wrongs: sexual harassment. Don't know anything about that, has to be settled. The other is a witch hunt. And it's a conservative witch hunt. And I have the evidence that you might have read about -- if you read anything about Bill O'Reilly, he said he's got paperworks. Okay. So I wrote Bill last night in Italy. "Bill, you have the paperwork? Can I see it?" I'll share it, next.

RADIO

Texas AG Defends Investigation into Muslim City Development

A planned development called EPIC City has caught the attention of the Texas government. Some officials have alleged that the city, being developed in connection with the East Plano Islamic Center in an area east of Dallas, Texas, will enforce Sharia Law over state and federal laws (something the development denies). Glenn speaks with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s one of many Texas officials investigating EPIC City. Paxton argues that similar communities in Europe have turned into “no-go zones” for local officials. Paxton also addresses what actions he might take against EPIC City and whether there’s a conflict of interest between him and EPIC City’s attorney. Additionally, Paxton discusses his Senate run against Texas Senator John Cornyn and why the Republican establishment has promised to oppose him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Ken Paxton. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

KEN: Doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm great. I'm very excited to talk to you about your Senate candidacy.

KEN: Me too.

GLENN: Yeah. But first, let me talk to you about what is happening here in the -- the Dallas/Fort Worth area. With Epic. Epic is an Islamic center, and a community. And let me just play -- play some of the video as we're talking about this.
(music)

KEN: And now, we embark on a new chapter and vision of harmony. Homes and hearts unite.

GLENN: All right. So, as a -- you know, as a member of the church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints.

You know, they crossed the mountains. And started their own community in Salt Lake. But they don't have a Mormon separate law. You know what I mean?

It's all based on the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights. And it's -- it's not going against everything that the country was done.

So I have no problem. You want to start any religious community, not a problem.

Is this that kind of community? Do we know enough about it, yet.

KEN: So we're in the middle. We just started the investigation. I do agree with you. We are a free country. First Amendment. Like clearly First Amendment.

And you can -- you can -- you can believe whatever you want to believe in this country and still be free. On the other hand, you're right. We have laws in the country. The law matters.

Constitution matters. If you're not following the law of our country. Then we will have some controversy and some contention.

So in the end, whatever religion you want, and believe whatever you want, but still have to follow our laws. Our state laws and our federal laws and our Constitution.

GLENN: So the developments attorney, says that any investigation is just racial profiling.

I'm so sick of that stuff.

Because I don't think that it is racial profiling.

I think we have reason to be concerned. Look what's happening over in Europe.

And we can't let that happen here in America. Especially in Texas.

KEN: Well, yeah. Countries are being taken over. And the Sharia law is being taken over. Whatever country they're in.

And that certainly -- we can't let that happen here.

I mean, the rule of law, and our Constitution.

What our Founders put together, is so beautiful and wonderful.

Giving us freedom for so long.

We're not going to sacrifice that, for Sharia law.

It's just not going to happen in Texas.

So we will be very focused on that.

And make sure they're following our laws.

And at the same time, as you said, we want to be cognizant, that people have a right to have their own religion.

And we respect that.

GLENN: So where do you -- how do you possibly?

Everybody involved will say, of course, you won't have Sharia law. Of course, this won't be a no-go zone.

That has been what is said for decades in Europe.

And that's exactly what they have become. If you can't find a smoking gun with how to bring Sharia law into Texas.

You know, you're not going to find that pamphlet.

What could you possibly find, that would be solid enough to say, no!

GLENN: Well, what you say is different sometimes than what people actually do.

We will be looking at what people actually are doing out there. What are the developers. How are they implementing this know.

Are they discriminating based on whether you are a part of a certain religion.

Because that would create issues with family laws.

So we will be looking at, what is the actual practice?

Not, what are you saying? Not, what is your promotional material, lawed?

Although, the promotional material may tell us something.

It's actually what is happening on the ground out there. That's our focus.

What is the truth?

GLENN: So the multiple state agencies are involved in this.

And are we talking about fines, injunctions? Something bigger violation are his found?

KEN: Yeah. So I can't issue fines, but I can certainly sue a writ. And there's, you know, a reason, an injunction to stop it.

If it's doing imminent harm, you have to show imminent harm. You can win on the merits.

Otherwise, you know, we would sue over some type of consumer lay violation. If the governor had other violations through some of the other agencies that he's directing, we could represent those agencies and lawsuits. There's all kinds of different ways to address that, depending on what we find in our investigation.

GLENN: So when you were under investigation, here in Texas, your attorney, that represented you in the impeachment hearing, which was all cleared.

Is now representing the developers. Does that cause a conflict of interest with you, at all?

KEN: Look, I certainly didn't know about that until recently.

And I would say, it's obviously a little concerning. That I wasn't made aware of that.

And there definitely could be an argument. That there's a conflict. Because I'm still being kept the by him.

And he's representing clients that we are investigating.

Yeah. It complicates things.

GLENN: All right. Let me switch to Cornyn. This makes Stu very, very happy.

Makes me happy too.

I think when I found out, we were together.

We hugged it out.

KEN: Yes, we did.

GLENN: Anybody was saying, it was Cornyn.

KEN: I think I told I in person.

GLENN: Yeah. You did. You did.

But so, we have Cornyn in.

Have you heard anything?

Have you talked to the president about this?

Is he going to stand against Cornyn? Stand with you? Do you have any idea yet?

KEN: So I don't know. Obviously, what I've noticed about President Trump is typically he waits until later. Closer to the election. He likes to see how things are going, whether people are doing what they said they were going to do, and whether they're performing. So part of the reason I decided to get this over with, I think there was a big effort by John Thune, and some of the swamp to get John an endorsement before I got in. Or somebody else got in. And I wanted to make sure I was in the game before all these things got done in Washington. In my opinion, one of the frustrations I have is it feels like sometimes Washington wants to decide, oh, well, Ken, you can't run.

Because we haven't picked you.

I'm like, I don't care if you pick me. Right?

It feels like, they think that they get to decide, well, we picked John. So, sorry, you can't run. Well, I'm just not into that decision making, and never will be.

So they don't understand. It should be the voters of Texas, not John Thune and a bunch of Republican senators, that think they should know the world.

GLENN: So for anybody who hasn't been paying attention for the last 400 years, what -- why -- what would be different between you and Cornyn?

KEN: Oh, my gosh.

I've had this discussion many times.

Everything. I mean, he -- he and I -- his -- his focus is in DC.

His folks is not on the people -- my folks is on the people of Texas.

And that translates to him wanting to be happy and satisfied in DC.

So he can fight to have gutter restrictions on -- on Texans and all Americans. And he works with Joe Biden.

And Joe Biden says, hey, great job.

President Trump on the other hand said, no, you're a RINO. Don't -- this is bad legislation.

And so, not only did John pass legislation that hurt the rest of the country, but he also enabled the ATF to have angles to try to expand their control over gun ownership.

And I had to go sue them twice.

It's things like that.

Amnesty, it suggests that he's for.

It's the fight he fought, building a wall.

He fought Trump on that.

He's been unsupportive and critical of Trump when he ran both times, calling him an albatross. So fundamentally, John and I are very different. And we believe very different.

Our focus is on very different people. And he's part of the establishment. He was put there by the Bushes. And he doesn't look out for the interests of individual Texans. He's thinking people in Washington are his -- are his people.

STU: Ken, part of the establishment in this particular case, is I would say, an understatement.

And one of the benefits of being part of that establishment, is you have a lot of trends. Who have a lot of power.

A lot of money. They are going to come after you, really, really --

GLENN: Oh.

STU: I mean, I can't even imagine.

KEN: It's insulting. They told me, I should not run. I was not picked. And that I should not run. I was told, they would spend $120 million to make sure that they would keep John Cornyn. And I said, hey. Can you tell me why John Cornyn is running, I just want to know that.

And there was a quiet silence. He's like, well, we told him not to run. He's already been in there four terms. We told him not to run.

But he's our friend. So we will support him.

We will spend the money -- so you're telling me. You don't know why John Cornyn is running.

And you can't explain why he should be there. And you don't think he's already been there too long, but yet, you're still going to support him?

And the answer is yeah. And we will spend a lot of money to make sure it's not you.

STU: $120 million, that could go to defeating people on the left.

KEN: Yes. And, look, I don't know what the real numbers. That could -- 110 million a primary. I don't think that's the real number.

GLENN: I -- yeah. I mean, I wouldn't -- you have the pockets to go against that?

KEN: Right now, I'm doing quite well.

I mean, I -- you know, part of this has to be separate with super PACs, but I am anticipating that I will be very competitive on the fundraising side.

I already know I will be competitive.

Now, will I have 120 million?

I don't need 120 million.

But, you know, 20 to 40 million.

That's doable for me.

GLENN: Well, money can't -- money can't buy this.

You know, it's -- it's going to be whether -- just getting your name out. And making sure people understand what John Cornyn has done.

Who are your friends in the Senate, that would be your PAC?

KEN: So I doubt -- you know, the senators, most of them. They all kind of stick together.

Behind the scenes, they'll -- they will say they hope I win. The only one that I think that, you know, would openly support me is Tommy Chipperfield (phonetic), who said, I will support you!

And I think he -- obviously, he didn't run for governor. He's a rare breed out there.

And that's fine. I don't need Washington to support me.

GLENN: Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz won't do it? I mean --

KEN: I think Ted -- because he -- I don't think he will say anything. I don't think he'll endorse either way.

GLENN: Yeah, he will work with whoever wins, I guess. Is that the game we're playing?

KEN: That's the game we're playing.

And, look, I'm just happy. That's a win for me.

If Ted stays out of there.

I mean, I know he endorses Cornyn last time. If he doesn't endorse him this time, it's helpful.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

KEN: And, by the way, I'm a benefit.

Because I will be supportive, instead of disruptive to what he wants to do.

Because I am a fan. He is the kind of senator that Ted Cruz deserves. He should have. He has a fantastic job.

And I support him, ever since he ran the first time. And John Cornyn, in contrast is opposite.

I mean, as you guys, I think I heard you guys say.

He was fine in Vermont. If he was a Republican. I would be happy to have him.

But not in Texas.

GLENN: I want to ask you one more thing.

If you can hang on for one second.

I want to ask you about the district judges. And where you stand with the district judges. And what should be done.

More with Ken Paxton who is running for Texas attorney general. I'm sorry. He is the Texas attorney general. He's running for the US Senate against John Cornyn.

RADIO

Gina Carano Just Got One Step Closer to WINNING Against Disney

Actress Gina Carano has won a “major victory” against Disney. Almost no one sues The Mouse and wins. But now, a discovery motion has been granted in the former “Mandalorian” star’s wrongful termination lawsuit against Disney. So, Glenn speaks with another woman who sued Disney and won, former ESPN host Sage Steele. Sage explains why this is such a big deal, what it’s like to sue one of the nastiest legal giants in the world, and what she and Gina have bonded over. Plus, Sage comments on Disney’s decision to NOT fire “Snow White” star Rachel Zegler, who tanked the movie with her political statements: “The double standard is what must be called out.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Also, did you see, Stu, that Gina Carano, has just won a lawsuit against Disney?

STU: Yeah. That's a big -- that doesn't normally happen, does it? They have big lawyers.

GLENN: No. No. And there's a reason for that. Walt Disney learned his lesson in about 19, I think, '29 or '30 something. He had Oswald the Rabbit. And he leaves them. He leaves Universal. And he's like, I don't know.

Don't worry. And Universal is like, all right. Go ahead.

And he's like, we're not afraid. Because I got Oswald the Rabbit.

They're like, no, actually, we have Oswald the Rabbit. And he had already quit. He had already put the gears in motion. And he had nothing. He had no idea.

So he gets on a train, and his brother is freaking out on the West Coast.

He's like, wait a minute. What? And he's like, yeah. Well, don't worry. I got something else.

He had nothing. He gets on the train, and he starts doodling. And on the napkin, he draws Mickey Mouse.

STU: This is why you love him so much. This story. He risked everything, and he actually had nothing.

But he made it up after his. And it all worked out. Anyway.

He was saying -- so he's -- he -- he was bound and determined.

I will never be behind the eight ball ever again!

So he created the nastiest attorney firm in the history of the world!

I don't think there's any corporation that is more nasty than, you know -- than the Disney corporation.

Here we have two stories now.

We have Gina Carano.

And the last time I saw somebody win.

Was Sage Steele. That's two women that have beaten Disney.

STU: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: I think that's remarkable. I wanted to call our good friend Sage Steele, get her on. Sage, how are you?

SAGE: Hello, Glenn. I'm great. And I'm so happy for Gina. It's not over yet! But this is a major battle that she won.

GLENN: I know. Right. Right. She actually, now, Disney has to turn over information about how everybody is paid on the Mandalorian and any other Star Wars shows.

And they didn't want to do that. But would you agree with me, Sage, that that's just -- just that's a remarkable win?

SAGE: Absolutely. It's a huge win.

And also, I mean, Disney's delay tactics have just been ongoing.

And they lost that too, a couple of months ago. And they were trying to get this lawsuit thrown out altogether.

They said, let's go. Quit procrastinating. And so this is massive. Because when you look at how they paid other stars on these projects. And other people.

Basically, this is about Disney trying to hide what they've been paying those people, this whole time.

While allowing them to go off on social media. And Pedro Pascal, you know, comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, one of those, and that's fine to do on your social media. But Gina Carano gets fired. So now that they have to reveal these financial records, this goes to show what Gina would have made had they not wrongly terminated her. And this is a major, major victory.

GLENN: What is it like, when you realize, oh, Good Lord, they're sending the mouse with the briefcase my way? What is it like when you realize, you're in a lawsuit against Disney?

SAGE: Well, first of all, filing the lawsuit against Disney is not fun.

GLENN: Right. Did everybody in the room, when you said that, did everybody go, what did you just say, you're going to do?

SAGE: Yeah. You, idiot.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

SAGE: I mean, David versus Goliath for sure.

I had Disney -- last summer. I hadn't met her.

Of course, I followed her story.

We met. We hugged.

It was an emotional episode.

Because we both understood, in a very unique way, that I hope many don't have to understand.

The fear that comes with it.

At some point, you get pushed around enough.

And you say, no. This is wrong.

And if I stay silent, then it's on me.

And I know, personally. I will look at myself in the mirror. And Gina felt the same way.

And she has worked so hard, and done so, professionally.

You know, to the nth degree, for all those years. Gina, one thing I didn't have in my attorney is the best in the business. Bryan Freedman, who represented Megyn Kelly, who represented Tucker Carlson, who represented Justin Baldoni against crazy Blake Lively right now. My attorney is the best, and he is a dear friend of mine too. Gina has Elon Musk on her side.

GLENN: Wait.

SAGE: Financially, she's in a little different situation than me because Elon Musk is splitting the bill for her. Because he's standing up for what's right, and the First Amendment.

GLENN: Wow. So you look at Gina. What do you think you have -- what was it that you bonded with on that episode that you did?

SAGE: Initially, I think it was the idea of, hey.

Wow. Two people that stood up to Disney. Two women.

What happened?

Who are we? What happened to our lives.

That obvious bond. Because it was such a big deal. And people going, whoa!

But more so. It was the betrayal.

That we felt coming from what we once thought was the best company on earth.

GLENN: Hmm.

SAGE: And under which is an honor to work with them. And for them.

And then when you realize that you are just cast aside, because you didn't believe what they wanted us to believe. Which goes against everything they preach. Diversity of thought and acceptance. And inclusion. And all of those things.

You realize that they were full of it. And people that you looked up to. People that you weren't alongside for years and years and years.

And what they said about you, publicly and privately.

Certainly, never to your face.

There is just a real sense of loss, for relationships.

Because Gina is as tough as they get. I realize, I'm tougher than I thought and ever wanted to be. But Gina is as tough as they get, and she was hurt. I think that's kind of -- and this is not, oh, woe is me. We never -- Gina does not want sympathy. This is about what's right.

And calling these companies out, and that's the other thing we bonded on is calling these companies out, the biggest companies in the world, if we don't, and exposes because we have the ability, based on platforms, that we -- you know, it's a blessing to have these platforms. Right? If we don't use them, to expose and therefore, hopefully maybe fingers crossed, prevent other companies from doing the same BS to these -- to women, men, anywhere.

It doesn't matter.

Black, white, green, blue, LGBT. I don't care.

Just treat us equally, and not punishing us, if we don't agree with what you say. Because, by the way, you will say, this today and that tomorrow.

Who can keep up?

Diversity of thought. First Amendment. And so we bonded over so much.

And I just -- I admire her, and her courage to continue this. Because she completely threw her career away as well, as people said I did.

But, look, she's standing up for what's right. And, Glenn, I told you, when we were together last month doing your show in Texas. The harder right versus the easier wrong.

Gina is doing the harder right, and that takes courage. I'm so honored to know her.

GLENN: You know, I tell you, I think you grow from this. You are seeing new success. She's seeing new success.

And you have become bigger than what you were, in many ways.

Because you're now, a human success story. You now have experienced strife and trouble.

And come out the other side, and realizing that didn't hurt so much.

I mean, it hurt, but it didn't hurt like I thought it was going to hurt.

I thought I was going to burn myself up. And I didn't. And so you become this -- this additional success story, that I think, you know, you look at -- you look at -- what's the woman who is now playing Snow White?

Whatever her name is. You know, they're not firing her. Which, A, must drive you nuts. They're not firing her.

And she -- I mean, next to Mickey Mouse, it is Snow White, that's the -- that's it movie that built that company.

SAGE: Yeah.

GLENN: And for her to go in and destroy the story of Snow White, all of that money -- because you guys weren't bleeding money on you, and your point of view. Or her point of view.

SAGE: Absolutely not.

GLENN: Right?

SAGE: Absolutely not. No matter who is in office, about half the country agrees with you, right? Which means half disagrees. It's usually right down the middle.

And they could have gotten out of that mess with Rachel, I think over a year ago, when she first started to mouth off.

And if nothing else, why don't you at least have a chat? Okay. Fine. Don't fire her. Like you did us. And I didn't get fired.

I mean, we settled my lawsuit, and I chose to leave. Gina was fired though. Rachel was allowed to say much worse, than I think Gina ever said. And I don't know who could disagree with them.

GLENN: And you could show the direct damages. You could show the damages --

SAGE: Look at the numbers. They chose to stick with her. And now look.

So you reap what you sow for sure. But the double standard is the reason, what must be called out.

And they could have at least pulled Rachel aside. And said, we need you to tamp down a little bit.

This isn't good for business.

Maybe they didn't listen. If so, that's a whole other story.

But to your point about what you gain, when you do stand up, I realize, it's just a lot bigger than you.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAGE: And when people come up to Gina. And come up to me.

And I've had fathers come up to me.

Because they've been afraid to stand up for their daughters. Because they're afraid to go to a school board meeting and get fired.

The fear is real. We know that. So I am so grateful, that I just stand up, and I know Gina is.

Because the people that you are affecting just by doing that, standing up, in her case for freedom of -- true freedom of speech, is everything that -- it's so much bigger than every career I could have dreamt of having, and same with her.

Disney is getting a comeuppance, and they need to. And they think -- it's so obvious. They do this to themselves.

And that is why some of the people were more than okay to say what's happening with the Snow White debacle. Shame on them.

GLENN: I'm going to switch subjects in just a second.

I'm doing something with the diesel brothers here in just a couple of months.

I'm taking one of my 1934 race car out.

And we're just going to open it up on a track.

And two other cars. And you were -- and you were leaving my studio. And you were going to the airport.

And you were like, I get an Uber. And I was like, no, no, no.

I'll you there. I'm going that way.

So I take you to the airport, and you are the biggest car hound, I have -- I mean -- I would be broke if I were married to you. Because you would let me buy all the cars. My wife is like, stop it. Stop.

SAGE: I would be like, what are we buying this weekend?

GLENN: I know.

SAGE: Listen, the one thing I regret. The biggest regret I have in life right now is I didn't ask you for a selfie that day, when Glenn Beck drove me to the airport. In what kind of car was that?

GLENN: It was a Continental GTC.

SAGE: Thank you. And it was stunning, and the top was down. And my wild hair was bigger than ever.

And I was like, no one will believe this.

I didn't want to be tacky and ask you for a selfie.

I know. So now the world knows.

GLENN: Well, I want to make sure when we come out when we do the Diesel Brother thing.

Stu will be there. I will be there.

And I would love to have you there.

SAGE: Okay. Is everybody listening?

Glenn says you drive -- me, right?

GLENN: For a second, how are you doing on accidents? Do you have many accidents?

SAGE: Give me that stick shift. Let's go.

No. No accidents. I do have a little bit of a led foot.

But I mean, what a waste, if we don't take those cars and open them up.

GLENN: I know. Do you like electric engines?

SAGE: I've driven it like twice. I don't know.

I appreciate how you barely tap it. And then it's like whiplash, and you're gone.

Like, I appreciate that. But I guess I'm old school. Give me that clutch. Let me do it. That's the real strength and power. You know, come on.

GLENN: I know. Sage, great talking to you. We'll talk again. Thanks for joining us. Sage Steele, host of the Sage Steele Show.

You can get that wherever you get your podcasts. And it's SageSteele.com.

RADIO

The truth behind the CIA’s Dire Wolf bombshell

A company called Colossal Biosciences claims to have brought the dire wolf back from extinction after 10,000 years. But perhaps just as shocking is where its funding comes from. Glenn reveals that the CIA has invested in the company, and he gives potential reasons why the spy agency would want to fund genetic engineering technology. Does the CIA want to create genetically enhanced animal super weapons for its own use? What about genetically altered humans? And have we learned ANYTHING from Hollywood? Should we be making “Jurassic Park” a reality?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, how excited are you that the animal made famous by Game of Thrones, that went extinct, 13,000 years ago, is among us now?

STU: You know, they said Trump was the greatest comeback story. And now, we have the HEP dire wolf.

GLENN: Yeah. So do we have any of the video of the dire wolf?

Here's the dire wolf. The little babies. Aren't they cute?

STU: Oh, my gosh. I want one.

GLENN: No. You really don't.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I want one.

GLENN: They're so cute, aren't they? Yeah. Listen to that.

STU: They're a little loud.

GLENN: You want to get up in the middle of the night and hear howling? No. Uh-uh. So they retrieved the DNA from fossils of dire wolves. 13,000 years ago, they were over. Then they discovered additional DNA, and they edited 20 genes of gray wolves. And then put the dire wolf in the gray wolf, and we now have the new and improved dire wolf.

Which, hmm. I'm not sure this is a good idea.

You know, when it comes to AI. When it comes to all of that.

Has anyone watched a movie? Has anyone watched a movie?

This was all science fiction, dystopia stuff.

It's now here!

So as I'm going perusing this.

Because remember, the next thing is woolly mammoth.

And we had the CEO on the program.

Remember?

And I said, why are you thinking about bringing the woolly mammoth back?

He said, it would be good for the environment.

What? It would be good for the environment.

Do they not fart? And do they eat cows?

How is that -- he didn't really have a good answer on that. But it will make a lot of people on the left feel good.

Oh, it's good for the environment.

So we'll bring the woolly mammoth back.

And look at, they're so furry and stuff. They'll make great if you are rugs in the end.

The next step is to bring back the woolly mammoth.

Okay. Again!

You know, if you believe in Darwin, you believe in survival of the fittest. There's a reason these animals went extinct.

One of the reasons, I think for like these large, dangerous animals, is so we could live!

You know, there was a lot of, oh, my gosh. Going on, you know what I mean? (sound effect).

I just want to make that clear. Maybe we've forgotten about that. But that's what those animals were doing to humans. But we'll put them on a special island. And then, they will be fine.

So now we have the -- now we have the dire wolf.

Which is -- is truly wonderful.

And as I get into this. I see who some of the investors are.

And one of the investors that is really excited about just pouring money into the colossal bio science, is the CIA.

I'm giving you a chance to process that for a second.

First of all, CIA.

They've got a budget to invest in companies!

Hmm!

Sounds like a bad idea.

STU: Shouldn't really be part of what the CIA does.

GLENN: Well.

STU: It's not a hedge fund, right?

GLENN: Hmm. They're not just investing. They have good reason to invest, okay?

STU: Oh.

GLENN: So if you're looking for -- if you're looking to do what the CIA does, this might be a very good application for them.

Here's why gene editing is catching the eye of the -- are you ready?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's a dual use technology.

Gene editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual use. Meaning, they can serve civilian purposes. Conservation, biotech breakthroughs, and military intelligence ones.

So okay. I'm trying to -- woolly mammoths. Woolly mammoths. Why would you want to bring a woolly mammoth?

Well, one of them is they believe that they could CRISPR their way into bioengineering resilient organisms.

You know, like spy drones, that are animals.

Oh.

Enhancing human capabilities. Maybe we can Mengele our way into Gene splicing a little of the dire wolf into all of us. So we're a little stronger.

GLENN: I should just on the surface, we shouldn't Mengele ourselves into anything. Always a bad choice. Always.

STU: There's a lot at college campuses right now, where they're saying the opposite, I've noticed in protest. But I'm going to go with no on the Mengele into anything.

GLENN: Try this one on for size.

Another reason why the CIA may be interested in the -- in the new, hey. Let's bring animals back from the dead!

Ecological and geopolitical leverage!

D extinction. Great word, huh?

New. D extinction could reshape eco systems intentionally or not!

Imagine reintroducing a species to destabilize a rival nation's agriculture or environment!

Say, flooding, a region with engineered pests or altering food chains.

You know, I -- I don't think this is a good idea!

I don't think this is a good idea.

If you weren't convinced the CIA is out of control, you might want to share this with your friends.

Bio security and threat assessment. Reason number three. If adversaries develop gene editing for hostile purposes.

In other words, a weaponized pathogen or super soldiers, the CIA needs to stay ahead.

Investing in colossal gives them a front row seat to cutting edge biotech, letting them study its limits or viabilities.

They're not just funding it. They're learning to fend against it, or wield it themselves, if necessary. Now, this is a story coming out of China. Where China is reengineering people, trying to make them smarter.

I mean, come on, guys. Chinese are always. They're better at instruments.

They're better at math. They're better at really almost everything.

STU: This is interesting research.

Interesting approach. Almost have to come up with a name for it.

Like a gain-of-function research.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh!

What a great idea!

Gain of function.

STU: That would work perfectly. What could go wrong?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Reason number four. Synthetic biology for covet ops. Picture you're a bioengineered animal. Say, a dire wolf with tweak senses used for surveillance or tracking in remote areas where drones might fail.

STU: We are screwed!

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: We are screwed.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Number five, future-proofing influence.

Biotech is supposed to -- is poised to explode, economically. Think lab grown meat.

I don't want to think about lab grown meat. Gene therapies or climate fixes. I don't think we should be doing stuff -- you know, can we really stop? We really should stop. We're creating God in AI. We're now thinking, we can bring things back from the dead!

I believe that was -- those two things were the story of Frankenstein. I just want to throw that in there. Okay? We can bring things back from the dead. You know what we can do?

We can bioengineer so things can live forever.

And it will be smarter. And, of course, it will always stay under our control.

Oh, my gosh.

By backing colossal, the CIA, via IQT, gets a steak in a field, that could rival big tech in influence.

If D extinction tech scales, it might affect food security, land use or even cultural narratives.

Okay. So there's your update on how the world will end today.

That's one of the most disturbing things I have -- I have read in a long time.

You know, I'm just trying to get my arms around AI. And how we can use AI for a very short period of time, before it's turned against us, and eats us all.

Well, we might -- the dire wolf might eat us first.

But I'm just getting my arms around that. I don't think we needed to introduce this one too.

And the fact that the CIA is involved!

Not good.

STU: Yeah. But we can release a bunch of animals in places where drones won't be effective. With their special senses.

GLENN: Where on earth?

Where on earth, would a drone not be effective?

STU: Well, tunnel. Right? Think of the Hamas tunnels. If you release some dire wolves down there, probably more effective than our drones.

GLENN: I think we could go over -- I think we could go over to really nasty parts of like, the Czech Republic. And get dogs that have just been, you know -- they're breeding them to tear people apart, and throw them in the tunnels.

I don't think we need to go back.

STU: Yeah. But they don't have the special senses. They don't have laser eyes. You need to have wolves with the laser eyes. What could go wrong with those?

They're probably great pets.

I feel like the Industrial Revolution gave us a lot of these types of things. Where you would say, for example. We developed cars.

And we could have the same conversation, you know, Model Ts rolling off the assembly line. Like, hey. People will just keep making these things. Faster and faster. And faster.

And they will get to the point where they're going two, three hundred miles an hour. And that happened. Right?

That's happened.

But it doesn't -- there was never a point where they're going so fast. That the entire world ends. Right?

With AI. With gene splicing. With biological warfare. Nuclear warfare. We keep having these conversations. Eventually some bad actor is going to take this to some logical extreme, and we're all screwed.

GLENN: What are the chances there are bad actors in the world? Can you name a thousand?

STU: 1.2 billion. 2.4 billion?

GLENN: I mean, besides everyone that is, you know -- when somebody writes a prescription and gives you advice as a doctor, I don't think they need a pardon, so they can never go to jail. You know what I mean?

You know, when Fauci is just writing a prescription, he's like, look, you should wear a mask. You should wear a mask. And take this.

You know, that's doctor's advice. I don't think that you need a pardon. What he was doing, was so corrupt, that he needed a presidential pardon.

I don't know, those are the kinds of doctors that maybe we should put in jail. Maybe it's just me.

I mean, it -- how do we get to this place? How do we get out?

It's going to be interesting, to see how this all works out.

STU: It will.

GLENN: How do we get out of this place, where we just seem hell-bent on our own destruction?

STU: With all of these things, I just don't see how -- I mean, our response with nuclear weapons.

And biological weapons was to just try to limit them as much as possible.

To go out, every time we heard. Hey, Bob, over in Iran. Might be doing -- might have the nuclear weapon. Why don't we go there and stop them. That's kind of been our approach.

Worked so far.

Eventually, it probably won't.

With AI. Our response is, let's just keep pushing it as fast as possible. With a bunch of really smart companies competing, along with governments doing the same thing.

GLENN: I mean, that's unfair a little bit.

STU: It is?

GLENN: So you have to remember that we didn't control things until after we used the bomb. Everyone was rushing towards it.

And we didn't know.

Honestly, there were, I don't know. 10 percent of scientists that said, if we do this, it could cause a chain reaction, that could set the entire world on fire!

STU: I remember that, from the documentary Oppenheimer.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So not really. Anyway, so --

STU: Close.

GLENN: So we had no idea what we were doing. We just knew, we had to get there first!

So afterwards, this is where it becomes fair.

After his, we could ban it.

We could control it.

It took extraordinary amounts of money to do.

It took certain equipment, that we could just ban.

You can't do that!

Okay?

And it was only -- only nation levels that could actually create one.

You know, the average person couldn't create.

Feen you had all the knowledge in the world. You couldn't create a nuclear weapon in your basement. Right?

You would need access to certain things that could be banned.

When it comes to AI. That's not true.

That's not true.

AI, you're going to have to ban, so much. And if somebody is using a nuclear weapon, on their own people, you know it!

You know what I mean? You would know it.

If somebody is using AI against their own people. You would never know it.

I mean, that's the kind of things that we're dealing with now.

Where it's so insidious.

That it could fall into the hand of one person. And it can design a weapon, that they can make themselves.

That will kill half the people on the planet. And you didn't even see it coming!

You didn't even know.

You didn't even know.

You could have the government ban it. But they're using it on you!

And you would never know.

That's the real problem, I think with AI. And the fact that you can no longer put it back in the bottle.

It's going to happen. We're all racing to get there.

But there is no way to get this back into the bottle. There's no way to control this. Like there was with nukes.

And honestly, that's why Silicon Valley went to Trump.

You know this. Right?

They were having a meeting.

Remember when Kamala Harris was like, AI.

This is great. It's a fun two letters. It's actually two words. Artificial intelligence!

Remember that? So insulting.

That was the meeting she had with all of the bigwigs in Silicon Valley.

And they said at that meeting, don't spend think more money on server farms or anything else.

We're taking care of it. This will all be controlled by the United States government. Because it's too big to let anyone else have it. Except for the United States government. They all walked out and went, we can't have the government have this. We will let the government be the only one that has this.

That's not good. That's why they flipped to Trump. Because they realized, this cannot be just in the hands of the government. But I would be the one in the room going, I don't think any of you guys should have this in your hands. Nobody should have access.

What you're building is an anti-God.

NEW GAMESHOW: The WORST Tesla Vandal Videos!

It's time for America's most DESTRUCTIVE game show: "NAME! THAT! MANIFESTO!" Game show host Glenn Beck brings in the contestants, BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau, to watch the worst of the latest attacks on Tesla vehicles. After watching the short clip, contestants must guess why the perpetrator vandalized the car. Was it climate extremism? Was it to push for communism? Was it just that they hate Elon Musk? Or was it because Disney's "Snow White" crashed at the box office? Play along at home and find out!

Glenn's Show Prep

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

Texas AG Defends Investigation into Muslim City Development

Transcript

Gina Carano Just Got One Step Closer to WINNING Against Disney

Transcript

The truth behind the CIA’s Dire Wolf bombshell

Transcript

NEW GAMESHOW: The WORST Tesla Vandal Videos!