Glenn Challenges Liberals to Hear His Response to Hollywood's Latest Video

It's amazing how the media are suddenly concerned with telling the truth and liberals are worried about executive power. A new video from Hollywood puts the hypocrisy of the left on full display.

After watching President Barack Obama sign executive order after executive order to bypass Congress the past eight years, they're now extremely concerned about the balance of powers created by America's Founders. Actors in the video demand that Congress stop President-elect Donald Trump from enacting policy that is racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic and anti-environmental.

"I can't take it," Co-host Pat Gray said.

"It gets worse," Glenn added.

Gearing up for tomorrow's program in which he'll give a response to the video, Glenn issued a challenge.

"I urge members of the media to listen. I urge members of the left to listen tomorrow on this program to my response," Glenn said. "Oh, man. I have so much to say. I think this will be the entire show tomorrow."

Invite your liberal friends on Twitter and Facebook who are trying to understand the world. Glenn has a very special response planned.

"The left needs to hear it. The media needs to hear it. We're going to approach it in a very, very different way tomorrow," Glenn said.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Has Don Lemon lost his mind?

• What was Glenn's toughest job interview?

• Do liberals have any self-awareness at all?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

 

Featured Image: Actress Sally Field urging Congress to stop President-elect Trump in Hollywood's latest political video.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We -- got a little sidetracked on this Megyn Kelly conversation. Megyn Kelly has announced that she's leaving Fox to NBC. A lot of people are only saying that she's a traitor. I don't understand that kind of language. How -- how are we going to move forward if we can't even talk or work with one another?

Is it a bad thing now if you -- when did we take our allegiance to a network? When did leaving a network mean that you're a traitor? When is having a different idea mean that you're a traitor? And how do we move forward if you have a different idea or you want to stand with other people that don't necessarily agree with everything that you say if you're going to be a traitor?

How do we not end up locking each other up into camps? How do we not head into civil war? This is a conversation America needs to have. And we're going to have it, beginning right now.

(music)

GLENN: So Megyn Kelly has said goodbye last night to her listeners at Fox. I believe she's going to be on the air until Friday. Then she's moving to NBC. Not MSNBC. But NBC.

There's some controversy online. She is -- she's taking a massive pay cut, according to some insiders. It's not about money. It doesn't seem to be about ideology. It seems to be about her children and wanting to spend more time with her children and being able to work at a place that she feels she can accomplish her personal and professional goals.

There's things I'm sure that I disagree with, on Megyn Kelly. A caller -- in fact, is he back on? Is Kevin back on?

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: He dropped off again. Okay. Kevin, when you're in a good cell area, call us.

PAT: He might be -- Kevin, are you there?

GLENN: Oh, he got him back. He got him back.

Okay. Kevin, this will be our last shot. So if you drop out, you got to move on. But you were pointing out that Megyn disagrees strongly on -- or seems to on things like non-gender bathrooms. And my retort is, "Well, that doesn't make her a traitor," and I think you agreed with that.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: But you said to me, "I want to make one more point." What was that?

CALLER: Well, not a point, but a comment about reaching out to people outside your circle.

I'm a conservative Christian creationist, but a lot of the YouTubers that I listen to are what you would call more classical liberals, like, yeah, they believe in stuff like maybe something like gay marriage or abortion, but they're on point when it comes to fighting for like the First Amendment, about not demonizing conservatives, and I have no affiliation with a couple of these -- with any of these people, actually, but I'd like to just throw their names out there. I think they would be people that would be much better liberals to reach out to than let's say somebody like Samantha Bee, who I think is just a disingenuous liar.

GLENN: Okay. Who are the names?

By the way, I don't think that. I think she's -- I don't think she understands because she's never been pushed. Nobody on the left has ever been pushed. They're being pushed right now. And they're -- and they're examining. And they're doing self-exams, surrounded by people going, "Oh, well, it's not you. It's really them. They're the ones that are so misguided. You know, they just want to strip everything away from you."

If you're not in their circle going, "Wait. Wait. No, no. Don't listen to that. Don't listen to that. We are just like you. We happen to disagree with certain things." Now, you just excoriated me, you know, personally. She had me on her show, and she kept her word. She didn't excoriate me on-air. She did a remarkable job. But, you know, offline, we had a tough conversation.

My next conversation with her is, "Okay. I want to show you a couple of things that you're doing that feel to me like I must have felt to you when you were on the air." I can guarantee you she's never had that conversation with anyone ever before. Guarantee it.

So do we just dismiss them?

CALLER: Well, if she -- if she actually does this in good faith and, you know, stops demonizing conservatives, well, she'll probably be out of a job on Comedy Central, but at least it will be a good one for her character.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, you know what, I will tell you -- Kevin, I will tell you that -- and I don't think I'm speaking out of school, she said to me, "I don't know how to do my job. I know what they expect of me. And I can't do that." And I said, "Samantha, you sound -- I hate to break it to you, but you sound exactly like me." And she said -- and she rolled her eyes, in a comedic way, "Oh, please, stop saying that."

And we laughed about it. But it is the same thing. I've been saying this on-air for I don't know how long. I don't know -- nobody in talk radio has ever tried to do what I'm trying to do. And that is, stick with my principles, even though either half of the country or maybe a third of the audience might disagree. But expect that the audience is smart enough and also decent enough and the American people are decent enough to say, "Look, I don't have to agree with everything. And I may not understand you, but I understand your basic guiding principles. And I've had enough of this. I want to be able to live next door to people and be friends with people and work with people that I don't -- don't agree with. But I want to be able to go bowling with them or go to a movie with them. I want to be able to have a relationship with them."

CALLER: Oh, I agree. I'm a young conservative in this day and age. And most people my age aren't conservative. So most of my friends particularly aren't conservative or less conservative than me. But they're still human beings, and I still want to have relationships with them. And I do. But in regards to people like --

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Wait a minute, Kevin. So you just said what you said, and I think that's really important. That you have an open and honest good conversation and relationships with people who strongly disagree with you politically, and you're open about it. It's not some hidden little secret. But you're open about it. And you're like, "Dude, I think you're nuts on that." But you're still good friends and you can still communicate. Do I have you right on that understanding?

CALLER: Yes, I have liberal friends who we talk frankly about politics with each other, and we're still friends after the conversations and during them.

GLENN: Good. Okay. Good. Now, what you've just said is vitally important and where I think everybody wants to be. However, most of the country will not allow that to happen with people who run in the media circles.

So, in other words, what you do in your personal life is you reach out to people who think differently than you do, and you have a good time with them. But Megyn Kelly moves from Fox to MSNBC -- she's got to have a job. And if she doesn't move to -- if she moves to a place where there's a bunch of people who don't like she does, she all of a sudden is somebody who is suspect.

Why can't I make you suspect, Kevin?

CALLER: Wait. Make me suspect? Suspect to who? You?

GLENN: Why aren't you suspect? Kevin, I've heard that you have -- do you now have or have you ever had friends that disagree with conservative principles?

CALLER: Of course.

GLENN: Okay. So why can't -- and in my particular case, me reaching out to Samantha Bee is not because I need a new friend. It's because I believe that we need to change our behavior and we need to model really tough relationships. And Samantha Bee, up to this point, has shown me nothing but courteousness and good faith and honor. She has kept her word every step of the way with me, which I didn't expect. But I hoped for.

So my goal is to be able to make some progress, and perhaps I get a year down the road, and she's like, "You know what, Glenn, I not only still think you're wrong, I think you're wrong that I can't -- that what I'm saying on the air is offensive to people like you. I don't really care." Well, I get to that point, and I have nothing left.

But pursuing that, why does that make me suspect? Or why does it make Megyn Kelly suspect to go work for people who don't hold her same principle?

CALLER: I don't find you suspect because I've been listening to you since I was eleven and you have a consistent track record. And I don't think you're going to wake up one morning and suddenly decide, "Hmm, I'm going to be a liberal today and betray everything I've ever said." I don't know Megyn Kelly having a record of being a consistent conservative.

What I have seen in the recent past is that she seems to have more liberal leanings, which is why I'm suspect of her, as opposed to being suspect of you for reaching out to Samantha Bee.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: But if there is like liberals and stuff like that who I think you want to reach out to who have -- you know, have a media presence and stuff like that -- I mean, there is this one YouTuber that I watch -- I mean, most people my age consume most of our news through YouTube.

And that would be this one channel called Sargon of Akkad. His real name is Karl Benjamin. And he probably would think himself a pretty liberal guy. But he's one of those few liberals out there who is on point with the Second Amendment, on point with fighting against social justice warriors, and, you know --

GLENN: So then he's not a -- he's a classic liberal?

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. Those are the easy ones. And I'd love to talk to him. We will look him up. What's his name again?

CALLER: It's Karl Benjamin. He's a British gentleman. I believe his name is spelled with a K. K-A-R-L. And Benjamin. YouTube channel Sargon of Akkad. He's got over half a million subscribers. You can find him on YouTube.

GLENN: Sargon of a Cause?

JEFFY: Sargon of Akkad.

CALLER: Like A-K-K-A-D.

GLENN: My gosh, there are so many K's in there. It's one short from the Klan. I'm just saying.

(laughter)

CALLER: I'm sure he'll probably get a kick out of that. You should make that joke to him, if you get a hold of him.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Kevin. I really appreciate your phone call.

And this is the kind of phone call where we just disagreed with each other, but we disagreed with each other politely and we had a conversation.

PAT: Of course, we're having him killed later. But, I mean, that goes without saying.

GLENN: Yeah, the Dick Cheney people are already at the back door of his house. But it's interesting to me with the -- with the Megyn Kelly and who is going to replace -- it will say a lot. Because I think -- I do believe that there is a change at NBC. This is just my speculation, that they know that what they're doing at MSNBC is not working. And perhaps at NBC, they're thinking to themselves, "We need to have some credibility -- some real credibility with half of the country." And I think they're trying to move in that direction. I know for a fact the New York Times is trying to do that.

NBC I think is trying to do that. We should welcome anybody that is trying to reach out to the other side. And we should be reaching out to the other side.

With that being said, I don't think I've ever told you about my interview with Fox. Who do you know that could actually make it through this interview -- I mean, I want to go through the list. I want to tell you what happened in my interview and then go through the list of people and see -- and I don't know if interviews are still done this way. But I interviewed with Roger Ailes. I'm telling you, I lost 15 pounds in sweat on that interview. It was the most incredible, almost -- almost like a prank video was being done on me, it was so difficult.

We'll talk about that coming up in just a second. And the list of people to replace, two of them. In fact, one of the lead -- the number one lead on one poll is Dana Loesch. And I think 12 or three. Number two is Tomi Lahren. Both from the Blaze. So we'll talk about that coming up in just a second.

Now, this -- and, by the way, isn't that exactly what we were trying to do, was build a network that could also build a farm team for the next round of conservatives?

Now, this. When it comes to the safety of your family, SimpliSafe. SimpliSafe Home Security. They have extended their massive holiday sale one last time. Right now, you can get $200 off the best-selling defender security package. This is your final chance.

Now, this is a 17-piece system of pure protection. Around-the-clock alarm monitoring. Police dispatch. The minute your home faces fire, a broken window, somebody trying to open a door, motion inside, it immediately calls the police or the fire department.

SimpliSafe. Built by a Harvard-educated engineer. His friends were robbed. He needed to find some way to help his friends. He came up with this idea. And next thing he knew, everybody in the neighborhood was saying, "Can I get one of those?" And he started SimpliSafe. Now it's the leader.

No long-term contract. No hidden fees. Nothing to hold you back. $200 off. I think it's now $500. It's like 499 or something, with the $200 off. 399. It's like crazy inexpensive. And no contract.

Protect your house the smart way. The new way. Technology of the future in your home today. Simplisafebeck.com. That's simplisafebeck.com.

[break]

GLENN: So Megan Fox is -- or Megan Fox -- Megyn Kelly. Megan Fox, she would be great, wouldn't she?

(laughter)

PAT: Well, yeah, if you're just going to put her on a stage somewhere just to look at her, yes.

GLENN: Honey, honey, don't speak. Okay? Just --

PAT: Words aren't necessary between us. They just aren't.

JEFFY: Is today the day Megyn Fox will speak?

GLENN: Just wink at the camera once in a while, and we'll play some clip from some politician saying something. Don't worry your head about it.

Okay. Just, shh. Just sit here.

Megyn Kelly said goodbye to her Fox audience yesterday. She is leaving. And she's leaving she said because of her children. She wants to spend more time with her children. It's fascinating to me that she spent so much time -- 17 years, I think at Fox, trying to get the prime time slot. They give her the prime time slot. She worked in day time. She finally gets the prime time slot. And it's not good for her family. And she leaves and takes a lot less money. They are offering her $20 million to stay at Fox. And I don't -- it could be anywhere from eight to $15 million that they offered her at NBC. So she's not leaving for the money.

PAT: Are we positive on that?

JEFFY: Yeah. I can't see her going --

PAT: It's hard to believe.

JEFFY: That sure is.

PAT: Yeah, that's hard to believe.

JEFFY: 15, maybe.

GLENN: I have no idea --

JEFFY: Maybe.

GLENN: The story that I read was for considerably less for those who were close to the deal. Now, thinking about that, I mean, how much does Chuck Todd make? 10 million? I mean, can you look that up?

PAT: I don't know.

GLENN: And he's Meet the Press. So, I mean, how much are they paying her?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Well, Chuck Todd is not going to make Megyn Kelly money though. I mean, right?

GLENN: But the job has to --

JEFFY: We know that. Come on, now.

GLENN: The job has to justify -- you can't just pay her $20 million or $18 million --

PAT: Yeah. You know this better than anybody. You always get your money coming in. You don't make it while you're there.

GLENN: No, I know that. But what is her job?

PAT: Chuck Todd's annual salary between 750,000 and 2 million.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: No, his annual salary is 750,000, according to this.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And his net worth is 2 million. Wow.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Wow.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So what they paying Megyn to do an undescribed job at this point?

PAT: I don't know.

JEFFY: If she's working for that much, she must really do love her family.

GLENN: No, she's not doing that. But I could see her leaving for 10 million.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, her husband is successful. She's been successful for a long time. You know, money is not necessarily your priority. You know, it's not like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for $8 million a year. It's not like, "Oh, man. How am I going to make ends meet?"

JEFFY: Oh, no. But there's a big difference between 8 and 20.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, there's a huge difference. Huge difference.

But if it's not your priority -- I don't know what she's making. It was just considerably less.

PAT: She's not going to wonder where her next meal is going to come from.

GLENN: No, she's not.

PAT: Maybe it's not Fox money. It's hard to believe --

GLENN: Once again, income disparity.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: Women not making as much.

JEFFY: Chuck Todd makes $750,000 a year. Peanuts.

GLENN: Wow. Wow. That's amazing is.

JEFFY: That sure is.

PAT: NBC Nightly News anchor, Lester Holt, 4 million. 4 million a year.

GLENN: She's not coming in making 15.

PAT: Not that that's terrible. But that's not great for what we're talking about here, the kinds of jobs we're discussing.

GLENN: How much is what's his name that's been at The Today Show for a million years -- what's he making?

PAT: Oh, Matt Lauer?

JEFFY: Matt Lauer.

GLENN: Yeah, what's he making?

PAT: Oh, he's got to be around 20. Right?

JEFFY: Has to be. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, so he's been there for 20 years, 25 years, and he's making 20.

PAT: According to this, 28 million. 28 million a year.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Right. So there's no way a newcomer for an unspecified job -- unless it is something like The Today Show or something like that, that they haven't announced yet. For an unspecified -- and, oh, yeah, I'm going to be helping out on the political stuff too. You're not coming in for $15 million. You're just not.

JEFFY: She's not a beginner though.

GLENN: What is she doing? It's the job.

PAT: I don't know. I don't know.

GLENN: It's the job.

PAT: But Savannah Guthrie, right? Isn't she the co-host with Matt Lauer?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Out this week. Is she on maternity leave now? They've got Katie Couric filling in for her.

GLENN: Holy cow. Can you imagine that?

PAT: I wonder if the daytime she's doing is The Today Show. Now, in that eventuality, she's probably making 20 million, if that's what it is.

JEFFY: Oh. Yeah.

GLENN: And having Megyn Kelly as the co-anchor of The Today Show. Huge.

PAT: Matt Lauer, Megyn Kelly.

JEFFY: That knocks that time slot out of the park.

PAT: That's gigantic. That's gigantic, if that's what this is.

GLENN: Don't know if she would do that -- if she would do that, then I don't believe necessarily the thing about the children. Because you're at work at 2:00 a.m.

PAT: Pretty early, yeah.

JEFFY: But you're home -- yeah, you're home a lot sooner.

GLENN: Yeah, and you don't get to see your kids at school plays and everything else because you're at work at 2:00 a.m.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: We have something that will absolutely blow your mind that I want to talk to you about briefly. Tomorrow, I've got -- today is a day to step back and go, "Take a deep breath." And then tomorrow I'm going to present my response to something that will make blood shoot right out of your eyes. We'll touch on that coming up in just a second.

We've been talking about a few things today. One of them -- kind of got sidetracked on this Megyn Kelly thing, on a bigger topic. And that is, what should the media be doing? And where is everyone in the media headed? And are you a traitor for, you know, moving to NBC? That's what a lot of people online are saying about Megyn Kelly, that she's a traitor. We had a couple of really great phone calls on this from reasoned audience members who can see both sides of it.

I don't see the traitor thing. And I think that's frightening, that we are pledging our allegiance now to networks, as opposed to principles or even the Constitution. But wait until you hear what the other side has just pledged their life and their loyalty to in just a second.

I want to just touch on this. I don't know if I've ever shared. When I had my first meeting -- I'm sorry. My third meeting. My actual real interview with Roger Ailes, it was the toughest interview process I could imagine.

Pat, were you there afterwards? Were we up in New York, and were you staying at the hotel or something?

PAT: No, I wasn't in New York yet.

GLENN: I walked out of this interview, and I think I lost 15 pounds in sweat. I've never experienced anything like it.

Roger Ailes and I had met for dinner just casually a couple of times, once at his house and once someplace else. And we just talked about the world and ideas and things like that.

But we never really got down to really talking about things. They offered me a job. And I said no. And then I said no again. And then they -- Roger said, "I want to have dinner with you." And he didn't offer me a job there. He was doing more of like an in-depth interview.

And he started out with -- he started out with, "What did you think of the 1972 treaty between China and Nixon? Where do you stand on that?" And I looked at him and I said, "Wow, okay. Wow. 1972 Chinese treaty with Nixon. That's going back a ways for me, but think on the whole, it's kind of worked out well, maybe."

And he just kind of looked at me. And I said, "I'm not really versed on the 1972 treaty, but okay." And he didn't say anything. He just said, "Oh." And then he went and he ordered and then I think was halfway through his salad before he said another word to me.

Bill Shine was there. And Joel Cheatwood were there, the two senior vice presidents of Fox. Roger didn't even look at me. And I'm like, "Wow, this interview is over."

The next question out of his mouth was, "What do you think about the Eisenhower administration?"

Now, I had luckily been doing some reading about the Eisenhower administration, and I was able to take it to some places where I was kind of good with. But I knew it wasn't answering his question. And I stopped and I said, "You know, Roger, I have one of two ways to go here." And he said, "And what's that?" And I said, "I could either continue to bluff my way through this answer, but you're smart enough to know that I'm bluffing and I don't really know all that much about the Eisenhower administration, or I could tell you the truth and say, I don't really know that much about the Eisenhower administration or the '72 Beijing treaty. Either way, I think I blow this interview. But I'm just going to go with the, I don't know that much about China or Eisenhower on those questions."

He said, "Huh." Then he didn't talk to me again until he had about. Half of the steak that he was eating. And my third was, "So you used to be a Catholic."

Yes.

"What the hell is wrong with the Catholic church that you felt you had to run from it?"

I was like -- and that one was just, "I'm going to push your button."

PAT: I'm not even sure that question is legal.

GLENN: Oh, no, no, no. All he was doing at that point was trying to piss me off.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's all he was -- to fluster me, to see how quickly I would jump out of my seat. Is Glenn Beck a lunatic?

And so he was trying to find that third one. The first two I think were Willie (phonetic) bluff. And I had no idea what he was -- and so I answered the question calmly and rationally about the Catholic church, knowing that he's a big Catholic. And was like, "Okay. Well, that's a booby trap." And then it was just a constant barrage of those kinds of questions, either deep, deep questions about the founding -- he at some point said, "So what is it that -- you're, you know, a so-called expert." And I'm like, "I'm not an expert on anything. I'm not. None of them."

"Well, you talk a lot about the Founding Fathers," knowing that Roger Ailes has a bigger library than most institutions on the Founding Fathers. He started engaging me on that and going deep into the Founding Fathers. Thank God I had spent time with David Barton.

I thought for sure there was no way that he would even say -- that he would even shake my hand at the end of that interview.

And he said -- he stood up, and everybody was polite. And he looked at me and he said, "Well, young man, it is rare and refreshing to meet someone who knows what they know, knows why they know it, and is willing to say, I have no idea. Good job." That was the end of the interview.

I don't know if that's the way they do interviews at Fox anymore. I don't know if I'm the only one that got an interview at Fox like that, but that was the toughest damn interview I've ever had in my life.

What are these people facing to get Megyn Kelly's job? Because to replace Megyn Kelly is not -- there's no on-the-job training for that one

JEFFY: No. That's a big job.

PAT: I wonder what Katrina Pierson would say about the Chinese treaty that they signed with Nixon in 1972. What are her deep thoughts on that?

She --

GLENN: Well, but I didn't even have deep thoughts on that.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: But she would try to fake her way through it, I would assume, at least. Because she fakes her way through every question that she's asked. I don't even know who Brianna Keilar is. Do you?

GLENN: I don't know. No, I don't know here. There are the people on the list, apparently.

PAT: These are the people -- some of the people on one of the lists that I'm looking at. Maria Bartiromo, she'd probably --

GLENN: She'd pass. She'd know all --

PAT: Billy Bush. I don't think so. And I don't think Fox would be interested.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: Billy Bush. No, Fox is not going to be interested in Billy Bush.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: Laura Ingraham is the lead candidate -- she's the lead vote getter on the Mediaite poll.

GLENN: She'd do well. She wouldn't have that interview because they know her. They've worked with her for a long time. So there is no interview for Laura Ingraham I don't think.

PAT: Number two in this poll: Tomi Lahren. I don't know how deep she -- she's only 24 years old. I don't know how deep she goes on history.

JEFFY: Yeah, history.

GLENN: That would be a tough interview. It was a hard interview for me at -- what was I? Forty? Forty-five? That was a tough interview for me, and that's the time where I'm reading, what? Three books a week. That was a tough interview.

PAT: Now, former White House press secretary Dana Perino would know.

GLENN: I think -- she would know. But I will tell you that I think Dana -- I mean, I think that Tomi would get that interview. I think they would want to know --

PAT: Yeah, what she knows.

GLENN: -- how deep do you go? What do you know? And they would push every button in her to see if she is a flamethrower or if that's -- if that's who she is or if that's how she does her job.

PAT: Dana Loesch, on the other poll, who leads the other poll, I think Dana knows a lot of things about history, current events. She wouldn't be intimidated.

GLENN: Yeah. Dana -- Dana -- and I think Tomi. I don't know Tomi that well, but I think Tomi. But I know Dana would not bluff. Dana would just be like, "I don't know. I don't know. You got me."

PAT: Kimberly Guilfoyle. They probably wouldn't put her through that because, again, they know her.

GLENN: They know her. They know her.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Eric Bolling, maybe the same thing there. Tucker Carlson is also with Fox already.

GLENN: He's already working. They're not going to move him. They just put him on at 7:00.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Don Lemon. I don't think they even call Don Lemon.

GLENN: They would never even -- they would be handed Don Lemon's phone number and then immediately put it in a drawer in some other network's desk.

JEFFY: Call to see if he were sober.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. You know -- you know, I really like Don as a person. I don't know him all that well. But he's a really nice guy.

PAT: Yeah, he's a really nice guy.

GLENN: I don't know what the hell CNN thinks they're doing every -- it's like -- it's honestly like the management goes home and they say to the floor crew, "Hey, guys, set these guys up to make them look like idiots. I mean, I know you've been taking crap from them all year. Go ahead. Just keep pouring alcohol down their throats."

PAT: See if they'll risk their careers on this.

GLENN: See if they'll risk their career.

PAT: Yeah, it's weird.

GLENN: Anderson Cooper pairing with Kathy Griffith every year. I don't know a liberal friend who thinks that's funny. I don't know a liberal friend who thinks that's any good. And to me, it undermines Anderson's credibility so much. But with Don Lemon, it was sad. It was sad. He was on talking about personal stuff -- he was so hammered, he was talking about personal stuff. You know, I'm -- look I'm not --

PAT: I'm open to a relationship.

GLENN: -- that good for a relationship. I mean, it was sad.

JEFFY: It was a tough year, but I'm open to a relationship now.

GLENN: And can you imagine -- I mean, here's the duplicity of the press: Because Don is a likable guy and accepted in everybody's circle in New York, nobody will say anything.

Can you imagine if I would have, not being an alcoholic, but can you imagine if I would have gotten on the air drunk, on even New Year's Eve when it's acceptable supposedly to be drunk and said those things? My career would have been over. Anyone on the right's career would have been over.

That's the only thing you would ever know them for. I mean, it's crazy. They just -- it's why I said earlier what I did about Samantha Bee where they're never pushed. They don't know necessarily what they don't know because nobody ever pushes them. There's no real repercussion, real repercussion for Don Lemon, in comparison to what would have happened to his career if he would have been on the right. It's astounding and tragic. Tragic. Because I don't know what they think they're doing on CNN, besides destroying their anchor's -- who do we have that has any credibility around here?

Yeah, just pour a fifth of alcohol down his throat and leave him live for four hours. What -- I mean, that is insane. That's insane to do.

PAT: And let's put some disgusting, vile woman next to him and let her make sexual innuendo to him all night. It's --

GLENN: No, you're talking about Anderson, not Brooke.

PAT: I know. But both situations are bizarre. Yeah, Brooke was fine.

GLENN: Brooke was trying to save him.

PAT: Yeah. She tried to throw him a rope every single time he started to go down those roads.

JEFFY: Yeah, she was.

PAT: And Lemon wouldn't take it.

GLENN: And every time he fashioned it into a noose. Every time.

PAT: Yes, he did.

GLENN: He was like, you could throw a piece of string, rope -- you could throw a piece of rope from a ship, that you don't even think I can lift one end, and I will fashion this it into a noose. It was crazy.

Do we have time real quick to play this for a tease for tomorrow? You do not want to miss my response on this message from Hollywood. Listen.

VOICE: Dear members of Congress.

VOICE: Dear members of Congress.

VOICE: Dear members of Congress.

VOICE: I'm mad.

VOICE: Flabbergasted.

VOICE: Furious.

VOICE: Concerned for my children.

VOICE: I'm worried for everyone.

VOICE: The majority of Americans, regardless of who they voted for.

VOICE: Did not vote for racism.

VOICE: For sexism or for xenophobia.

VOICE: And yet Donald Trump won.

VOICE: And since he won.

VOICE: Hate crimes are rising.

VOICE: Women have been attacked in his name.

VOICE: People of color, attacked in his name.

VOICE: You represent us in Congress.

VOICE: You are our last line of defense.

VOICE: So here's what we ask of our elected officials.

VOICE: No, here's what we demand.

JEFFY: No.

VOICE: To the extent that Trump pursues racist.

VOICE: Sexist. Anti-immigrant.

VOICE: Anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: What?

VOICE: Anti-environmental policies.

VOICE: We demand that you vigorously oppose him.

PAT: Oh. I can't take it.

GLENN: It gets worse.

PAT: Yeah, it is worse.

GLENN: And my full response on this is tomorrow. And I urge members of the media to listen. I urge members of the left to listen, tomorrow on this program, my response.

I'm out today. I'm actually at home broadcasting because I threw my back out yesterday. And I think one of the reasons -- the doctor asked me, "What's happened to you?" And I said, about two weeks ago, I slipped and fell on the ice really badly. Other than that, nothing. And then I started thinking about it, except I was away from my Casper Mattress after that. And I think the mattress makes a huge difference to my back. Pat does too. Casper Mattress will show you improvements in your sleep and the way you feel every morning. Get up and feel good. Casper Mattress, invented with two high-tech foams that give you the support that you need. And it will guarantee that you'll get the best night's sleep ever. Try it for 100 nights risk-free. They come to your house and pick it up, if you don't love it as much as I love mine. Start having a great night's sleep and a great day the next day. Get a Casper Mattress. Go to Casper.com. Use the promo code Beck and get $50 off the purchase of your mattress. Fifty dollars may not sound like a lot if you bought a mattress at a mattress store. But when you see the price of a Casper Mattress, it will blow you away. Save $50 off your purchase of a Casper mattress right now. Casper.com. Terms and conditions do apply. Casper.com. Promo code Beck.

[break]

GLENN: Oh, man. I have so much to say. I think this will be the entire show tomorrow. And I invite your liberal friends -- please do me a favor. Tweet and Facebook your friends -- your liberal friends who -- who are -- who are trying to understand the world. I don't -- you know, don't invite Media Matters. But anybody who is trying -- anybody in the press. Make sure they're listening tomorrow. You're going to -- you're going to like my monologue tomorrow, I think. But it's not aimed at you. Because I know how you feel, after hearing what we just played from Hollywood. But the left needs to hear it.

The media needs to hear it. And we're going to approach it in a very, very different way tomorrow.

I'm not going to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. We're going to try something new, tomorrow.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.