What's Being Said About Megyn Kelly on Social Media Is Shameful

With the number one New Year's resolution being a change of job, you'd think people would cut Megyn Kelly some slack for trying out a new opportunity. Yet, following her announcement that she was giving up her primetime spot at Fox News for a daytime slot at NBC, people reacted angrily on social media.

"I think she took a big pay cut to go there, so it shows me where her values and principles are, which I think is great. If it works out that it's better for her, even in her mind, I think that's fantastic. Here's what is crazy to me, just crazy. The number of people that are online now saying that she's not only a sellout, but a traitor, a traitor to her country for going to NBC," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

When did someone leaving Fox News signify being a traitor?

"When did NBC become a place against the United States of America? When did we pledge our loyalty to Fox News?" Glenn asked.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• Was Megyn Kelly fired?

• Will NBC be a bad influence on Megyn?

• Why did Megyn take a pay cut?

• Who made the list of possible replacements at Fox?

• Why does listener Kevin think Megyn is turning liberal?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

[soundcloud]

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

GLENN: Conversation about a basic income experiment because what the future holds for us is extraordinarily different. We need to chart a course. Whether that's the answer or not, I don't know. I don't think it is, especially for America. But what is the answer? And what is truly coming? Big ideas around the corner.

Also, Megyn Kelly is leaving Fox. Obviously, Pat, they fired her, right?

PAT: Yes. Because she's on the air the rest of the week.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And they like to fire people and then keep them on for a while afterwards. It's a really good idea.

GLENN: No, when they fired me, which clearly they did --

PAT: Clearly.

GLENN: -- they let me on the air for six solid months.

PAT: Six months. Yeah. So...

GLENN: Of course, Greta was off the same day. That's weird. That's really weird. But Megyn is leaving. And what's being said on Facebook about her is shameful.

PAT: Ridiculous.

GLENN: And who the replacement is according to the public, who do they want to replace Megyn Kelly? Boy, I am -- I'm really torn. I'm thrilled and excited, and at the same time, devastated if it would happen. We go there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Oh. Thank you so much for tuning in. Here's Megyn Kelly last night saying goodbye to her audience on Fox.

MEGYN: This is a tough decision for me because I love this show. Our staff, our crew, my colleagues here at Fox.

And you, all of you, those who write me the lovely handwritten notes, asking about my kids and even those who very rarely complain on Twitter about our coverage after a show or a presidential debate, it's the kind of feeling that makes one feel connected to another human being. And that, after all, is why I believe we're here: Human connection.

The truth is, I need more of that in my life. In particular, when it comes to my children who are seven, five, and three. So I'll be leaving Fox News at the week's end and starting a new adventure, joining the journalists at NBC News who I deeply admire. I'll be anchoring a daytime show there, along with a Sunday night news magazine. And you'll see me there on the big nights too for politics and such.

I am very grateful to NBC for this opportunity, and I am deeply thankful to Fox News for the wonderful 12 years I have had here.

PAT: And to be leaving this hellhole now.

GLENN: I don't think she said --

PAT: That part was implied, I think.

GLENN: Really? I don't think --

(laughter)

She considers this a hellhole, you think?

PAT: I would guess.

GLENN: I don't think so.

PAT: That it's been tough for her since --

GLENN: Oh, no, it's been tough.

PAT: The last six months.

GLENN: I don't think anybody in her position leaves that place -- maybe -- without gratitude. I mean, even I left there with gratitude.

PAT: Yes. Yeah. I mean, true.

GLENN: With all the stuff that is going on behind the scenes --

PAT: But you know she is getting -- I don't know, she can't be being treated over there now. Do you think?

GLENN: No. No.

PAT: I mean, there's too many Trumpanistas over there who are pissed at her because she asked difficult questions of a presidential candidate. How dare she.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. I know.

So, you know, I think it has been hell for her. And I think it's -- you know, I don't know what the job is. So, you know, I think it's a good opportunity. Hopefully she will influence NBC more than they will influence her in many ways.

PAT: Yeah. The daytime talk show. Is she talking about MSNBC, do you think? Or is that --

GLENN: I don't know. I can't imagine her leaving -- well, you know --

PAT: I don't know. Really weird.

GLENN: MSNBC just hired Greta, so there's a possibility --

PAT: Oh, they did? I didn't even hear -- I hadn't heard that. Hmm.

GLENN: I haven't heard that either, maybe.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Really?

PAT: You --

GLENN: Somebody Google --

PAT: Did you just do it again?

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Google search that, please. Good God Almighty, Google search.

PAT: I think that's -- you might have just made some news.

GLENN: No, I don't think that's true. I don't think that's true at all. Somebody Google search that.

(laughter)

GLENN: Hey, that was --

PAT: Greta van Susteren to the --

JEFFY: While we're doing that, could be the whole package, right? She does stuff for MSNBC for online, for NBC. I mean, it could be the whole --

PAT: No. Okay. It's on Daily Caller.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you.

JEFFY: Eh.

GLENN: Woo.

PAT: She's making a quick and sudden return to cable news. 6:00 p.m. time slot at MSNBC.

GLENN: Right. So MSNBC is changing. I don't know what they're going to change to.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: But they are changing.

And, you know, they are -- they're looking for a new direction and a new -- I can't even say new direction. They're looking for new people with different voices. I do know that. Whether they're going to try to jam those in with what they already have, which seems to be a disaster to me -- I don't know.

And going on to MSNBC for Megyn Kelly seems like a pretty big step down.

PAT: Oh, yeah. Oh, no question about that.

GLENN: Daytime.

PAT: No question about that.

GLENN: Daytime Megyn Kelly. I wonder what they're paying her. Because apparently Fox offered her 20 million.

GLENN: They said they couldn't compete, and she took a large pay cut.

PAT: To go to MSNBC?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

PAT: Really? Well, then that tells you, doesn't it, that things have not been pleasant at Fox?

GLENN: Not necessarily.

PAT: I think --

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: It depends on what your goals are.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, her goals may not be --

PAT: To go from prime time to daily talk show? Eh, maybe. I don't know.

GLENN: No, that's not all it is.

Apparently, she's going to be one of the lead people, one of the leading voices for politics over there, which I think is big.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. It's big.

GLENN: Remember, that's some of the -- it's Tom Brokaw. You know, the people made their livings, starting out just on the -- what do you call it? On the campaigns.

And is it a possibility that she's not doing a daily talk show on MSNBC, but possibly something along the lines of Kathie Lee?

PAT: Yeah. That was the other possibility I was kind of thinking. But it seems like time slot is already -- you wouldn't go past 10 o'clock in the morning, would you? Eastern time for that? Maybe.

GLENN: I don't know. Maybe. You have the whole west coast. You have the whole west coast. Maybe.

I don't know. But here's what I -- here's what I do think: One, it's clearly not about the money for her, which I'm glad. I was kind of watching this to see if this was a money move for her, where she would go. You know, because everybody said, "Oh, she's just playing them for the cash." Blah, blah. And I never thought that about Megyn. I think she's deeper than just going where the cash is.

So obviously that has happened. Because I think she took a big pay cut to go there. So it shows me where her values and principles are, which I think is great.

If she -- if it works out that it's better for her, even in her mind, I think that's fantastic. Here's what is crazy to me, just crazy, is the number of people that are online now saying that she's not only a sellout, but a traitor. A traitor to her country for going to -- go to NBC.

JEFFY: She betrayed her viewers. She disrespected our president-elect. Worst of all, you misrepresented who you really were all these years.

GLENN: Because she goes to work for NBC?

PAT: That is such bullcrap.

GLENN: When did NBC become a -- a place against the United States of America? When did we pledge our loyalty to Fox News? And, by the way, Fox News is currently saying that -- that Snowden or Julian Assange is a hero. I'm not sure that he's a hero. I'm not sure that I believe everything that he has said. I think it's an important conversation to have. But gosh, it was just a few years ago where Fox was saying he's absolutely a traitor and should be in prison. In the old days, he would have been executed. Now I believe everything that he says. It's an important discussion.

I'm glad that conversation happened on the air. I'm glad that Sean Hannity went over there and said that. That doesn't make Sean Hannity a traitor for doing that or a hero for doing that. It makes him a guy who wants to know the truth and went over and let us decide whether or not he's telling the truth or not. That's an important conversation to have.

Why is somebody who is leaving Fox News all of a sudden a traitor? This is out of control.

JEFFY: Good riddance. She always was a liberal whiner.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: This is unbelievable.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: It just -- it's pretty amazing because every -- it seems like every anchor, every news anchor, every reporter now has to adopt every sensibility of the president-elect. I've never seen anything like this.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: If Trump doesn't like or likes somebody, everybody who voted for him must also like or not like that person.

GLENN: That's the same mentality that happened under Obama.

PAT: I don't -- I don't know that it is.

GLENN: Yes. It did.

PAT: I've never seen anything quite like this.

GLENN: Pat, it did. Because no one -- remember what we were saying. It's slightly different.

What we were saying at the time was, "Is there no one going to stand up?" They didn't shame each other, they just all fell in line. So they didn't have any traitors, if you will. They were all like, "It was a thrill up my leg." But you know that there were people there that were like, I don't know if I agree with all of that. I don't know if he's God. You know what I mean?

But they just never said anything. So there was nobody that fell out of line.

But do you really believe that they -- if somebody would have fallen out of line, that they would have killed them. And I don't mean that literally.

PAT: Right. Yes. Maybe.

GLENN: Seriously.

PAT: And it could be that I just -- I never expected this from the right. I just never thought that would happen because nobody fell in lockstep with absolutely everything George W. Bush said. We --

GLENN: Do you remember how much trouble we had though when -- when we fell out of step with him? Not to the degree at all by what's happening now.

PAT: Nowhere near. Nowhere near.

GLENN: But it was in that direction.

PAT: And there was -- I mean, with his immigration policy though, people weren't saying, "Well, yeah, all of a sudden, I welcome this comprehensive immigration plan." They weren't doing that then. They weren't doing that then.

GLENN: Yeah, that's true. That's true. That's true.

PAT: And many people disagreed with him on the Ramos and Compean situation and fought him hard on that. They disagreed with him and fought him hard on him siding with Mexico for that illegal alien rapist murderer that he was trying to save.

GLENN: That's true. That's true.

PAT: I didn't expect this from the right. So it's been pretty bizarre to see. It's been pretty weird.

GLENN: So I wish Megyn Kelly --

PAT: I do too.

GLENN: I wish her all the best.

PAT: And I hope she's making a fortune at MSNBC.

GLENN: I hope that she influences them and she's not influenced by them in any stereotypical negative way.

PAT: I hope so too. But that's hard. That's hard. When you're surround by it.

GLENN: And especially if you've been mistreated, you know --

PAT: By the other people.

GLENN: Yeah. I remember when I first went over to Fox. You know, I think one of the things that didn't -- that helped me not hold back, where I maybe should have watched my tongue a little bit more, like I don't know people on my own show stressed -- is the long elevator rides that I would have at CNN, the way that I was treated over at CNN. I was treated by management at CNN very well and by a select few at CNN, like Anderson Cooper, very, very well. Others, I was literally a cancer. And elevator -- nobody would talk to me on the elevator. Nobody would look at me. In fact, all talking would stop when I would walk into the elevator. I mean, really bad, baby, nursery school stuff.

And so you just kind of walk -- I walked out of there going, "You know what, that's the way you're going to be, screw you."

And I hope that Megyn doesn't walk out of that -- for any bad things she may have experienced -- and I think the way she was gracious and the fact that they let her on last night shows that hopefully she doesn't have that attitude.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's why she's a sellout and a traitor. Good luck!

(chuckling)

GLENN: We got to stop, or we're not going to have anybody, except our own little teams. Our own little teams, and nobody will be listening to each other.

PAT: I hope our listeners aren't treating her that way.

JEFFY: No, I hope so too.

GLENN: No, I don't think they are. I don't think they are.

PAT: That's ridiculous.

GLENN: All right. Now, this, looking out your windows, you have your crooked, busted blinds. Are they blocking your view at all?

Let blinds.com help you start the new year off right. Blinds.com helped Tania and I completely transform our house. They gave us some of the best customer service we have ever experienced. There are two companies that I put into the highest level of customer service I have ever experienced. Number one, Apple. I don't know if it's still this way. I would assume that it was. But I -- I was all IBM. I didn't like Apple.

And I was all IBM. And would always use Windows and everything else until I couldn't get customer service. And I actually had an Apple product that I would never use. And I called their service, and I said, "Look, I've been trying to get service." And the guy said, "Look, I don't know anything about these. You know, I'm not authorized to tell you. And I might even get in trouble for telling you this. I shouldn't because we're in Apple. But I understand your frustration. Here, try this, this, and this."

He got my system to work. I hung up the phone, and I said, "Apple from here on out because of their customer service."

The other one that is customer service like that is blinds.com.

You will never witness customer service done right better, I think, than blinds.com. It's absolutely unbelievable. And the reason why they're so good is because they are the pioneer in doing this stuff online. So they had to get good at talking to people and talking with people and helping them say, "No, no, no, I want to make sure that you know what this looks like, so we're going to send you a sample, and it's not a hassle. I want to make sure you understand how easy it is for you to install, or you can grab us on the phone and we can help you, while you have the screwdriver in your hand, or we can help you line somebody up in your area that can install them." Whatever it is that you need to do, these guys will jump through hoops. It's why they are the biggest seller of blinds, shades, shutters, drapes online, anywhere on the planet. Number one is blinds.com. And now through January 31st, you'll get 20 percent off everything at blinds.com if you use the promo code Beck. 20 percent off of everything, site-wide at blinds.com. You just use the promo code Beck. Cellular shades. Roller shades. Blinds. Faux wood blinds. Shutters. Drapes. Whatever you need. Blinds, promo code Beck. Rules and predictions do apply.

[break]

GLENN: I have the names. Included a lot of people. Eric Bolling, .5 percent. Sean Hannity moved back to 9:00, 5 percent. Chris Wallace, 1 percent. Shannon Bream, 6.4.

PAT: She's actually pretty good.

GLENN: Greg Gutfeld, yeah, 3.8. Tucker Carlson, he's already at 7:00, 12.4.

Jake Tapper, 3.2. Brit Hume, 2.6. Kimberly Guilfoyle, 6.2. Bret Baier, 1.1. Shep Smith, .4. Janet Piro (phonetic) is five and a half. And Dana Loesch is at 32.6 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I would tell you, I would hate that, as Dana's coworker -- I would hate that. But if there's anyone who could sit in that seat and not be pushed around by anybody, she could do it. She could do it.

PAT: Yeah, she could pull that off.

GLENN: She could do it. You know, I've been saying for a long time, she's our Megyn Kelly on TheBlaze. She's great.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And with the resources at Fox, she would be unstoppable.

PAT: There's another poll on Mediaite that has Laura Ingraham at 24 percent, followed by another Blaze person, Tomi Lahren at 17 percent.

GLENN: Really? Tomi would be --

PAT: So kind of interesting.

GLENN: If you're going to retool and go for youth --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know, because she is huge.

PAT: Somebody who has huge social media presence.

GLENN: Social media is huge.

PAT: Gigantic.

GLENN: She would be a game-changer for Fox in more than one way. And, again, largest shareholder -- I don't involve myself in TheBlaze at all. I don't -- I have self-imposed lines around that for me.

But I am the largest shareholder. I would hate to lose either of them, but what a great opportunity for both of them. I wouldn't stand in their way. They're tremendous.

PAT: They have some really interesting candidates here, in this other poll: Katrina Pierson. Would that surprise you? If they brought in a Trump insider?

JEFFY: No. That's a good call.

PAT: And Dana Perino is the other pretty good option, I think there, that they've listed here, along with a lot of people on CNN that they'll never hire at Fox. Pretty interesting.

GLENN: Like who?

PAT: Like Don Lemon.

GLENN: Oh.

PAT: No way.

GLENN: Not only would they not hire him, he wouldn't take the job at Fox.

PAT: No, I don't think he would. I don't think so.

GLENN: Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the program. Let me go to Kevin on line one in West Virginia. Hello, Kevin.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing all right. I found out last night about Megyn Kelly leaving Fox. I think I can sum up why people have a problem with Megyn Kelly leaving Fox. It doesn't have anything to do with having a loyalty pledge to Fox. It has to do with the fact that outside of Fox News, the other networks, they've been lying to Americans. They have been lying about Americans for years. And she just joined another one of those networks.

Had she joined, let's say TheBlaze or Breitbart or some other conservative network, I don't think anyone would have a problem with her. But I think a lot of people see -- myself included, that Megyn Kelly is either becoming more liberal or she was a liberal the entire time and is now sort of just joining the people that she thinks more along the lines with.

GLENN: So, Kevin, let me ask you a couple of questions here.

CALLER: Sure.

GLENN: That assumes a couple of things that Fox, TheBlaze -- I'll include TheBlaze -- me, Breitbart, have never had an agenda or ever skewed a story or ever, you know, lied to people, knowingly or unknowingly lied to people. That there is no agenda. That our side is completely pure, A. Do you believe that?

And, B, that Megyn Kelly going over there would be an influence on them in a positive way. That there is only our side and their side, and those two should never meet.

CALLER: Well, if NBC was suddenly like, "Hey, we're not going to demean conservatives anymore. In fact, we're going to hire a more conservative host and give her a prime time spot," I think that would be amazing. But I wasn't born yesterday, so I don't think that's what they're doing.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second. Hang on just a second. Did you have a problem with Greta van Susteren going over to MSNBC? Not NBC, MSNBC.

CALLER: I will fully admit, I do not not much about Greta van Susteren. So I would be -- it would be ignorant of me to start commenting on something I don't know anything about. So I'll defer to you on that.

GLENN: Okay. She is more liberal. I think she is more liberal in her life. But I don't think she's a crazy liberal. But she is more liberal. But I don't think she changed from a liberal Greta on CNN to a conservative Greta on Fox. I think she was consistent.

So I just -- I worry about these lines being drawn, where we're in camps. And if you go to the other side and even talk to them, you're in trouble. And I'm getting heat for this now. You know, I am intentionally going over to the other side and saying, "I'm not going to change my principles. I have not changed my position on policies, but I have changed my approach." And I refuse to put people into camps, or we're really going to put people in camps some day.

I want to have conversations, and I will have a conversation with anyone until they betray me. If they say one thing to my face and then do another, then I'm done with them. But I've worked with the New York Times. I went, and I met with them. And they -- you know, what you said that NBC wasn't doing, the New York Times did. And I've seen movement in this direction, where the New York Times said, "We cannot survive as a newspaper for just half the country. And we know we have this reputation. We don't believe that reputation. But we know that reputation is real, and we want to do everything we can to fix that reputation. Can somebody help us? How can we fix that?"

That's a good step. I'm willing to help anybody who says that. "How can I change the perception? And if I'm really doing something that I shouldn't be doing, can you help point that out to me?" Because they don't see it. They honestly don't see it, just like I think we don't see things. We're doing much of the same thing that Obama supporters did, and we don't see it.

CALLER: Glenn, I can understand that perspective. I actually voted for Ted Cruz as a protest vote in both the primary and the general election.

GLENN: Wow.

CALLER: Because I couldn't compromise my principles to vote for somebody who I felt did not deserve the office, which was, of course, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But -- so I'm not coming at this with like, "Oh, she --

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, I get it.

CALLER: Some sort of lockstep, you know, brainwashed, oh, well, she must be in lockstep with the god/emperor Donald Trump or anything like that.

But I've grown up watching the media -- everyone except Fox because Fox is the only one around -- the only conservative network around for a while -- just lie about -- and to the American people, especially when I was younger about the Iraq War. Basically doing everything they could to help us lose that war.

GLENN: I agree.

CALLER: And considering I'm in the Armed Services, I take that pretty personally.

GLENN: I agree.

CALLER: And, like, it's not that she went to work for another network, it's the fact that she went to work for another network who has a decades' long history of being the most disgusting liars you could possibly imagine. I mean, it's like -- it goes in order. Number one, liars. Liberals. Number two, mainstream media.

GLENN: Let me -- let me -- let me -- well, that's a hasty generalization. I would urge you to define liberals as progressives. I know a lot of liberals who are really good people who I strongly disagree with on policy, but I don't believe are liars. Those who are self-pronounced progressives and especially those like Hillary Clinton who say, "I'm an early 20th century American progressive," that indicates to me they know exactly what that game is, and I will put those people into the category of liars. But I don't want to put that as a hasty generalization because I think a lot of people don't -- they don't know.

CALLER: I don't think it's a hasty generalization of Megyn Kelly though.

GLENN: That she's a liar?

CALLER: For one reason -- this is why I would think less of Megyn Kelly doing this than somebody else who is not as veteran or has been in media as long as she has, because she has been on the fighting side against a lot of liberal nonsense and mistruths. And so it's not like she's been insulated from the fact that the mainstream media outside of...

GLENN: So what happens -- what happens -- well, has George Will going over to ABC, is he less of a conservative because he's not at Fox and he's at ABC?

CALLER: I have to admit, again, I don't know who George Will is, so I couldn't comment on that.

GLENN: George Will is probably one of the biggest conservative minds -- do you know who Charles Krauthammer is?

CALLER: Yeah, he's the disabled gentleman on Fox, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Everybody knows K Ham. Everybody knows K Ham.

GLENN: Yeah. So K Ham is in the same category as George Will. George hasn't changed. We haven't seen what Megyn Kelly -- if Megyn Kelly goes over and she starts doing the same stuff and changes who she is and her approach, well, then you're exactly right. But I went from -- I went from -- I went from CNN -- I went from talk radio to CNN. And I said all the same things that I'm saying over -- now, over at CNN. And I said the same things when I went from CNN to Fox. Was I traitor? Because there were those who said, "Glenn Beck sold out going to CNN."

CALLER: No. I don't think it's hypocritical for me to have that opinion. Because at the time, at least for most people, anyway, most people didn't realize the media was as biased as it was.

I don't think somebody like you could get a job at CNN now. I don't think somebody half as conservative as you could get a job at CNN now.

But with Megyn Kelly going to the other networks as opposed to George Will going to, what was it? ABC. The reason why I think she might be becoming more liberal or revealing a bit more of her liberal ideas is because during the whole transgender bathroom issue, she was really sort of taking the side of, "Hey, it's perfectly okay to let non-men, pretending to be women into bathrooms, even if that means letting grown men into bathrooms with little girls." And seemingly showing that she probably holds legitimacy to the idea that you can be born with an XY chromosome, but if you decide that, well, actually I'm a woman, that that is a perfectly rational belief to hold. And that does not strike me as a conservative thing because that doesn't strike me as a factual or rational belief to hold.

GLENN: That is fascinating.

Okay. Okay. I agree with you 100 percent on that. However, does holding that position make you a liberal or just wrong on that issue? And if you are wrong -- depending on which point of view you have, if you're wrong or right on that issue, does that make you a traitor or just make you wrong on that issue?

CALLER: Well, like I said, Glenn, I don't think Megyn Kelly is a traitor. I'm not some sort of weird, you know, loyalty. We all have to be in lockstep. That kind of thing. But I do think if you hold that opinion, well, you are probably an idiot if you hold that kind of opinion. And I haven't met many conservatives who hold that opinion.

GLENN: Right.

CALLER: So we're going to assume that if she holds that opinion, she's probably a liberal. And I don't think that's too far of a stretch.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Let me use two people because we both have our own networks and we're not going anywhere. Let's use Mark Levin --

CALLER: I wish I had my own network.

GLENN: Yeah. So let's use me and Mark Levin. We have our own thing. So I don't know what it would take to get us to go on to network television.

If NBC -- let's say that NBC is doing what I think they might be doing at MSNBC -- and I don't think -- it would be a crazy step down for Megyn Kelly to go to daytime on MSNBC. But let's just say that MSNBC has this new epiphany and this new vision, and they say, "You know what, we're getting slaughtered by doing what we're doing now." It's Crazytown to most of America. So we are in the business of making money, and we need to put something on that appeals to more than four people. So we want to add conservatives.

Now, I don't think this would work. But we want to put Greta van Susteren on and we want to put -- we want to put Megyn Kelly on, and we want Mark Levin to be right before Rachel Maddow. Would those people -- it wouldn't work. It would be a train wreck. But would those people be a traitor, or would that be a good thing?

CALLER: Well, it would be a good thing. But this is a -- this is a fantasy world hypothetical here.

GLENN: I don't think it is. I don't think it is. I don't think it is.

If NBC just hired Greta van Susteren --

PAT: Which they did apparently.

GLENN: Which they did. And they just hired Megyn Kelly, there is something in the air. Now, it's not -- it's not -- I don't think it is -- it's from the top-down. It's not from the bottom-up, in these institutions. I think the very top levels are starting to say, "This isn't working, and this is really going to hurt us in the long-run. We are going into camps. And it's only going to get smaller and smaller and smaller because the voices are louder and louder and louder on, you're a traitor. We can't be a part of that." And I think the top of these organizations are starting to understand that and are starting to say, "We can't do that anymore." So I don't think it is a fantasy.

CALLER: Well, I guess I'll have to give it some time because something like this hasn't happened in the media before. I need time to see it actually happen before I have I think as much like hope and faith as you do. I mean, I guess it's better to be, you know, positive and hope that the networks are becoming a little bit more unhinged -- becoming less unhinged.

GLENN: No, I think they're -- hang on just a second.

CALLER: I hope it's that, but I'm too cynical to believe it.

GLENN: Yeah. And I want you to know that I don't think -- I have just as much skepticism on them as they may have on me. Let's put it that way.

But I'm choosing to believe that there is -- only because I've had the discussions. I've had a discussion with a guy who came down for the full day and wanted to spend the full day with me from one of -- I mean, an organization that is -- oh, man -- more credible than this. But, I mean, like Mother Jones, almost. It's a print -- it's a print organization.

And the guy called several times and said, "Hey, I want to come down." And we said, "No." And then after a few phone calls, we said, "Okay." We sat down, and he said, "Look, I don't agree with anything you say. Nothing you say. But here's what I do see: We're all going to be out of business, we're all going to be destroyed, and we might all start building camps for each other if we don't stop this. And I want to know: Do you have some sort of insight on business, on how to make this work, because what you're doing right now is crazy, but maybe you have some insight that nobody else has."

And I said, "No. I just happen to believe that one thing that you just said, we're going to kill each other if we don't stop it. And that's more important than money or success to me." We had -- pardon me.

CALLER: Could I say something about that? About reaching out to people outside your camp.

GLENN: Yeah. Hold on just a second. I got to do a commercial. Then we'll come back and we'll get your comment.

Now, this. Resolutions are good, but action is much, much better. Goldline, the only company I trust and recommend. And here's the way I can tell you I put my money where my mouth is. I have some platinum I got from Goldline because right now platinum is less expensive than gold. That's how crazy this market is right now, where nothing makes sense. Platinum is less expensive than gold. Historically, that's -- that doesn't happen. What did I get my grandchildren? Oh, they loved it. Teething platinum. I got them a couple of coins to have their parents put in a safe-deposit box and save for them.

Gold, silver, platinum, I don't believe in the US currency for a long-term investment. I don't. But I certainly am not taking all of my money out of currency and putting it into gold. 10 percent of your 401(k) or your IRA is smart. Call them and do your own homework. 866GOLDLINE. 1866GOLDLINE or goldline.com.

[break]

GLENN: Cary, we have one minute. Can you make your point here? Go ahead. Cary, are you there?

PAT: It's Kevin.

GLENN: Oh, Kevin. Are you there? Go ahead.

Oh, jeez, did we lose, Kevin?

PAT: Are you there, Kevin? Kevin.

GLENN: Kevin, are you there? Line one.

PAT: Did we lose him? We lost him. So young too.

GLENN: Oh, shoot. I'm sorry.

PAT: You know, part of it is -- the problem with his premise was that it presumes Fox is pure conservatism. Fox is not pure conservatism. Fox is pure Republican Partyism. I mean, I wasn't even on the air there like you were, and I saw how not necessarily purely conservative Fox was. Fox is not the conservative outlet people believe it to be. I mean, look who they supported the whole campaign. Not a conservative.

Featured Image: Megyn Kelly (Getty Images)

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.